Search

Racially and ethnically minoritised healthcare staff groups disproportionately experience and witness workplace discrimination from patients, colleagues and managers. This is visible in their under-representation at senior levels and over-representation in disciplinary proceedings and is associated with adversities such as greater depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, low job satisfaction and sickness absence. In the UK, little progress has been made despite the implementation of measures to tackle racialised inequities in the health services. So, what is it about the health service organisational context which shapes and maintains such inequities, and what role does discrimination, bullying and harassment play? Drawing on qualitative interviews with 48 healthcare staff in London (UK), we identify how micro-level bullying, prejudice, discrimination and harassment behaviours, independently and in combination, exploit and maintain meso-level racialised hierarchies. Within teams, the high diversity-low inclusion dynamic shaped and was perpetuated by in- and outgroup inclusion and exclusion processes (including "insidious dismissal") often employing bullying or microaggressions. These were linked to intersecting factors, such as race, ethnicity, migration, language and religion, and could increase segregation. For racially and ethnically minoritised groups, ingroup maintenance, moving teams or leaving were also ways of coping with organisational inequities. We discuss implications for tackling racialised workplace inequities.

AimsAlthough violence is a vital public health problem, no prospective studies have tested for subsequent vulnerability to violence, as a victim or witness, in members of the general population with a range of psychiatric symptoms, or evaluated the importance of higher symptom burden on this vulnerability.MethodsWe used successive waves of a household survey of Southeast London, taken 2 years apart, to test if association exists between psychiatric symptoms (symptoms of psychosis, common mental disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and personality disorder) and later victimisation, in the form of either witnessing violence or being physically victimised, in weighted logistic regression models. Statistical adjustment was made for prior violence exposure, sociodemographic confounders, substance/alcohol use and violence perpetration. Sensitivity analyses were stratified by violence perpetration, sex and history of mental health service use.ResultsAfter adjustments, psychiatric symptoms were prospectively associated with reporting any subsequent victimisation (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–2.83), a two times greater odds of reporting witnessed violence (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.33–3.76) and reporting physical victimisation (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01–3.06). One more symptom endorsed was accompanied by 47% greater odds of subsequent victimisation (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.16–1.86). In stratified analyses, statistical associations remained evident in non-perpetrators, and among those without a history of using mental health services, and were similar in magnitude in both men and women.ConclusionsPsychiatric symptoms increase liability to victimisation compared with those without psychiatric symptoms, independently of a prior history of violence exposure and irrespective of whether they themselves are perpetrators of violence. Clinicians should be mindful of the impact of psychiatric symptoms on vulnerability to victimisation, including among those with common psychiatric symptoms and among those who are not considered at risk of perpetrating violence.

BackgroundReliance on national figures may be underestimating the extent of mental ill health in urban communities. This study demonstrates the necessity for local information on common mental disorder (CMD) and substance use by comparing data from the South East London Community Health (SELCoH) study with those from a national study, the 2007 English Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Study (APMS).Methodology/Principal FindingsData were used from two cross-sectional surveys, 1698 men and women residing in south London and 7403 men and women in England. The main outcome, CMD, was indicated by a score of 12 or above on the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule. Secondary outcomes included hazardous alcohol use and illicit drug use. SELCoH sample prevalence estimates of CMD were nearly twice that of the APMS England sample estimates. There was a four-fold greater proportion of depressive episode in the SELCoH sample than the APMS sample. The prevalence of hazardous alcohol use was higher in the national sample. Illicit drug use in the past year was higher in the SELCoH sample, with cannabis and cocaine the illicit drugs reported most frequently in both samples. In comparisons of the SELCoH sample with the APMS England sample and the APMS sample from the Greater London area in combined datasets, these differences remained after adjusting for socio-demographic and socioeconomic indicators for all outcomes.Conclusions/SignificanceLocal information for estimating the prevalence of CMD and substance use is essential for surveillance and service planning. There were similarities in the demographic and socioeconomic factors related to CMD and substance use across samples.