Category: News & blogs

  • Trust, co-production, and sharing power to reduce racial health inequalities

    Trust, co-production, and sharing power to reduce racial health inequalities

    Historically, Black, Asian, and minoritised ethnic communities have been excluded or mistreated by healthcare systems. From globally-significant atrocities of the past — such as the Tuskegee syphilis study to more contemporary failings including inequalities in healthcare outcomes related to Covid-19 and maternal mortality rates — many minoritised ethnic people have good reason to be distrustful of the health and care establishment.

    Designing health and care treatments, services and systems which address the underlying factors causing racial health inequalities requires effective collaboration with the people impacted by those inequalities, built on trust.

    As such, transformation approaches which genuinely share power between professionals and people with lived experience are vital, placing marginalised voices at the core of driving positive change. These approaches must go beyond traditional “Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement” (PPIE), where engagement tends to be limited to consultation on existing plans or minority representation on steering groups.

    Co-production of solutions is sometimes referred to as the ‘gold standard’ for developing and implementing new mechanisms to improve healthcare services. This is a process that involves service providers and community members working together in equal partnership to design, shape, and deliver services for the target community.

    Within the context of the Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI), co-production is also an important tool for more mature organisations to use for Creating and Championing anti-racist projects and programmes with Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic people and communities.

    Building trust for effective engagement

    In January, LARCH’s latest learning and engagement webinar, “Hearing Community Voices: Effective Engagement to Reduce Health Inequality” addressed the importance of building trust within communities in the process of co-production.

    Lucy Morgan from the Health Policy Partnership established the concept of trust within the context of co-production as “someone’s willingness to put themselves in a situation where they are dependent on someone else, or where they can accept help from someone else, with the belief that that person will have their best interest”. 

    She introduced four pillars as a guide to build back trust from traditionally underrepresented groups to increase health equity:

    • Understanding
    • Inclusion 
    • Communication
    • Data generation

    Figure 1: How can health systems earn trust?

    A flow chart shows that understanding, inclusion, communication, and data generation are the four pillars for how health systems can earn trust. For understanding: 1. Accountability: addressing the historical barriers to care. 2. Person-centered care: ensuring an integrated approach. 3. Complementary models of health: bridging the gap with biomedical care. For inclusion: 1. Democratising processes: mutually developing system change. 2. Participatory research: tackling the most relevant problems. 3. Workforce representation: an impactful commitment to diversity. For Communication: 1. Health literacy: supporting an empowered population. 2. Addressing misinformation: government communication initiatives. 3. Consistency and transparency: building trust over time. For data generation: 1. Standardised data collection: building a common foundation. 2. Transparent governance: responsible use, storage, and sharing of data.

    Source: Earning trust: a foundation for health equity

    Making the most of knowledge intermediaries

    Both Rini Jones, Senior Policy and Delivery Manager at the NHS Race and Health Observatory, and Safia Marcano from the London Association of Directors of Public Health, highlighted the importance of acknowledging and addressing the lack of trust in healthcare institutions as a primary step.

    Acknowledging historical injustices against communities is crucial for creating safe and appropriate spaces for engagement. Rini emphasised the importance of “knowledge intermediaries” – a group of working professionals that belong to the community and help bridge the gap between their community and professional organisations. They play a crucial role in co-production as they can act as cultural and linguistic mediators.

    Safia echoed a similar sentiment in her presentation, pointing to shared language and agreed terminologies being essential for creating understanding between communities and healthcare institutions. Through building mutual understanding, healthcare initiatives can ensure they are community-led and appropriately tailored to the lived experiences of those in the community.

    Connecting with people through choosing the right channels

    The importance of engaging with communities through trusted voices was echoed by Riyadh Karim, Assistant Director of Community Engagement Vaccine and Screening Equity in London for NHS England. He used the example of his colleagues at the London Bangladeshi Health Partnership taking on television talk show interviews on Bangladeshi channels. While some might assume the best way to reach an audience would be through a national channel, they knew from their experience of engaging with the community that “Bangladeshis prefer to listen and access the plethora of Bangladeshi channels beaming out of London”. In recognition of that, they mobilise opportunities for GPs, NHS leaders, and other community engagement specialists to have discussions in these spaces. In short: a “trusted voice, within the trusted channels with trusted leaders”.

