How international migrants access and use primary care in England is poorly understood. We aimed to compare primary care consultation rates between international migrants and non-migrants in England before and during the COVID–19 pandemic (2015–2020). Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, we identified migrants using country-of-birth, visa-status or other codes indicating international migration. We linked CPRD to Office for National Statistics deprivation data and ran a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) using negative binomial regression to compare rates before and during the pandemic. In 262,644 individuals, pre-pandemic consultation rates per person-year were 4.35 (4.34–4.36) for migrants and 4.60 (4.59–4.60) for non-migrants (RR:0.94 [0.92–0.96]). Between 29 March and 26 December 2020, rates reduced to 3.54 (3.52–3.57) for migrants and 4.2 (4.17–4.23) for non-migrants (RR:0.84 [0.8–0.88]). The first year of the pandemic was associated with a widening of the gap in consultation rates between migrants and non-migrants to 0.89 (95% CI 0.84–0.94) times the ratio before the pandemic. This widening in ratios was greater for children, individuals whose first language was not English, and individuals of White British, White non-British and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities. It was also greater in the case of telephone consultations, particularly in London. Migrants were less likely to use primary care than non-migrants before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic exacerbated this difference. As GP practices retain remote and hybrid models of service delivery, they must improve services and ensure primary care is accessible and responsive to migrants’ healthcare needs. This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC 19070 and MR/V028375/1) and a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).

Interprofessional collaboration between clinicians, interpreters, and translators is crucial to providing care for consumers with limited English proficiency. Interprofessional training for these professions has been overlooked outside of the medical field. This study investigated whether face-to-face training for speech pathologists, interpreters, and translators improved their knowledge, confidence, practice, and attitudes to engage in interprofessional collaboration. It also examined whether single-profession training for speech pathologists can produce similar training outcomes when delivered to multiple healthcare professions. Thirty interpreters and translators (30 training), 49 speech pathologists (27 training, 22 control), and a mixed group of 24 clinicians from eight professions (16 training, 8 control) completed surveys before, after, and two months after their respective training event. Training outcomes were similar across cohorts. Knowledge and confidence improved and were maintained after two months. Attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration were positive despite perceptions of challenge, and this was largely unchanged after training. Intent to implement optimal practices after training was greater than self-reported practices two months later. While years of professional experience did not affect training outcomes for clinicians, knowledge improvement for interpreters was associated with having less professional experience. Findings highlight the need to reevaluate service planning, policy, and workforce development strategies alongside foundation level training to deliver effective interprofessional education for clinicians, interpreters, and translators in healthcare settings.

Population groups that are underserved by England's childhood vaccination programme must be identified to address the country's declining vaccination coverage. We examined routine childhood vaccination coverage in England by maternal ethnicity between 2006 and 2021. We created first, second and fifth birthday cohorts using mother-child linked electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum. After validation against the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and National Health Service England (NHSE) annual statistical reports, we described vaccination coverage for each vaccine by ethnicity and year. We used modified Poisson regression to analyse the effect of ethnicity on receiving the primary and full course of each vaccine. Up to 1,170,804 children born after 1 April 2006 were included in the first birthday cohort, reducing to 645,492 by the fifth birthday. Children were followed up until 31 March 2021 at the latest. Children born to mothers in 9 minority ethnic groups and those of unknown ethnicity had lower vaccination coverage (61.3-97.5%) than the White British group (79.9-97.8%) for all vaccines. Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Any other Asian background, and White and Asian ethnic groups had similar vaccination coverage to the White British group (above 90% for most vaccines in most years). Inequities particularly affected the Caribbean group (e.g. 61% coverage for the 6/5/4-in-1 full course in 2020-21 by children's fifth birthday; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.6-0.74 compared with the White British group) and Any other Black, African and Caribbean background (e.g. coverage 68% for the MMR primary course in 2020-21; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.78). These inequities widened over the study period. For example, the absolute difference in coverage between the Caribbean and White British groups for the full course of MMR increased from 12% in 2011-12 to 22% in 2019-20. These inequities remained even after accounting for sociodemographic, maternal and birth related factors, and also widened from primary course to full course. Our findings suggest that urgent policy action is needed to address the ethnic inequities throughout England's routine childhood vaccination programme, which have been worsening over time. University of Oxford Clarendon Fund, St Cross College and Nuffield Department of Population Health.

International migrants comprised 14% of the UK’s population in 2020; however, their health is rarely studied at a population level using primary care electronic health records due to difficulties in their identification. We developed a migration phenotype using country of birth, visa status, non-English main/first language and non-UK-origin codes and applied it to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database of 16,071,111 primary care patients between 1997 and 2018. We compared the completeness and representativeness of the identified migrant population to Office for National Statistics (ONS) country-of-birth and 2011 census data by year, age, sex, geographic region of birth and ethnicity. Between 1997 to 2018, 403,768 migrants (2.51% of the CPRD GOLD population) were identified: 178,749 (1.11%) had foreign-country-of-birth or visa -status codes, 216,731 (1.35%) non-English-main/first-language codes, and 8288 (0.05%) non-UK-origin codes. The cohort was similarly distributed versus ONS data by sex and region of birth. Migration recording improved over time and younger migrants were better represented than those aged ≥50. The validated phenotype identified a large migrant cohort for use in migration health research in CPRD GOLD to inform healthcare policy and practice. The under-recording of migration status in earlier years and older ages necessitates cautious interpretation of future studies in these groups.

Background: Inequities in the coverage of 6–8-week maternal checks, health visitor reviews, and infant vaccinations have been reported in England. Ethnic inequities in 6–8-week baby checks have not been studied nationally.Aim: To examine the effect of maternal ethnicity on 6–8 week baby check coverage in England 2006–2021.Design and setting: This cohort study used electronic health records from primary care in England.Method: Baby check coverage was calculated in 16 ethnic groups, by year and region. Risk ratios were estimated using modified Poisson regression. Coverage and timing of baby checks in relation to maternal checks and infant vaccinations by ethnic group were calculated.Results: Ethnic inequities in 6–8 week baby check coverage in England varied by year and region. Coverage increased 2006–2007 to 2015–2016, then stabilised to 80–90% for most groups. Coverage was lowest for Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups 2006–2007 to 2011–2012. In the West Midlands, coverage was lowest at approximately 60% for four groups: Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, and Any other Black, African or Caribbean background. In the North West, coverage was lowest for Bangladeshi (65.3%) and Pakistani (69.2%) groups. These patterns remained after adjusting for other factors and persisted over time. Coverage was highest in those whose mothers received a maternal check and those who received at least one dose of 8-week infant vaccinations.Conclusion: Coordinated action at the level of integrated commissioning boards, primary care networks, and GP practices is required to better understand the reasons behind these inequities and redress the persistent disparities in 6–8 week baby check coverage.