New horizons: Reablement - supporting older people towards independence.

As the overwhelming majority of older people prefer to remain in their own homes and communities, innovative service provision aims to promote independence of older people despite incremental age associated frailty. Reablement is one such service intervention that is rapidly being adopted across high-income countries and projected to result in significant cost-savings in public health expenditure by decreasing premature admission to acute care settings and long-term institutionalisation. It is an intensive, time-limited intervention provided in people's homes or in community settings, often multi-disciplinary in nature, focussing on supporting people to regain skills around daily activities. It is goal-orientated, holistic and person-centred irrespective of diagnosis, age and individual capacities. Reablement is an inclusive approach that seeks to work with all kinds of frail people but requires skilled professionals who are willing to adapt their practise, as well as receptive older people, families and care staff. Although reablement may just seem the right thing to do, studies on the outcomes of this knowledge-based practice are inconsistent-yet there is an emerging evidence and practice base that suggests that reablement improves performance in daily activities. This innovative service however may lead to hidden side effects such as social isolation and a paradoxical increase in hospital admissions. Some of the necessary evaluative research is already underway, the results of which will help fill some of the evidence gaps outlined here.

'Why are we stuck in hospital?' Barriers to people with learning disabilities/autistic people leaving 'long-stay' hospital: a mixed methods study.

Background: Transforming care so that people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people can receive support at home rather than in hospital settings is a key priority, but progress has been slow. Despite significant national debate, little previous research has engaged directly with people in hospital, their families or front-line staff to understand the issues from their perspectives. Objectives: This research seeks to better understand the experiences of people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in long-stay hospital settings, their families and front-line staff - using this knowledge to create practice guides and training materials to support new understandings and ways of working. Design: Following a structured review of the literature, we sought to work with up to 10 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in three case-study sites (2021-22), supplementing this with interviews with family members and commissioners; interviews/focus groups with hospital staff, social workers, advocates and care providers; information from case files; and observations of multidisciplinary meetings. Setting: Three 'long-stay' hospital settings in England. Participants: Twenty-seven people in hospital, together with families, health and social care staff and commissioners. Results: • People in hospital report widespread frustration, feel that hospital environments are not conducive to getting/staying well, and face multiple barriers to leaving hospital. Without someone to fight for them, people struggle to overcome the inertia built into our current systems and processes. • Front-line staff are equally frustrated and describe a complex and seemingly dysfunctional system which they find almost impossible to navigate. • Hospital staff from different professional backgrounds do not have a shared sense of how many people really need to be in hospital or how many people could be cared for in different settings - suggesting that different definitions, world views and professional judgements might be at play. • Hospital staff are frustrated about what they see as the difficulty of discharging people into community services, while community services are equally frustrated about what they see as a risk-averse approach which they feel can lack an up-to-date knowledge of what is possible to achieve in the community. • Despite over a decade of policy attempts to resolve these issues, very significant barriers remain. Limitations: This research explored the experiences of a small number of people, but has done so in significant depth. The research was undertaken in secure settings, during COVID and in a difficult external policy and practice context, and so has had to be very flexible and empathetic in order to build relationships and make the research possible. Future research could helpfully consider the needs of people from black and minority ethnic communities, the extent to which the experiences of people on forensic pathways are similar to/different from other people's experiences (including perspectives from the criminal justice system), and what happens to people in the long term after they leave hospital. Conclusions: Working to make the voices of people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people (as well as the staff who support them) centre stage is complex and sensitive. However, this lived experience/practice knowledge is a crucial resource if we are going to develop better policy and practice solutions in the longer term. Study registration: This study is registered at www.researchregistry.com (researchregistry6124). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130298) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Around 2000 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people are living in hospital. This can be for many years. This is a real problem because hospitals: are not designed to help people to lead ordinary lives; are expensive; can be far away from people's homes and families; have had a number of abuse scandals. Despite this, there is little research on why people remain stuck in such settings. In particular, previous research often fails to talk directly to people with learning disabilities, their families and staff. Unless we listen to these voices we will not find solutions to these problems. Too many people will therefore remain in hospital unnecessarily. This is sensitive work. It requires skills in working: with people who may not communicate verbally; with people who might be very angry, scared and distressed; where there can be tensions around what is best. We therefore included an experienced team who could carry out such in-depth work in a way that suits the needs of the individual. We also worked with a group of people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people and their families to help us do our work well. We found that: lots of people are still stuck in hospital; they are very frustrated and distressed; hospital is a difficult place to be while you are waiting to leave. Once you are in it is very difficult to get out; health and social care staff are also very frustrated. They find it almost impossible to help people leave hospital; hospital staff and community services find it difficult to work with each other; government has promised to solve this for more than 10 years. However, there are still lots of problems.

