Suchergebnisse

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide an exploratory account of the links between devolution, homelessness and health in the UK. Specifically, it focusses on the policy context and governance structures that shape the systems of healthcare for homeless people in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.


Design/methodology/approach
Empirically the paper draws on semi-structured interviews with a small sample of policy and practice actors from the devolved territories. Qualitative interviews were supplemented by a comparative policy analysis of the homelessness and health agenda within the devolved regions. Theoretically, it takes inspiration from Chaney's concept of the "issue salience of homelessness" and explores the comparative character of healthcare as pertains to homeless people across the devolved territories.


Findings
The paper provides clear evidence of areas of divergence and convergence in policy and practice between the devolved regions. These features are shown to be strongly mediated by the interplay of two factors: first, the scope and scale of national and local homelessness prevention strategies; and second, intra-national variation in public health responses to homelessness.


Originality/value
The paper offers considerable insight from a comparative policy perspective into the nature of healthcare provision for homeless people in the devolved regions.

Purpose
– The critical potential of hospital discharge policies and practices to ameliorate the health and social care needs of homeless people has become the focus of considerable interest in England. Central to this rise in policy formation and practice development is an acute understanding of the multiple exclusions homeless people face in navigating public health and social care systems. In ways small and large this nascent landscape is serving to redefine and reshape hospital arrangements for homeless people, and opening-up new ways to deliver care across clinical, social and therapeutic boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to seek to add empirical vigour and theoretical rigour to this unfolding policy and practice terrain.


Design/methodology/approach
– This paper draws on findings from a case study concerned with exploring and explaining how statutory and voluntary sector organisations use specialist hospital discharge policies and practices to coordinate pathways of care for homeless people.


Findings
– This paper illustrates how people affected by homelessness and ill-health are routinely denied access to statutory housing support, social work assessments and district nursing provision through acts of institutional gatekeeping and professional abrogation.


Originality/value
– This paper makes an important contribution to understandings of the connections between hospital discharge arrangements for homeless people and statutory housing, social work and district nursing provision.

The pathways to vulnerability to debt and what works to reduce such vulnerability are poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted an evidence review. Many low-income borrowers have little alternative but to resort to high interest lending. Developing 'affordable' lending alternatives has been a challenge. Policy-makers have advocated person-centred approaches (for example, financial education) despite little evidence supporting the efficacy of such behavioural measures. Arguably this has shifted the burden of social responsibility and risk for managing problem debt primarily onto borrowers. While better regulation of the credit industry is needed, ultimately policymakers need to look beyond market-based solutions.

BACKGROUND: Growing demand from an increasingly ageing population with multimorbidity has resulted in complex health and social care needs requiring more integrated services. Integrating primary care with social services could utilise resources more efficiently, and improve experiences for patients, their families, and carers. There is limited evidence on progress including key barriers to and drivers of integration to inform large-scale national change. AIM: To elicit stakeholder views on drivers and barriers of integrated primary care and social services, and highlight opportunities for successful implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative interview study. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with maximum variation sampling to capture stakeholder views across services and professions. RESULTS: Thirty-seven interviews were conducted across England with people including GPs, nurses, social care staff, commissioners, local government officials, voluntary and private sector workers, patients, and carers. Drivers of integration included groups of like-minded individuals supported by good leadership, expanded interface roles to bridge gaps between systems, and co-location of services. Barriers included structural and interdisciplinary tension between professions, organisational self-interest, and challenges in record sharing. CONCLUSION: Drivers and barriers to integration identified in other contexts are also present in primary care and social services. Benefits of integration are unlikely to be realised if these are not addressed in the design and execution of new initiatives. Efforts should go beyond local- and professional-level change to include wider systems- and policy-level initiatives. This will support a more systems-wide approach to integrated care reform, which is necessary to meet the complex and growing needs of an ageing multimorbid population.

BACKGROUND: Growing demand from an increasingly ageing population with multimorbidity has resulted in complex health and social care needs requiring more integrated services. Integrating primary care with social services could utilise resources more efficiently, and improve experiences for patients, their families, and carers. There is limited evidence on progress including key barriers to and drivers of integration to inform large-scale national change. AIM: To elicit stakeholder views on drivers and barriers of integrated primary care and social services, and highlight opportunities for successful implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative interview study. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with maximum variation sampling to capture stakeholder views across services and professions. RESULTS: Thirty-seven interviews were conducted across England with people including GPs, nurses, social care staff, commissioners, local government officials, voluntary and private sector workers, patients, and carers. Drivers of integration included groups of like-minded individuals supported by good leadership, expanded interface roles to bridge gaps between systems, and co-location of services. Barriers included structural and interdisciplinary tension between professions, organisational self-interest, and challenges in record sharing. CONCLUSION: Drivers and barriers to integration identified in other contexts are also present in primary care and social services. Benefits of integration are unlikely to be realised if these are not addressed in the design and execution of new initiatives. Efforts should go beyond local- and professional-level change to include wider systems- and policy-level initiatives. This will support a more systems-wide approach to integrated care reform, which is necessary to meet the complex and growing needs of an ageing multimorbid population.