Home Link Logo
Login

Integrated health and social care in Edmonton, Enfield

Local learning on health and social care integration in Edmonton, London, focusing on community engagement, partnerships and action to improve local health outcomes and address inequalities.

Key messages

  • Edmonton, Enfield is implementing integrated neighbourhood approaches drawing together health, social care and voluntary sector partners to tackle local inequalities and improve wellbeing
  • place-based partnerships emphasise community involvement in service design, delivery and evaluation to make services more responsive to local needs
  • local engagement work, including Community Powered Edmonton, brings residents, service users, voluntary organisations and statutory partners together to identify priorities and co-produce solutions
  • practical actions include targeted campaigns on safety, poverty, social isolation and other determinants that shape health and wellbeing beyond clinical care
  • integrated models combine multi-disciplinary teams from primary care, mental health and community services with community partners to support holistic health and reduce inequities.

Policy implications

  • neighbourhood health and care planning should embed community engagement and co-production, not just organisational collaboration
  • addressing wider determinants (poverty, isolation, safety) alongside clinical services is key to reducing health inequalities
  • partnerships need sustained resourcing and governance structures that include voices from voluntary and community sectors
  • shared information, workforce development and co-located services can strengthen integrated working at neighbourhood scale.

Gaps

  • local documentation and community engagement reports are largely descriptive, with limited consistent outcome measurement
  • evidence of long-term impact on health outcomes or inequalities at neighbourhood level is limited
  • systematic evaluation of integrated models in Edmonton and similar boroughs is needed to inform broader policy.

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.

Integrated neighbourhood working and asset-based approaches

A literature review synthesising evidence on integrated neighbourhood and asset-based approaches across health, social care and the voluntary sector in the UK.

Key messages

  • the review synthesises evidence from over 100 UK documents on neighbourhood and asset-based working
  • integrated neighbourhood approaches are associated with improved wellbeing and reduced social isolation
  • positive outcomes are most evident where councils, the NHS and voluntary organisations work together
  • equity outcomes are strongest when residents are actively involved in design and control of resources
  • co-production and community leadership are central to effective neighbourhood working.

Policy implications

  • neighbourhood health and care models should prioritise co-production with residents
  • asset-based approaches may help shift services from deficit-based to strengths-based models
  • partnership working across statutory and voluntary sectors is critical to delivery
  • evaluation frameworks are needed to better evidence outcomes and equity impacts.

Gaps

  • much of the evidence is based on case studies and descriptive accounts
  • limited use of consistent metrics across neighbourhood initiatives
  • lack of robust evaluation linking neighbourhood working to long-term outcomes
  • limited comparative evidence on what works best in different contexts.

Commentary
This literature review brings together a substantial body of UK evidence on integrated neighbourhood working and asset-based approaches. It highlights how collaboration between councils, the NHS and voluntary organisations can support wellbeing and reduce isolation at neighbourhood level.

From a care equity perspective, the review’s strongest finding relates to co-production. Where residents are involved in shaping priorities and controlling resources, neighbourhood approaches are more likely to address local need and reduce unequal access to support.

The emphasis on asset-based working reflects a shift away from service-led models towards approaches that recognise community strengths. This aligns with neighbourhood health and care ambitions to build trust, improve engagement and tailor support to local context.

However, the review also highlights limitations in the evidence base. Many examples are anecdotal, with limited measurement of outcomes or equity impacts. This makes it difficult to assess scalability or to compare neighbourhood models systematically.

Overall, the review supports neighbourhood health and care as a promising approach for improving wellbeing and equity, but highlights the need for stronger evaluation and clearer metrics to understand how and for whom these approaches deliver benefit.