    Becoming a part of communities to build engagement

    Keymn Whervin, Health and Social Care Strategic Co-production, Co chair of the WM-ADASS Co-production Advisory Group and Lived Experience Expert, elaborated on the importance of holistic approaches to co-production. She mentioned community spaces can be an empowering way to engage the community in co-production. For example, for Britain’s Black community, barbershops have been identified as community hubs to support men’s mental health. By leveraging these spaces, service providers can build relationships and co-design solutions that are responsive to community needs. Keymn acknowledges a holistic approach can take a long time, but in the long run it can be more valuable in ensuring meaningful engagement rather than tokenistic participation. 

    Building trust in co-production to address health inequalities among Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic communities in London requires a nuanced approach. While there is no one-size fits all approach to building trust, efforts to build understanding of communities, and intentional collaboration with those communities, underpins the driving force behind each of them. 

    By prioritising building trust with communities for co-production, the healthcare sector can move towards a more equitable future.

    To find out more, explore our resources on co-production for anti-racist transformation.

  • Finding Consensus on Race and Ethnicity Terminology: In Conversation with Janine La Rosa and Adeola Agbebiyi

    Finding Consensus on Race and Ethnicity Terminology: In Conversation with Janine La Rosa and Adeola Agbebiyi

    In discussions about race and ethnicity, the language we use matters. Finding the right terminology to define people from minority ethnic backgrounds is a complex and evolving challenge. Last year, LARCH facilitated a workshop for our steering group to build consensus on this issue. We explored various terms, including BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic), Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic, people of colour, and global majority.

    However, while terminology is important, it should not overshadow the core issue: systemic racism, the policies and practices across institutions that further racial inequality. Ensuring that discussions remain focused on addressing real barriers, rather than becoming sidetracked by debates over labels, is crucial.

    To explore these complexities further, we sat down with Janine La Rosa, Chief People Officer and Executive Director Organisation Strategy at Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, and Adeola Agbebiyi, Assistant Director of Public Health at the London Borough of Newham.

    Why this conversation matters

    Janine highlighted a key challenge: ‘Focusing too much on terminology can be a distraction. If we get caught up in debates over language, we risk losing sight of the fundamental issue, racism and the barriers people face due to their skin colour.’

    Adeola emphasised the need for terminology that minimises ‘othering’ while keeping racism at the centre of the conversation. As Janine pointed out, every term, whether BAME, Black, Asian, minoritised ethnic, global majority or people of colour, carries historical context. To have meaningful discussions, we must acknowledge this and adapt our language in ways that reflect the realities of 2025.

    Ultimately, choosing the right terminology should be guided by those with lived experience. It’s about ensuring that the language we use serves the communities it describes rather than reinforcing outdated narratives. 

    Understanding different terms

    In the workshop, we were clear that we were not searching for a perfect term, but a defendable one. In the health and care space, for an organisation to choose a term, they need to have gone through a process that helps them understand why they are recording ethnicity and what it is that they are recording. Adeola and Janine explored various terms which are used to group ethnicities together. 

    People of colour

    Adeola noted that despite its broad usage, ‘people of colour’ carries historical baggage due to its ties to the term ‘coloured.’ While it is widely used, it remains problematic in some contexts. Janine questioned its logic: ‘White people have a colour too.’ Additionally, geography plays a role; what is meaningful in one country may not be in another. 

    Global majority

    The term ‘global majority’ attempts to empower minority groups by emphasising that people of non-European descent make up most of the world’s population. However, Adeola stressed the need to clarify its specificity, as it risks excluding certain groups like Eastern Europeans or Traveller communities who also experience minoritisation and discrimination but who are not usually defined as being of the global majority. 

    Janine also noted that while the term can empower historically marginalised groups, it also hides the reality of power imbalances which remain unchanged in many contexts.

    BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic)

    BAME has been widely critiqued for grouping very different groups together. Adeola explained that while it is a convenient term, it often feels patronising. Janine added that grouping diverse communities under one label fails to capture the specific challenges they face. For example, NHS race pay gap data shows disparities within BAME groups with Indian men having better outcomes than White Britons, while Black African women and Filipino staff experience worse outcomes. When we use ‘BAME’, these nuances become lost.

    Black, Asian and Minoritised Ethnic

    Spelling out BAME into ‘Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic’ is more inclusive but clunky. Adeola found it more precise, though less practical in everyday conversation. Janine explains that based on where we are in 2025, this is probably the most pragmatic approach. It aligns with our current understanding of race in the UK and removes the othering and dehumanising impact of identity by acronym.

