Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study explores systemic safety inequities experienced by people with learning disabilities when interacting with health and social care services. Rather than focusing solely on mortality data or adverse events, the research examines lived experiences of care to identify structural factors that contribute to unsafe or inequitable care. 

The analysis identified three overarching themes: health and care system rigidity, systemic gaps and traps within services, and the reliance on ‘dependency work’ undertaken by families, carers and advocates. These findings suggest that inequities are often produced by structural features of health and social care systems rather than by individual-level factors. 

System rigidity was a key issue. Health and social care services often required people with learning disabilities to adapt to standardised systems rather than adapting care to individual needs. Participants reported difficulties with communication, inaccessible information, insufficient time during appointments and environments that could be overwhelming or distressing. These barriers increased risks to patient safety and reduced the ability of individuals to participate fully in their care. 

The study also highlighted systemic gaps within services. Participants described inconsistencies in support provision, limited staffing capacity, poor coordination between services and failures in information sharing across organisations. These issues often led to fragmented care and repeated retelling of medical histories, which created additional burdens for individuals and families. 

A particularly important finding concerns the role of family members, carers and advocates in compensating for systemic weaknesses. Family members, carers and advocates frequently acted as informal safeguards by interpreting information, advocating for reasonable adjustments and ensuring that care needs were understood. While this support was valued, the study emphasises that reliance on social capital can create additional inequities for individuals without strong support networks. 

In terms of care equity, the study shows how structural barriers within service design, staffing and coordination contribute to poorer safety outcomes for people with learning disabilities. Addressing these inequities therefore requires system-level change rather than relying solely on individual staff training or local adjustments. 

Overall, the findings suggest that improving safety for people with learning disabilities requires more flexible service design, better communication practices, stronger advocacy support and improved integration across health and social care services. These changes would help reduce systemic safety inequities and improve care experiences for this population.

This study uses the term inequalities. In this Evidence Hub, inequities is used where differences in access or outcomes reflect avoidable and unfair structural barriers in health and social care. 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study explores practical ways to address inequalities in dementia diagnosis and care through a national consultation involving people with dementia, carers, professionals and community organisations. The consultation involved 131 stakeholders who participated in workshops across England to discuss the barriers people face and identify possible solutions. 

The findings show that inequalities in dementia care arise from multiple interacting factors. These include individual circumstances such as income or ethnicity, community-level influences such as stigma or limited social support, and wider structural issues such as service availability and coordination between health and social care systems. 

Many of the proposed solutions focused on improving support after diagnosis. Stakeholders highlighted the potential role of dementia link workers or care navigators who could help people and their families understand their diagnosis, navigate services and access appropriate support. These roles could help address some of the structural barriers that currently create inequities in access to care. 

Community engagement was also identified as important. Participants emphasised the role of dementia-friendly communities, peer networks and local organisations in raising awareness and reducing stigma. Improving understanding of dementia within communities may encourage earlier help-seeking and improve access to support. 

Workforce development was another key theme. Stakeholders identified the need for better training for health and social care professionals, as well as clearer career pathways within the social care workforce. Improving workforce knowledge and stability may help reduce inequities in the quality and availability of dementia services. 

From a care equity perspective, the study highlights that inequalities in dementia care often reflect avoidable structural barriers within systems and services. These inequities can affect who receives a diagnosis, how quickly support is provided and the quality of care available after diagnosis. 

Overall, the study suggests that reducing inequities in dementia care requires coordinated action across multiple levels. Interventions targeting individuals, communities and health and social care systems need to work together to ensure that people living with dementia can access timely diagnosis and appropriate support regardless of their background or location. 

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This report positions community participation as a foundational element of neighbourhood health and care. By emphasising co-production and asset-based approaches, it reframes integration as something built with communities rather than delivered to them.

The case studies illustrate how engaging residents can improve trust, relevance and responsiveness of services. From a care equity perspective, these approaches are particularly important for addressing social determinants of health that sit beyond the reach of clinical services alone.

The report also highlights the role of voluntary and community organisations as connectors between statutory services and local populations. Their involvement can support prevention, early intervention and more holistic responses to need.

However, the evidence base remains largely qualitative. While the principles are clearly articulated, there is limited evaluative data on outcomes or how community-powered approaches reduce inequalities over time. For neighbourhood health and care, this underlines the importance of pairing community participation with robust evaluation to understand impact and sustainability.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This scoping review highlights the breadth of community-based interventions operating within the UK that contribute to mental health and wellbeing. The diversity of approaches reflects the range of ways communities support health outside formal clinical settings.