Patient-reported outcomes in integrated health and social care: A scoping review.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have potential to support integrated health and social care research and practice; however, evidence of their utilisation has not been synthesised. Objective: To identify PRO measures utilised in integrated care and adult social care research and practice and to chart the evidence of implementation factors influencing their uptake. Design: Scoping review of peer-reviewed literature. Data sources: Six databases (01 January 2010 to 19 May 2023). Study selection: Articles reporting PRO use with adults (18+ years) in integrated care or social care settings. Review methods: We screened articles against pre-specified eligibility criteria; 36 studies (23%) were extracted in duplicate for verification. We summarised the data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: We identified 159 articles reporting on 216 PRO measures deployed in a social care or integrated care setting. Most articles used PRO measures as research tools. Eight (5.0%) articles used PRO measures as an intervention. Articles focused on community-dwelling participants (35.8%) or long-term care home residents (23.9%), with three articles (1.9%) focussing on integrated care settings. Stakeholders viewed PROs as feasible and acceptable, with benefits for care planning, health and wellbeing monitoring as well as quality assurance. Patient-reported outcome measure selection, administration and PRO data management were perceived implementation barriers. Conclusion: This scoping review showed increasing utilisation of PROs in adult social care and integrated care. Further research is needed to optimise PROs for care planning, design effective training resources and develop policies and service delivery models that prioritise secure, ethical management of PRO data.

Making sense of joint commissioning: three discourses of prevention, empowerment and efficiency.

BACKGROUND: In recent years joint commissioning has assumed an important place in the policy and practice of English health and social care. Yet, despite much being claimed for this way of working there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the outcomes of joint commissioning. This paper examines the types of impacts that have been claimed for joint commissioning within the literature. METHOD: The paper reviews the extant literature concerning joint commissioning employing an interpretive schema to examine the different meanings afforded to this concept. The paper reviews over 100 documents that discuss joint commissioning, adopting an interpretive approach which sought to identify a series of discourses, each of which view the processes and outcomes of joint commissioning differently. RESULTS: This paper finds that although much has been written about joint commissioning there is little evidence to link it to changes in outcomes. Much of the evidence base focuses on the processes of joint commissioning and few studies have systematically studied the outcomes of this way of working. Further, there does not appear to be one single definition of joint commissioning and it is used in a variety of different ways across health and social care. The paper identifies three dominant discourses of joint commissioning - prevention, empowerment and efficiency. Each of these offers a different way of seeing joint commissioning and suggests that it should achieve different aims. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of clarity not only in terms of what joint commissioning has been demonstrated to achieve but even in terms of what it should achieve. Joint commissioning is far from a clear concept with a number of different potential meanings. Although this ambiguity can be helpful in some ways in the sense that it can bring together disparate groups, for example, if joint commissioning is to be delivered at a local level then more specificity may be required in terms of what they are being asked to deliver.

New and emerging technology for adult social care - the example of home sensors with artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

Background: Digital technology is a focus within the NHS and social care as a way to improve care and address pressures. Sensor-based technology with artificial intelligence capabilities is one type of technology that may be useful, although there are gaps in evidence that need to be addressed. Objective: This study evaluates how one example of a technology using home-based sensors with artificial intelligence capabilities (pseudonymised as 'IndependencePlus') was implemented in three case study sites across England. The focus of this study was on decision-making processes and implementation. Design: Stage 1 consisted of a rapid literature review, nine interviews and three project design groups. Stage 2 involved qualitative data collection from three social care sites (20 interviews), and three interviews with technology providers and regulators. Results: • It was expected that the technology would improve care planning and reduce costs for the social care system, aid in prevention and responding to needs, support independent living and provide reassurance for those who draw on care and their carers. • The sensors were not able to collect the necessary data to create anticipated benefits. Several technological aspects of the system reduced its flexibility and were complex for staff to use. • There appeared to be no systematic decision-making process in deciding whether to adopt artificial intelligence. In its absence, a number of contextual factors influenced procurement decisions. • Incorporating artificial intelligence-based technology into existing models of social care provision requires alterations to existing funding models and care pathways, as well as workforce training. • Technology-enabled care solutions require robust digital infrastructure, which is lacking for many of those who draw on care and support. • Short-term service pressures and a sense of crisis management are not conducive to the culture that is needed to reap the potential longer-term benefits of artificial intelligence. Limitations: Significant recruitment challenges (especially regarding people who draw on care and carers) were faced, particularly in relation to pressures from COVID-19. Conclusions: This study confirmed a number of common implementation challenges, and adds insight around the specific decision-making processes for a technology that has been implemented in social care. We have also identified issues related to managing and analysing data, and introducing a technology focused on prevention into an environment which is focused on dealing with crises. This has helped to fill gaps in the literature and share practical lessons with commissioners, social care providers, technology providers and policy-makers. Future work: We have highlighted the implications of our findings for future practice and shared these with case study sites. We have also developed a toolkit for others implementing new technology into adult social care based on our findings (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/brace/ai-and-social-care-booklet-final-digital-accessible.pdf). As our findings mirror the previous literature on common implementation challenges and a tendency of some technology to 'over-promise and under-deliver', more work is needed to embed findings in policy and practice. Study registration: Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (ERN_13-1085AP41, ERN_21-0541 and ERN_21-0541A). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HSDR 16/138/31 - Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Centre).