    What’s the alternative?

    Janine suggested a humanising approach: ‘Start by asking people how they want to be described.’

    Organisational responses

    Adeola shared that Newham Council has actively moved away from BAME. The Council focuses on what people want to be called, alongside adopting ‘Black, Asian and minoritised ethnicnities’ with the #BAMEOVER campaign is an example of their wider efforts under Tackling Racism, Inequality and Disproportionality. Meanwhile, Janine’s organisation has yet to agree on a single term but prioritises inclusive discussions.

    The importance of language

    Both Janine and Adeola stressed that language shapes systems and influences biases.Adeola emphasised, ‘Language reflects actions. It shapes minds. We need terminology that brings people together and empowers them.’

    Janine pointed out that those in power tend to dictate who gets to decide how communities are labelled. The decision-making process must involve those with lived experience.

    Key Takeaways from the workshop

    No single definition was agreed upon, however this was not the aim and provided the space to have the discussion. Both speakers shared reflections on the process:

    • Janine: ‘I wanted to be in the room where it happens in case a decision was made. I didn’t expect consensus, but I valued the conversation, it sparks creativity and new ideas.’
    • Adeola: ‘I didn’t feel the meeting was set up to reach a solution, but rather to nudge us towards a process of consensus-building with experts.’

    The London Anti-Racism Collaboration for Health’s (LARCH) decision

    LARCH has decided to use Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic moving forward. While imperfect, it aligns with how statistics are gathered and reflects shared experiences of racial inequalities. However, we acknowledge this term has limitations and won’t be favoured by everyone.

    We recognise that ultimately, language is a tool, it can either perpetuate inequality or drive meaningful change. The challenge is to ensure it does the latter. 

    In discussions about race and ethnicity, the language we use matters. Ethnicity is a social construct, an idea created by society that shapes how we see the world, even if not based on physical reality. With all social constructs, they are open to challenge, change and insight, as we have seen in many other areas of social action, such as learning disabilities or those who fall under the umbrella of ‘older people’. 

    Understanding and agreeing on terminology is part of stage one of LARCH’s Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI). The REMI is a powerful self-assessment tool to help London’s health and care organisations track, measure and enhance their commitment to race equity.

    For more information on the REMI, click here. 

    Further reading

    The Power of Language: A Consultation Report on The Use Of Collective Terminology At The NHS Race and Health Observatory
  • Building sustainable change across London’s health and care system with the Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI): Dr. Amanda Simon

    Building sustainable change across London’s health and care system with the Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI): Dr. Amanda Simon

    Dr. Amanda Simon, Researcher at the Race Equality Foundation, reflects on her experience of creating the Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI).

    The Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI) is a pioneering self-assessment tool co-produced with diverse communities and stakeholders from London’s health and care system. REMI enables organisations to track, measure, and strengthen their commitment to race equity, complementing existing equality, diversity, and inclusion initiatives.

    The uniqueness of REMI

    REMI stands apart by focusing on key areas of race equity, such as leadership, recruitment, policy development, decision-making, and community engagement.

    One common challenge in organisational assessments is managing workloads and avoiding duplication with other tools. REMI addresses this by consolidating existing efforts, offering a streamlined, embedded approach that allows for sustainable and integrated change.

    With REMI, organisations can set realistic goals aligned with their capacity and build a solid foundation for strategic planning.

    But the benefits extend beyond moral imperatives. Research shows that organisations prioritising race equity gain:

    • Increased profitability and productivity
    • A more engaged and connected workforce
    • Greater innovation
    • Enhanced service user experiences and outcomes

    From inception to design

    At the start of this journey, the task of creating a fit-for-purpose tool to combat systemic racism felt overwhelming. My initial focus was on designing a basic framework informed by theoretical research and literature on successful maturity indices.

    However, as the tool evolved, so did my confidence in its potential. Input from health and care professionals was integral, with practitioners affirming REMI’s practicality, ease of use, and capacity to drive race equity goals.

    The power of co-production

    REMI’s development reflects the rich diversity of London’s population and its health and care workforce. Our co-production group included equality managers, service users, and senior officials from across the sector.

    Their questions, critiques, and suggestions were invaluable, shaping every stage of REMI. 

