Agenda item

Dr Anita Jolly, Interim Consultant in Public Health, was in attendance for this item. 

1. Dr Anjan Ghosh introduced the report. Dr Ghosh noted details of the past reports that had been brought to the committee on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) needs and the ongoing focus on the inequalities that they face, however, there was a lack of data available. The paper was part represented part of the ongoing work to gain greater insights into the health needs and inequalities of GRT communities in Kent. The report represents wave 1 which focused on existing data and the results of qualitative engagement with stakeholders who had engaged with the GRT communities. Wave 2 would follow up and involve direct engagement with GRT communities. 

2. Dr Jolly gave additional contextual information and provided an overview of the findings of the report. Dr Jolly noted that GRT communities were not homogenous but shared some lifestyle characteristics and health issues and inequalities. It was said that the data suggested that individuals from GRT communities faced poor physical and mental health across their life course. A challenge was identified as the legacy impact of the lack of trust that GRT communities had in health institutions and professionals, leaving many unaware of their healthcare entitlements. It was noted that GRT communities suffered inequalities in the wider determinants of health, for example, educational attainment and housing. Despite the challenges it was noted that progress was being made and a team of committed health professionals were visiting sites and supporting communities’ healthcare needs. 

3. Dr Jolly provided an overview of the report’s recommendations.

4. In response to questions from Members, it was said: 

(a) It was said that more needed to be done to get GRT children into schools and support given to those with both physical and mental health conditions, as the provisions were limited or absent. Also, the Members asked who was responsible for training providers and to ensure that the participatory research acquires rich data from the communities. Dr Ghosh said that they were very aware of the challenges they faced going forward. The participatory research would be coproduced with the communities. It was noted that they had been in contact with providers who exemplified this approach needed by being culturally sensitive and may get them to inform and train other providers on the approaches required. Technology, such as smartphones and AI would be embraced to improve accessibility amongst such communities but would need to be mindful of digital exclusion. Dr Jolly noted that providers were trained in cultural competency before entering communities. 

(b) Asked for further clarification on the figure that 45% have housing, as this may relate to several contexts. It was said that 45% came from 2011 census, so this may have changed once the data was received from the 2021 census, no Kent-specific figures were available.

(c) Asked about a mobile clinic and if this could be used to take primary care services into sites. It was said that there were no active examples of this happening but that it could be useful to consider going forward. It was noted that several primary care providers had taken innovative approaches to engage with and register individuals and communities from GRT sites.  

(d) Following a question from a Member on a nominated representative scheme, that allowed individuals from GRT sites to act as a go-between between the Council and GRT sites, the Chair asked that the clerk look into this query and circulate the information with the committee outside of the meeting.  

(e) The Chair thanked the presenters and Ms Constantine for her insights on the issue. 

RESOLVED to note and comment on the report.