Tackling health inequalities in primary care: an exploration of GPs’ experience at the frontline

In Scotland, life expectancy and health outcomes are strongly tied to socioeconomic status. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived areas suffer disproportionately from high levels of premature multimorbidity and mortality. To tackle these inequalities in health, challenges in the most deprived areas must be addressed. One avenue that merits attention is the potential role of general medical practitioners (GPs) in helping to address health inequalities, particularly due to their long-term presence in deprived communities, their role in improving patient and population health, and their potential advocacy role on behalf of their patients. GPs can be seen as what Lipsky calls ‘street-level bureaucrats’ due to their considerable autonomy in the decisions they make surrounding individual patient needs, yet practising under the bureaucratic structure of the NHS. While previous research has examined the applicability of Lipsky’s framework to the role of GPs, there has been very little research exploring how GPs negotiate between the multiple identities in their work, how GPs ‘socially construct’ their patients, how GPs view their potential role as ‘advocate’, and what this means in terms of the contribution of GPs to addressing existing inequalities in health. Using semi-structured interviews, this study explored the experience and views of 24 GPs working in some of Scotland’s most deprived practices to understand how they might combat this growing health divide via the mitigation (and potential prevention) of existing health inequalities. Participants were selected based on several criteria including practice deprivation level and their individual involvement in the Deep End project, which is an informal network comprising the 100 most deprived general practices in Scotland. The research focused on understanding GPs’ perceptions of their work including its broader implications, within their practice, the communities within which they practise, and the health system as a whole. The concept of street-level bureaucracy proved to be useful in understanding GPs’ frontline work and how they negotiate dilemmas. However, this research demonstrated the need to look beyond Lipsky’s framework in order to understand how GPs reconcile their multiple identities, including advocate and manager. As a result, the term ‘street-level professional’ is offered to capture more fully the multiple identities which GPs inhabit and to explain how GPs’ elite status positions them to engage in political and policy advocacy. This study also provides evidence that GPs’ social constructions of patients are linked not only to how GPs conceptualise the causes of health inequalities, but also to how they view their role in tackling them. In line with this, the interviews established that many GPs felt they could make a difference through advocacy efforts at individual, community and policy/political levels. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the importance of practitioner-led groups—such as the Deep End project—in supporting GPs’ efforts and providing a platform for their advocacy. Within this study, a range of GPs’ views have been explored based on the sample. While it is unclear how common these views are amongst GPs in general, the study revealed that there is considerable scope for ‘political GPs’ who choose to exercise discretion in their communities and beyond. Consequently, GPs working in deprived areas should be encouraged to use their professional status and political clout not only to strengthen local communities, but also to advocate for policy change that might potentially affect the degree of disadvantage of their patients, and levels of social and health inequalities more generally.

The impact of denture related disease on the oral microbiome of denture wearers

Advances in healthcare over the last 100 years has resulted in an ever increasing elderly population. This presents greater challenges for adequate systemic and oral healthcare delivery. With increasing age there is a natural decline in oral health, leading to the loss of teeth and ultimately for some having to wear denture prosthesis. It is currently estimated that approximately one fifth of the UK and US populations have some form of removable prosthesis. The microbiology of denture induced mucosal inflammation is a pivotal factor to consider in denture care management, similar to many other oral diseases of microbial influence, such as caries, gingivitis and periodontitis. Dentures support the growth of microbial biofilms, structures commonly known as denture plaque. Microbiologically, denture stomatitis (DS) is a disease primarily considered to be of yeast aetiology, with the literature disproportionately focussed on Candida spp. However, the denture surface is capable of carrying up to 1011 microbes per milligram, the majority of which are bacteria. Thus it is apparent that denture plaque is more diverse than we assume. There is a fundamental gap in our understanding of the bacterial composition of denture plaque and the role that they may play in denture related disease such as DS. This is categorised as inflammation of the oral mucosa, a disease affecting around half of all denture wearers. It has been proposed that bacteria and fungi interact on the denture surface and that these polymicrobial interactions lead to synergism and increased DS pathogenesis. Therefore, understanding the denture microbiome composition is the key step to beginning to understand disease pathogenesis, and ultimately help improve treatments and identify novel targets for therapeutic and preventative strategies. A group of 131 patients were included within this study in which they provided samples from their dentures, palatal mucosa, saliva and dental plaque. Microbes residing on the denture surface were quantified using standard Miles and Misra culture technique which investigated the presence of Candida, aerobes and anaerobes. These clinical samples also underwent next generation sequencing using the Miseq Illumina platform to give a more global representation of the microbes present at each of these sites in the oral cavity of these denture wearers. This data was then used to compare the composition and diversity of denture, mucosal and dental plaque between one another, as well as between healthy and diseased individuals. Additional comparisons included denture type and the presence or absence of natural teeth. Furthermore, microbiome data was used to assess differences between patients with varying levels of oral hygiene. The host response to the denture microbiome was investigated by screening the patients saliva for the presence and quantification of a range of antimicrobial peptides that are associated with the oral cavity. Based on the microbiome data an in vitro biofilm model was developed that reflected the composition of denture plaque. These biofilms were then used to assess quantitative and compositional changes over time and in response to denture cleansing treatments. Finally, the systemic implications of denture plaque were assessed by screening denture plaque samples for the presence of nine well known respiratory pathogens using quantitative PCR. The results from this study have shown that the bacterial microbiome composition of denture wearers is not consistent throughout the mouth and varies depending on sample site. Moreover, the presence of natural dentition has a significant impact on the microbiome composition. As for healthy and diseased patients the data suggests that compositional changes responsible for disease progression are occurring at the mucosa, and that dentures may in fact be a reservoir for these microbes. In terms of denture hygiene practices, sleeping with a denture in situ was found to be a common occurrence. Furthermore, significant shifts in denture microbiome composition were found in these individuals when compared to the denture microbiome of those that removed their denture at night. As for the host response, some antimicrobial peptides were found to be significantly reduced in the absence of natural dentition, indicating that the oral immune response is gradually impaired with the loss of teeth. This study also identified potentially serious systemic implications in terms of respiratory infection, as 64.6% of patients carried respiratory pathogens on their denture. In conclusion, this is the first study to provide a detailed understanding of the oral microbiome of denture wearers, and has provided evidence that DS development is more complex than simply a candidal infection. Both fungal and bacterial kingdoms clearly play a role in defining the progression of DS. The biofilm model created in this study demonstrated its potential as a platform to test novel actives. Future use of this model will aid in greater understanding of host: biofilm interactions. Such findings are applicable to oral health and beyond, and may help to identify novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of DS and other biofilm associated diseases.