    For example, feedback informed:

    • The naming and conceptualisation of REMI stages
    • Adjustments to content based on organisational cultures and race equity priorities
    • Refinements to language, ensuring accessibility in health and care contexts

    This iterative process was akin to designing a building based on client specifications—nurturing insights to create a practical, impactful tool.

    Overcoming challenges

    As a researcher, I understand that there are always challenges along the way. During this process the key issues have been the nature and implementation demands of the REMI. 

    Self-assessment

    Organisations’ skepticism about self-assessment highlighted concerns about honesty and a culture of “box-ticking” driven by performance pressures. However, the opposite can also occur where practitioners can be more critical in their own assessments.

    REMI counters this through a rigorous six-stage process supported by guidance notes and peer support for smaller organisations. These resources empower teams to cross-check evidence and share best practices.

    Voluntary participation

    While REMI is non-compulsory, this has not hindered enthusiasm. Organisations across various levels value REMI’s comprehensive approach to achieving race equity goals.

    Let the REMI guide your organisation

    The journey of developing REMI has demonstrated its ability to hold its own among other tools in the race equity space.

    It has been a privilege to lead this initiative alongside dedicated contributors.

    If your organisation strives for excellence for all service users and staff, let REMI guide you toward meaningful change.

    Try out the REMI for yourself here.

  • How better ethnicity data can tackle racial health inequalities in the NHS

    How better ethnicity data can tackle racial health inequalities in the NHS

    Modern medical practice is built on the foundation of using measurements and data to inform clinical decision making. From basic tests of blood pressure or heart rate through to more recent innovations such as genomic analysis or continuous glucose monitoring, a world without data-informed care seems almost unimaginable.

    Sadly, the same cannot be said for how we diagnose and treat problems at a population health level. The reality of addressing serious public health issues such as the pervasive racial health inequalities in our health and care system is that there are significant gaps in the data that is available. 

    Imagine a surgeon beginning their incisions without the benefit of imaging, or an oncologist unable to monitor the bloodwork of their patient to see if a medicine is having an effect on their cancer. Too often, the fog of missing, incomplete or poor-quality data is what those tasked with solving racial health inequalities are faced with.

    Data tells a story. The facts and figures it generates provide critical insights into demographics and medical information, enabling us to analyse, assess, and understand experiences, access, and disparities across communities. In healthcare, the potential of data to improve services across the NHS is undeniable. Particularly in addressing health inequalities, data plays a crucial role in identifying knowledge gaps. Through rigorous analysis, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by specific communities, allowing for the development of tailored interventions to address inequalities in access, experiences, and outcomes.

    NHS England has prioritised complete and timely datasets as part of its five key strategies to reduce healthcare inequalities. The goal is to better understand the challenges faced by marginalised communities, including Black, Asian, and minoritised ethnic populations, and to develop targeted interventions based on these insights. However, significant gaps remain in accessing the right insights across the NHS, hindering progress in closing the healthcare inequality gap.

    Data, Ethnicity, and Health Inequalities: London Anti-Racism Collaboration for Health 

    On October 21, the Health Innovation Network South London and Race Equality Foundation launched the first in a series of learning and engagement sessions as part of the London Anti-Racism Collaboration for Health (LARCH). LARCH, a Greater London Authority (GLA) funded initiative, aims to improve the health and wellbeing of London’s Black, Asian, and minoritised ethnic communities. The event highlighted the role of ethnicity data in driving anti-racist strategies and advancing health equity.

    The event featured a distinguished panel of experts, including:

    • Tracey Bignall, Director of Policy and Engagement, Race Equality Foundation
    • Brenda Hayanga, expert on ethnic inequalities in healthcare use and care equality for people with multiple long-term conditions, City University
    • Macius Kurowski, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, and Manal Sadik, North Middlesex University Hospital, discussing data-led approaches to reducing race-related health inequalities
    • Mary Hill, NHS England, Head of Policy, Healthcare Inequalities Improvement, discussing data, ethnicity recording, and coding

    Key Barriers to Improvement

    Collecting ethnicity data is vital for understanding the unique health experiences of different ethnic groups. For instance, we know that 1 in 4 Black men will develop prostate cancer earlier in life, compared to 1 in 8 White men. Yet despite its importance, research reveals significant issues with the quality of data being collected.