From a neighbourhood health and care perspective, these interventions align with preventive and place-based ambitions. Peer support, exercise and self-help initiatives can complement statutory services by addressing wellbeing, connection and resilience within local communities.

However, the review also exposes weaknesses in the evidence base. Outcome measures vary widely, making it difficult to compare interventions or assess their contribution to system-level outcomes such as reduced service use.

The limited focus on equity is particularly notable. Without subgroup analysis, it remains unclear which interventions work best for different communities or whether benefits are distributed evenly.

Overall, the review suggests that community-based interventions have potential value within neighbourhood health and care, but stronger evaluation and clearer attention to equity are needed to inform commissioning and integrated service design.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This interim report provides early insights into how commissioning and service design are shaping integrated neighbourhood health and care in England. By focusing on Place-level mechanisms, it highlights how national policy intentions are being interpreted and operationalised in local systems.

The shift towards neighbourhood-based integrated commissioning is situated within broader NHS reforms, including the 10 Year Health Plan and statutory establishment of Integrated Care Systems (ICS). In this context, Place offers a scale at which health and social care services can be joined up around people’s needs rather than organisational boundaries.

Key enabling factors identified in the literature signal that commissioning for integrated neighbourhood care requires more than structural arrangements; it depends on trust, shared priorities, effective governance and aligned incentives. These relational and organisational elements mirror themes seen in other neighbourhood health evidence that integration is as much cultural as structural.

However, the report also underscores the early and uneven nature of Place-level commissioning practice. With permissive policy frameworks and variable local interpretation, there is a risk that integrated neighbourhood services remain patchy in reach and impact. Strengthening evidence on what works, for whom, and in what contexts will be essential to ensure that neighbourhood health and care contributes to equity rather than reproducing existing disparities.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This report presents a clear and ambitious vision for neighbourhood health and care centred on neighbourhood health centres. By proposing co-located hubs with extended opening hours, it emphasises accessibility, continuity and integration across physical, mental and rehabilitative care.

From a care equity perspective, the focus on shared budgets, pooled workforces and community participation and elements of co-production is significant. These design principles aim to reduce fragmentation and give communities a stronger role in shaping local services, potentially improving access for groups underserved by traditional models.

However, the report is primarily normative rather than evaluative. While it offers a coherent blueprint, there is limited evidence on how such centres would operate in practice or how they would affect inequalities across different neighbourhoods.

Overall, the report contributes to the neighbourhood health and care debate by expressing a concrete service model and governance approach. Its value within the hub lies in shaping discussion about design and equity, while highlighting the need for empirical evaluation to assess feasibility and impact.

Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This evaluation contributes to neighbourhood health and care evidence by examining a real-world integrated service that deliberately combines clinical primary care with community-oriented support through social prescribing. It aligns with place-based approaches that seek to address both medical and social determinants of health in deprived urban settings.

The finding that CLICS may reduce unplanned hospital admissions is promising, particularly in the context of cities with high baseline rates of acute service use. However, the differences observed by ethnic group raise important equity questions about why benefits appear stronger for some populations than for others. This reflects broader concerns in neighbourhood health that services must not only be integrated but also culturally accessible and inclusive.

Improvements in wellbeing and health-related quality of life suggest that integrating social prescribing and primary care has potential benefits beyond service utilisation. These outcomes are particularly relevant for place-based strategies that aim to support resilience, self-management and connection to community resources.

However, the evaluation’s limitations (particularly its observational design and short follow-up) mean that evidence of effectiveness remains tentative. For policymakers and local teams investing in integrated neighbourhood services, this highlights the importance of building evaluation into programme design and ensuring that data collection supports equity-focused analyses.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study highlights the importance of place in shaping access to neighbourhood health and care services. While extended GP hours hubs aim to improve access, the findings show that distance is a key determinant of use, with attendance falling sharply the further people live from the hub.

For care equity, the results suggest that extended-hours provision does not automatically improve access for all groups. Although deprivation alone did not predict uptake, geographic convenience appears to play a dominant role, potentially disadvantaging people in less well-connected areas. The findings also raise important questions about hub-based neighbourhood models. Centralising services may improve efficiency, but without complementary digital or outreach approaches, these models risk producing inequities in access.

