Targeting Health Inequalities Through NHS Community Prevention and Outreach

Prevention and early intervention only deliver system value when they reach the people most at risk of escalation. In practice, this means designing community prevention models that actively address health inequalities: people who are less likely to engage, more likely to face barriers, and more likely to experience preventable deterioration.

This article sets out how targeted prevention and outreach should be built into Service Models & Care Pathways and operationalised within Prevention, Population Health & Early Intervention, so services can demonstrate equitable delivery, safe practice and defensible impact.

What “targeting inequalities” means in community prevention

Targeting inequalities is not a branding exercise. Operationally, it means designing services so that groups with higher risk and lower access receive a proportionate, tailored offer. This might include people who:

  • Do not attend routine appointments or struggle with digital access
  • Have language barriers or low health literacy
  • Experience homelessness, unstable housing or social isolation
  • Have co-occurring mental health needs, substance use or trauma histories
  • Are carers under sustained pressure

Community services that do not explicitly design for these barriers typically end up serving the “easiest to reach”, which undermines population health goals and creates commissioning risk.

Designing targeted outreach that is safe and consistent

Targeted outreach works when it is structured as a pathway, not informal “extra effort”. Core components include:

  • Defined target groups and referral triggers (based on local priorities)
  • Named outreach roles and escalation routes
  • Flexible access points (home visits, community venues, supported engagement)
  • Safeguarding-aware practice and risk assessment for lone working
  • Outcomes and engagement measures that reflect real barriers

Operationally, the service must be able to show what it did differently and why.

Operational example 1: Outreach to reduce DNAs and escalation for people with multiple barriers

Context: A locality identifies a cohort repeatedly missing appointments (DNAs). These individuals have higher urgent care usage and late presentation to services. Standard invitation processes are not working.

Support approach: A targeted outreach pathway is introduced with supported engagement and flexible contact routes.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

  • Weekly list review identifies people with repeated DNAs and high escalation indicators.
  • A named outreach worker contacts individuals using preferred routes (phone, in-person, via trusted community contacts where appropriate).
  • First engagement is structured around barriers: transport, fear, mistrust, communication needs.
  • Appointments are re-planned as “supported sessions” with reminders and practical help.
  • Risk is assessed for each outreach contact, including safeguarding and lone working controls.

How effectiveness or change is evidenced: DNA rates reduce for the cohort, engagement becomes sustained (tracked over 8–12 weeks), and urgent escalation contacts reduce compared with baseline.

Operational example 2: Prevention support for people with low health literacy and digital exclusion

Context: A service shifts communications to digital-first channels. A group of people struggle to access information and self-manage, leading to late escalation and missed prevention opportunities.

Support approach: A “digital inclusion prevention add-on” is embedded into routine visits and reviews.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

  • Staff identify digital exclusion during assessment and record it as a barrier.
  • Key information is provided in accessible formats: short summaries, pictorial prompts, and clear routines.
  • Where appropriate, consented involvement of family/carers is used to support engagement.
  • Preventive actions are simplified: hydration prompts, medication routines, basic symptom awareness.
  • Reviews check comprehension and consistency, not just “information delivered”.

How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Reduced missed contacts, improved routine adherence recorded in reviews, and fewer avoidable escalations where prior issues were linked to misunderstanding or lack of access.

Operational example 3: Targeted prevention where safeguarding and exploitation risks are higher

Context: A cohort is identified with higher safeguarding risk: financial exploitation, coercion, unsafe home environments or community-level risks. These factors undermine prevention because instability drives deterioration and crisis.

Support approach: Prevention outreach is integrated with safeguarding risk governance and multi-agency escalation routes.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

  • Staff use structured safeguarding prompts during visits (e.g., changes in behaviour, missing items, restricted access to communication).
  • Where concerns arise, escalation follows defined thresholds with timely manager review.
  • Preventive interventions include stabilising routines, safe contact planning and linkage to appropriate partners.
  • Restrictive practices risk is actively managed: the response is proportionate and rights-based.
  • Learning from incidents is used to adapt practice and update risk controls.

How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Safeguarding concerns are recorded and managed earlier, risk escalations are timely, and people experience improved stability and reduced crisis events compared with prior patterns.

Commissioner expectation (explicit)

Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect prevention and population health activity to demonstrate equitable reach. They will look for evidence that services identify underserved groups, adapt delivery models to reduce barriers, and report outcomes in a way that shows impact across different cohorts (not just overall averages).

Regulator / inspector expectation (explicit)

Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors will expect to see safe outreach practice, robust safeguarding awareness, and risk management for staff and people using services. They will look for person-centred approaches, appropriate consent, clear escalation routes, and evidence that the service learns and improves from risk events.

Governance and assurance: making targeted prevention defensible

Because outreach work can be higher risk, governance must be visible and practical:

  • Cohort reporting: engagement and outcomes segmented by barrier groups (e.g., digital exclusion, repeated DNAs).
  • Safeguarding assurance: audit of escalation timeliness and decision quality.
  • Lone working controls: dynamic risk assessment and check-in procedures.
  • Quality review: sampling case records to confirm adaptations were meaningful and reviewed.

These mechanisms protect both people and providers: they demonstrate the service is proactive, equitable and safe.

What good looks like

Targeting inequalities is credible when it is embedded in pathways, supported by governance and evidenced through cohort-based outcomes. The best services do not just “offer prevention” — they ensure prevention reaches the people who most need it, in ways that are safe, person-centred and inspectable.

⬅️ Return to Knowledge Hub Index