    Across the board, there is inconsistency. Research from the Nuffield Trust highlights that up to 40% of patients were coded as ‘any other ethnic group,’ even when a more specific ethnic group code would have provided deeper insights. Furthermore, the research from the Race Equality Foundation on the recording of ethnicity in health settings found variation in ethnic categories used with most settings where the 2001 and 2011 censuses are used inconsistently. Many people also wish to be identified by more specific ethnic terms, like “Hong Kongese,” but the options provided are often too generic.

    Another challenge is the use of arbitrary codes like ‘not asked,’ ‘not stated,’ or ‘unknown,’ which do not contribute meaningfully to population insights. These categories might meet organisational reporting requirements but reflect the discomfort or lack of training among staff in asking about ethnicity.

    Barriers for Patients and Staff

    Research in partnership with the Wellcome Trust shows that while communities are generally willing to share their demographic information, many are unclear on how the data will be used or fear it may be used in discriminatory ways. This lack of trust is reinforced by findings in the Earning Trust: A Foundation for Health Equity report, which noted that despite growing diversity in the NHS workforce, a 2022 review found that only 14% of NHS board members came from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds, while these groups constitute at least 18% of the population of England and Wales. The findings demonstrate that leadership isn’t reflective of the communities they serve and therefore strategies to see improvements are lagging behind. 

    Staff uncertainty also hinders progress. The Race Equality Foundation found that employees are unsure about how the data they collect will be used, and there is little evidence that managers emphasise the importance of ethnicity data collection during supervision. Some staff also feel awkward asking for this information, fearing they are being invasive, and lack the confidence to explain why it is important.

    Recommendations moving forward

    A system-wide approach is urgently needed to improve ethnicity data collection, monitor inequalities, and train staff in data capture. Poor-quality ethnicity data is masking health inequalities, and addressing this requires concerted effort.

    Having more rigorous ethnicity data collection provides a more nuanced understanding of the issues facing minority populations and enables healthcare systems to focus their efforts on addressing the issues at hand. We need to be led by the data in order to solve health inequalities. 

    We can do this by driving: 

    1. Confidence: Build confidence in using data to understand experiences, assess progress, and reduce health inequalities.
    2. Guidance: Provide clear guidance to improve the understanding, collection, and recording of ethnicity data.
    3. Procedures: Ensure there are robust procedures in place to monitor the quality of ethnicity data.

    Between now and March 2025, LARCH will be having more learning and engagement events. Stay tuned for future events.

  • E-bulletin – LARCH update – October 2024

    Welcome to the second e-bulletin on the London Anti-Racism Collaboration for Health – a programme designed to empower health and care organisations to use an anti-racist approach to address the health inequalities experienced by Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic Londoners.

    Learning and engagement

    The first learning and engagement event held on 21 October 2024, looked at ethnicity data and how it can be used to reduce ethnic health inequalities.

    Our expert panel included:    

    • Tracey Bignall, Director of Policy and Engagement, Race Equality Foundation, discussing quality issues with ethnicity data collecting and recording.
    • Brenda Hayanga, City, University of London, discussing ethnic inequalities in healthcare for people with multiple long-term conditions.    
    • Macius Kurowski, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, and Manal Sadik, North Middlesex University Hospital, discussing data-led approaches to reducing race-related health inequalities.
    • Mary Hill, NHS England, Head of Policy, Healthcare Inequalities Improvement, discussing data, ethnicity recording, and coding in NHS England.

    The event was well attended with representation from all five integrated care services across the London region.

    Organisation typeNumber of attendees
    NHS Trusts41
    Integrated Care Boards18
    Local Government/Public Health8
    Others (Charities, Research, Education)6

    Further information about the event is available on our website.

    How can an organisation progress to become truly anti-racist?  

    LARCH is developing the Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI) to help organisations manage and assess their progress to become an anti-racist organisation. REMI is a tool with different measures to track an organisation’s development over time and the implementation of anti-racist practice.

    We are currently piloting the REMI with a NHS Hospital Trust, Integrated Care Board and the Association of Directors of Public Health. We will be rolling out the REMI late November following its launch and overview at a learning and engagement event.

    Further details will be available in due course.

    Demonstrating your commitment to anti-racism

    An anti-racism statement has been co-produced for health and care organisations to use. This statement was developed with people with lived experience, and the statutory and voluntary and community sector. The statement sets out its purpose and how an organisation can use it as the foundation for change and actions to become anti-racist. Organisational change to embed anti-racist approaches is a positive step to advance health equity for Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic communities.

