Healthwatch Evaluation of Patient Experience: Latent Tuberculosis (LTBI) in Newham March 2017

Download (PDF 286KB)
You voted 'No'.

Summary of report content

In October 2016, Newham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) commissioned Healthwatch Newham to learn about the patient experience and feedback on the Latent Tuberculosis Infection screening service (LTBI) in Newham, in order to identify the key factors that influence the uptake of screening and understand why patients decline the LTBI test.  Healthwatch Newham spoke to 60 patients from 6 GP practices

Feedback from patients suggests that the client’s level of engagement with their GP, and their awareness of Tuberculosis or Latent Tuberculosis, tends to have an impact on their uptake of the test. Patients who have accepted the test suggest that their GP directly offers the test, part of a general check-up, explains the nature of Latent TB and the benefit of having the test, and provides reassurance to the patient. These act as the main reason for take-up.

Patients who have declined the test, usually do so because they think it is not relevant or not helpful as they think that they do not meet the eligibility criteria that are sent to them by their GP via a text message or a letter (eg having entered the UK in the past 5 years). Another reason is that they have already had the test in the past as an entry requirement to the UK.

Overall, patients suggest that the best way to encourage people to take the test is by offering it as part of a general check-up, and raising awareness of TB or Latent TB, by direct contact, the benefits of testing for Latent TB, the risks associated of catching TB, and the availability and feasibility of treatment.

There were four recommendations about how to improve take up of the latent TB screening. 

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Healthwatch Evaluation of Patient Experience: Latent Tuberculosis (LTBI) in Newham March 2017
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Newham
Date of publication 
Wednesday, 12 February, 2020
Date evidence capture began 
Friday, 1 January, 2016
Date evidence capture finished 
Thursday, 30 June, 2016
Type of report 
Key themes 
Health inequalities
Health protection
Information providing
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
What type of organisation requested the work 
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Community services 

Details about conditions and diseases

Conditions or diseases 
Respiratory conditions

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
Not known
Not known
Mixed / multiple ethnic groups
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Does the information include staff's views? 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Not known

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.