The study also highlights evidence gaps. Limited subgroup analysis and short-term outcomes mean it remains unclear how extended-hours hubs affect different population groups over time. For neighbourhood health and care, this underlines the need to design access models that account for both geography and inequality, rather than assuming increased availability leads to equitable use.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study highlights how workforce experiences shape the effectiveness of integration between primary and social care. Barriers are not limited to systems and structures, but are deeply influenced by relationships, culture and everyday working practices.

Difficulties in accessing social services and contacting staff across organisational boundaries delay referrals and disrupt continuity of care. From a care equity perspective, these delays may disproportionately affect people with complex needs who rely on coordinated support across sectors.

The findings also point to cultural and relational barriers. Hostile interprofessional relationships and siloed working undermine collaboration, while overwork and inefficient multidisciplinary meetings limit the capacity of staff to engage meaningfully in integrated care.

Structural issues, including non-interoperable information systems, lack of pooled budgets and misaligned incentives, further strengthen division between sectors. These barriers suggest that integration efforts focused solely on frontline practice are unlikely to succeed without also undertaking system-level reform.

Overall, the study shows that achieving equitable, integrated care requires attention to workforce conditions, organisational culture and infrastructure alongside policy and funding mechanisms. Without addressing these interconnected barriers, integration risks remaining aspirational rather than embedded in routine practice.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This paper highlights the ambition within integrated care systems to address health inequalities through place-based and integrated approaches. The neighbourhood focus and emphasis on cross-sector collaboration provide a foundation for tackling not only access to services, but also the wider social determinants that shape health outcomes.

However, the analysis reveals uneven commitment and capacity across systems. While some integrated care systems articulate clear intentions around equity, others lack detailed strategies or measurable goals. From a care equity perspective, this variability risks reinforcing geographic disparities rather than reducing them.

The findings also suggest that collaboration with non-health partners is inconsistent. Where partnerships are underdeveloped, opportunities to influence housing, employment and community infrastructure may be missed, limiting the potential impact of neighbourhood health and care.

Importantly, the paper raises questions about whether equity is driving system design or being addressed retrospectively. Without embedding equity as a core organising principle, integrated care systems may struggle to translate place-based working into meaningful reductions in inequality.

Overall, the study indicates that neighbourhood health and care has significant potential to support equity, but this depends on the depth of strategic commitment, clarity of measurement and the strength of cross-sector partnerships within integrated care systems.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This systematic review adds to evidence that community-based interventions can play a role in supporting health and wellbeing among older adults. Improvements in physical function and wellbeing align with neighbourhood health and care ambitions to promote independence and prevent deterioration.

From a neighbourhood perspective, community settings offer accessible and familiar environments that may encourage engagement among older people. Such interventions can complement formal health and social care by addressing needs earlier and closer to home.

However, the review also highlights limitations in the evidence base. Short study durations and a lack of high-powered trials make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about long-term outcomes or effects on acute service use. There is also limited attention to social care integration. Without clearer links to care pathways and support systems, community interventions risk operating in parallel rather than as part of coordinated neighbourhood health and care.

Overall, the review suggests that community-based interventions have potential value for older populations within neighbourhood health and care, but stronger, longer-term and more integrated evaluation is needed to inform policy and practice.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
The Edmonton area within Enfield offers an example of how neighbourhood health and care integration is being shaped through community engagement and partnerships, involving residents, voluntary organisations, local councils and health and social care providers. This place-based work brings into focus people’s lived experience and local priorities, recognising that health is shaped by social determinants such as poverty, safety and isolation, not only clinical care.

Community Powered Edmonton demonstrates the value of co-production. By bringing community members into discussions about what matters for health and wellbeing, including through workshops and focus groups, partners aim to design services that reflect local needs and strengthen trust. Such approaches align with equity goals by centring not just on access to services but responsiveness to diverse lived experience.

Partnership structures in Enfield, as outlined by the borough partnership approach, seek to integrate workforce, planning and digital resources to support neighbourhood teams. While this local practice reflects broader neighbourhood health ambitions, persistent inequalities and resource constraints highlight the need for sustained investment and evaluation to understand impact on outcomes.

From a care equity perspective, Edmonton’s experience shows the potential of an asset-based, community-informed neighbourhood working to reach populations that traditional models struggle to engage. However, without consistent metrics and long-term evaluation, it remains challenging to quantify the extent to which integration initiatives reduce inequities over time.