    View and sign up to the statement.

    How can you contribute to LARCH?

    Anti-racism is the process of actively challenging racism and changing behaviours, attitudes and policies to reduce racial inequalities. It acknowledges that simply not being racist is not enough; for a fairer society we must take positive action. London Anti-Racism Collaboration for Health (LARCH) has brought together stakeholders to formulate, introduce and support anti-racism measures.

    We would value your views on one aspect of the programme and hope you can spare 5 minutes to complete a short survey.

    Sign up to the LARCH newsletter.

    Race Equality Foundation and HIN South London – October 2024

  • E-bulletin – October 2024

    Dear Colleague

    Following the announcement this year about the appointment of the delivery partner for LARCH, please find below an update on work so far. This includes:

    Please sign-up with REF (details below) to get further LARCH updates.

    Last week the Institute of Health Equity (IHE) evidence review Structural Racism, Ethnicity and Health Inequalities in London.

    The IHE evidence concludes “Racism in the capital is widespread and persistent causing damage to individuals, communities and society as a whole. Its impacts are experienced in different ways and to varying levels of intensity related to individual experiences, socioeconomic position and other dimensions of exclusion such as disability, age and gender. The intersections with other dimensions of exclusion can amplify the effects of racism.” The review highlights many examples of existing work taking place in London to tackle structural racism. Including examples from the NHS, local authorities, GLA and partnership projects like Building a Fairer City and the London Anti-Racism Collaborative for Health (LARCH). 

    We will continue to work with partners across the health and care system to take forward activity to tackle health inequalities.

    Best wishes

    Health Inequalities Strategy Team

    GLA

    Update on the London Anti Racist Collaboration for Health (LARCH)  

    The Race Equality Foundation and Health Innovation Network South London have been busy forging ahead with the LARCH programme since their appointment in April this year.

    LARCH is a combined programme of work to empower health and care organisations to embed an anti-racist approach to address the inequalities in health that Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic Londoners experience. It involves five interconnected work streams:

    1. Demonstrating our commitment and challenging ourselves to do better.
    2. Learning through cross sector collaboration.
    3. Communicating what we are doing and bringing people on board.
    4. Build a solid, collaborative foundation and a longer-term plan.

    Capacity building through partnership alliances.

    LARCH activities

    Key to all these activities is the co-production approach we have undertaken. We have keenly welcomed working with a co-production group made up of people with lived experience, health and care organisations and the voluntary and community sector in shaping the development of these activities. We look forward to their continued involvement in other activities in the LARCH programme.

    The Race Equity Maturity Index (REMI)

    This is a tool to help organisations manage change by tracking their development over time, to learn and improve as they change to become an antiracist organisation and implement antiracist practice. The index includes different measures for organisations to self-assess against.

    We are excited about REMI and its potential to facilitate change. REMI is in the final stages of development and will be piloted over the coming month within health and care organisations representing different areas of London. The intention is to make final revisions and for organisations to start implementing the tool in November.

    An anti-racism statement 

    This is a co-produced statement that is aligned with the theory of change and can be used by organisations that specify their intent to become an anti-racism organisation. Please see attached for more information and the statement.

    Learning and engagement events

    The first LARCH learning and engagement event on 21 October 2024 on Data, ethnicity and health inequalities. The event will provide an opportunity for those working across social care, integrated care boards, public health and others to improve their understanding of ethnicity data, its analysis and use to make a positive change on the health inequalities that Black, Asian and minoritised ethnic Londoners experience. The free online event will provide an opportunity for cross sector learning, engagement, and networking by not only exploring quality issues in relation to ethnicity data recording, but also highlighting how his data can be used in an anti-racism approach, to address inequalities.

    Register on Eventbrite.

    Starting with an anti-racism statement – will you sign up?

    A starting point for anti-racism work is usually a statement that recognises the impact of racial discrimination and shows the intention of an organisation to work against systemic racism and the effect this has on an individual’s health and wellbeing. The statement usually includes a description of why the statement is being made, the purpose of it and how the organisation will be anti-racist in its policies and actions.

    Working with a co-production group, LARCH produced an agreed statement and ask health and care organisations to sign up to the statement below and use it as the foundation for their anti-racist practice.

    Sign up to the LARCH newsletter.

    Race Equality Foundation and HIN South London – October 2024