scholarly journals Partnership between Health and Social Care in the New Labour Government :Critical review of the policies in England

2007 ◽  
Vol null (31) ◽  
pp. 343-368
Author(s):  
전용호 ◽  
김근홍
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Social Care ◽  
New Labour ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
Health And Social Care

scholarly journals The capacity of health service commissioners to use evidence: a case study

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 1-198
Author(s):  
Graeme Currie ◽  
Charlotte Croft ◽  
Yaru Chen ◽  
Tina Kiefer ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Local Knowledge ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Local Population ◽  
Avoidable Admissions ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Different Types

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) lead a network of organisations that plan and make decisions about what services to provide through the NHS. To make commissioning decisions based on evidence, CCGs need to develop capacity to acquire and use evidence of different types. CCGs can not only draw on evidence about what is most clinically effective or cost-effective, but also consider patient experience and local knowledge held by doctors. Policy-makers recognise this and require that CCG-led commissioning networks include general practitioners (GPs), so that their knowledge about the local population and services is considered, and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives, so that patient experience is considered, in their decision-making. In the context of older persons’ care and potentially avoidable admissions, CCGs should also seek to integrate evidence from health-care organisations with that held by social care organisations (adult social care departments in local authorities).Funded by the National Institute for Health Research, through its Health Services and Delivery Research programme (12/5002/01), our research empirically focuses on a tracer study of reducing potentially avoidable admissions of older people into acute hospitals. Our study examines the critical review capacity of 13 cases of representative (region, size, urban/rural) commissioning networks in England to acquire and use different types of evidence to inform their decisions about service interventions.Conceptually, we apply a specific model of knowledge mobilisation, absorptive capacity (ACAP), which details the antecedents and dimensions of an organisation’s capacity to acquire and use knowledge for enhanced performance. Drawing on interviews with commissioning managers, GPs, PPI representatives and other relevant stakeholders, our study highlights that commissioning networks led by CCGs lack capacity to use different types of evidence to make well-informed decisions. We find that the use of local knowledge about patients, and the patient experience of services, may be poor. CCGs make poor use of data about population need and existing services, which the external organisation (commissioning support units) potentially provides. Voluntary organisations have a role to play in providing evidence about gaps in patient need and local services. Finally, given the need for health and social care organisations to work together, specifically in older people’s care, there is a need to integrate different evidence and perspectives in decision-making across health and social care organisations. Based on the above, our study develops a self-development psychometric tool for CCG-led commissioning networks to reflect on and enhance their critical review capacity with respect to the acquisition and use of different types of evidence.Limitations are threefold. First, we sampled only 13 cases. Nevertheless, we have attempted to generate transferable lessons for other commissioning networks through theoretical analysis, drawing on dimensions of ACAP to highlight factors influencing evidence use. Second, GPs engaged variably across the cases with our study. Others might carry out a more specific study of GP involvement in commissioning. Third, at the inception of our study, CCGs were fledgling organisations. Others may study development of critical review capacity of CCGs as their relationships developed across the commissioning network.

Practices of inclusion for carers who are higher education students

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Taylor ◽  
Paula Gleeson ◽  
Tania Teague ◽  
Michelle DiGiacomo
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Education Students ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Students With A Disability ◽  
Crucial Part

The role of unpaid and informal care is a crucial part of the health and social care system in Australia and internationally. As carers in Australia have received statutory recognition, concerted efforts to foster engagement in carer participation in work and education has followed. However, little is known about the strategies and policies that higher education institutions have implemented to support the inclusion of carers. This study has three components: first, it employs a review of evidence for interventions to support to support carers; second, it reviews existing higher education institutions’ policies to gauge the extent of inclusive support made available to student carers, and; third it conducts interviews with staff from five higher education institutions with concerted carer policies in Australia were held to discuss their institutions’ policies, and experiences as practitioners of carer inclusion and support. Results indicate difficulty in identifying carers to offer support services, the relatively recent measures taken to accommodate carers in higher education, extending similar measures which are in place for students with a disability, and difficulties accommodating flexibility in rigid institutional settings. A synthesis of these findings were used to produce a framework of strategies, policies and procedures of inclusion to support carers in higher education.

A case study evaluation of a community multidisciplinary team in South East England using a mixed-method approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp20X711569
Author(s):  
Jessica Wyatt Muscat
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Free Form ◽  
Normalisation Process Theory ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Mixed Method Approach ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Method Approach

BackgroundCommunity multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) represent a model of integrated care comprising health, social care, and the voluntary sector where members work collaboratively to coordinate care for those patients most at risk.AimThe evaluation will answer the question, ‘What are the enablers and what are the restrictors to the embedding of the case study MDT into the routine practice of the health and social care teams involved in the project?’MethodThe MDT was evaluated using a mixed-method approach with normalisation process theory as a methodological tool. Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered through a questionnaire consisting of the NoMAD survey followed by free-form questions.ResultsThe concepts of the MDT were generally clear, and participants could see the potential benefits of the programme, though this was found to be lower in GPs. Certain professionals, particularly mental health and nursing professionals, found it difficult to integrate the MDT into normal working patterns because of a lack of resources. Participants also felt there was a lack of training for MDT working. A lack of awareness of evidence supporting the programme was shown particularly within management, GP, and nursing roles.ConclusionSpecific recommendations have been made in order to improve the MDT under evaluation. These include adjustments to IT systems and meeting documentation, continued education as to the purpose of the MDT, and the engagement of GPs to enable better buy-in. Recommendations were made to focus the agenda with specialist attendance when necessary, and to expand the MDT remit, particularly in mental health and geriatrics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document