Suchergebnisse

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an update to a review of the joint working literature in the field of health and social care for adults, with particular emphasis given to the experiences of users and carers. Design/methodology/approach – The aims of the literature review remained largely the same as those of the original, they were to identify: models of joint working, evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and the factors promoting or hindering the models. However, to reflect the growing interest in the experiences of users and carers a fourth aim was added to map these experiences. Given their prominence in terms of policy debates about integration, the review focused on jointly organised services for older people and people with mental health problems in the UK only. Findings – The review demonstrates tentative signs that some initiatives designed to join-up or integrate services can deliver outcomes desired by government. Importantly some studies that report the experiences of users of services and carers suggest that they perceive benefits from efforts to join-up or integrate services. However it is our contention that the evidence is less than compelling and does not justify the faith invested in the strategy by current or previous governments. Originality/value – The study updates our knowledge of the impact of joint working in the field of health and social care for adults. Importantly the paper highlights what is known about the experiences of users and carers of joint/integrated services.

Background English health-care commissioners from the NHS need information to commission effectively. In the light of new legislation in 2012, new 'external' organisations were created such as commissioning support units (CSUs), public health departments moved into local authorities and 'external' provider organisations such as commercial and not-for-profit agencies and freelance consultants were encouraged. The aim of this research from 2011 to 2014 was to study knowledge exchange between these external providers and health-care commissioners to learn about knowledge acquisition and transformation, the role of external providers and the benefits of contracts between external providers and health-care commissioners. Methods Using a case study design, we collected data from eight cases, where commercial and not-for-profit organisations were contracted. We conducted 92 interviews with external providers (n = 36), their clients (n = 47) and others (n = 9), observed 25 training events and meetings and collected various documentation including meeting minutes, reports and websites. Using constant comparison, data were analysed thematically using a coding framework and summaries of cases. Results In juggling competing agendas, commissioners pragmatically accessed and used information to build a cohesive, persuasive case to plot a course of action, convince others and justify decisions. Local data often trumped national or research-based information. Conversations and stories were fast, flexible and suited to the continually changing commissioning environment. Academic research evidence was occasionally explicitly sought, but usually came predigested via National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidance, software tools and general practitioner clinical knowledge. Negative research evidence did not trigger discussions of disinvestment opportunities. Every commissioning organisation studied had its own unique blend of three types of commissioning models: clinical commissioning, integrated health and social care and commercial provider. Different types of information were privileged in each model. Commissioners regularly accessed information through five main conduits: (1) interpersonal relationships; (2) people placement (embedded staff); (3) governance (e.g. Department of Health directives); (4) 'copy, adapt and paste' (e.g. best practice elsewhere); and (5) product deployment (e.g. software tools). Interpersonal relationships appeared most crucial in influencing commissioning decisions. In transforming knowledge, commissioners undertook repeated, iterative processes of contextualisation using a local lens and engagement to refine the knowledge and ensure that the 'right people' were on board. Knowledge became transformed, reshaped and repackaged in the act of acquisition and through these processes as commissioners manoeuvred knowledge through the system. External providers were contracted for their skills and expertise in project management, forecast modelling, event management, pathway development and software tool development. Trust and usability influenced clients' views on the usefulness of external providers, for example the motivations of Public Health and CSUs were more trusted, but the usefulness of their output was variable. Among the commercial and not-for-profit agencies in this study, one was not very successful, as the NHS clients thought that the external provider added little of extra value. With another, the benefits were largely still notional and with a third views were largely positive, with some concerns about expense. Analysts often benefited more than those making commissioning decisions. Conclusions External providers who maximised their use of the different conduits and produced something of value beyond what was locally available appeared more successful. The long-standing schism between analysts and commissioners blunted the impact of some contracts on commissioners' decision-making. To capitalise on the expertise of external providers, wherever possible, contracts should include explicit skills development and knowledge transfer components. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The term 'social care' emerged in both official and academic publications in England in the 1990s but has not been defined in legislation. How the phrase has varied in usage over the last 20 plus years is outlined in this article. Whilst the element of 'personal care' has been present in the range of descriptions of 'social care', the policy context has changed dramatically, affecting the broader debate about priorities in public support for vulnerable adults. What 'social care' means as a policy rather than a practice has changed over time. The notion of indeterminacy provides a plausible explanation of changes in terminology and meaning in policies and practices.

This policy report presents new research evidence on the provision of inclusive housing schemes for older people, which finds that:• HCS schemes work well in counteracting social isolation and preventing loneliness among older residents• Pockets of isolation still exist among some residents, particularly people from social minoritiesThis report also identifies the interpersonal, organisational, physical and environmental factors that help promote social inclusion in HCS for older people, including supportive neighbour relations; on-site staff presence; inclusion with the local area; listening to the views of residents; inclusive and age-friendly design; adequate digital infrastructure; and a supportive policy environment. Using these new insights, we outline the ways in which national government; local councils, commissioners and designers; and housing providers, scheme management and staff can address discrimination and create more inclusive, age-friendly environments to support us as we get older.