Social care is facing pressures due to a lack of funding and staff and COVID-19. One way to ease pressures is by using digital technology. We looked at a technology that places sensors around people's homes to monitor changes in daily activity, including how this technology was brought into social care and how it works. We reviewed evidence and spoke with experts (including people who draw on care and support) to finalise the study design. We then interviewed people from social care organisations, carers, technology developers and regulators. • Organisations expected the technology to do a lot, including preventing illness, assessing needs, supporting independent living, reassuring people drawing on care (and their carers) and saving money. • Some social care decision-makers may not have the skills and understanding needed to make decisions about the use of new technology, and lacked a strategic approach to decision-making. • It was difficult to collect the data needed to use the sensors correctly, which meant the technology did not meet expectations. • Care staff were trained on how to use the sensors, although many struggled to make sense of the data they collected. • Social care is often focused on dealing with a crisis, rather than preventing one. This means a culture change is needed to use the sensors properly.

Our research confirmed challenges in using new technology in social care. We also found new problems, such as dealing with large amounts of health data, asking care staff to use this information without enough training, and introducing a technology focused on prevention into an environment which is focused on dealing with crises. Our findings have helped to fill gaps in knowledge and will let us share practical learning with those introducing new technology in social care.

A rehabilitation intervention to improve recovery after an episode of delirium in adults over 65 years (RecoverED): study protocol for a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium affects over 20% of all hospitalised older adults. Delirium is associated with a number of adverse outcomes following hospital admission including cognitive decline, anxiety and depression, increased mortality and care needs. Previous research has addressed prevention of delirium in hospitals and care homes, and there are guidelines on short-term treatment of delirium during admission. However, no studies have addressed the problem of longer-term recovery after delirium and it is currently unknown whether interventions to improve recovery after delirium are effective and cost-effective. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to test a new, theory-informed rehabilitation intervention (RecoverED) in older adults delivered following a hospital admission complicated by delirium to determine whether (a) the intervention is acceptable to individuals with delirium and (b) a definitive trial and parallel economic evaluation of the intervention are feasible. METHODS: The study is a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study of a rehabilitation intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Sixty participants with delirium (aged > 65 years old) and carer pairs will be recruited from six NHS acute hospitals across the UK. All pairs will be offered the intervention, with follow-up assessments conducted at 3 months and 6 months post-discharge home. The intervention will be delivered in participants' own homes by therapists and rehabilitation support workers for up to 10 intervention sessions over 12 weeks. The intervention will be tailored to individual needs, and the chosen intervention plan and goals will be discussed and agreed with participants and carers. Quantitative data on reach, retention, fidelity and dose will be collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. The feasibility outcomes that will be used to determine whether the study meets the criteria for progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) include recruitment, delivery of the intervention, retention, data collection and acceptability of outcome measures. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed using in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants and healthcare professionals. DISCUSSION: Findings will inform the design of a pragmatic multi-centre RCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverED intervention for helping the longer-term recovery of people with delirium compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The feasibility study was registered: ISRCTN15676570.

'Localism and intimacy, and other rather imponderable reasons of that sort': A qualitative study of patient experience of community hospitals in England.

Debates over the value and contribution of community hospitals are hampered by a lack of empirical assessment of the experience of patients using these services. This paper presents findings from a study which included a focus on patient and family-carer experiences of community hospitals in England. We adopted a qualitative design involving nine case study hospitals. Data collection included interviews with patients (n = 60), carers (n = 28) and staff (n = 89). Through patients and carers highlighting the value of community hospitals feeling 'close to home', providing holistic and personalised care and supporting them through difficult transitions, the study confirms the importance of functional and interpersonal aspects of care, while also highlighting the importance of social and psychological aspects. These included having family, friends and the community close, maintaining social connections during periods of hospital treatment, and feeling less anonymous and anxious when attending the hospital due to the high levels of familiarity and connectedness. Although the experiences uncovered in this study were not uniformly positive, patients and carers placed a high overall value on the care provided by community hospitals, often arguing that these were distinctive when compared to their experiences of using other health and care services. The study suggests the need to weigh the full range of these dimensions of patient experience-functional, interpersonal, social and psychological-when assessing the role and contribution of community hospitals.

'Why are we stuck in hospital?' Understanding delayed hospital discharges for people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in long-stay hospitals in the UK.

Despite longstanding efforts at de-institutionalisation, around 2000 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people in England currently live in hospital settings, amidst reports of protracted stays, limited progress towards living more ordinary lives and scandals of abuse and poor care. Yet, there is relatively little research on why people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people are delayed in hospitals, and what exists has significant limitations. In particular, previous studies have rarely talked directly to people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people, their families and frontline staff about their experiences of living or working in such settings, the barriers to discharge and what would help more people to lead chosen lifestyles. This paper presents the findings of a structured literature review conducted between January and March 2021 on delayed discharges of people with learning disabilities in long-stay hospital settings. It investigated: the proportion of people with learning disabilities delayed in long-stay hospital settings, the suggested reasons for these delays and the proposed solutions. The literature reported delays for 11%-80% of inpatients in different settings. The reasons reported are related either to particular characteristics of the person (which we find problematic) or limitations of the system supporting them. However, delays were defined and reported inconsistently, reasons usually lacked depth and detail, and the majority of included studies did not engage directly with the people living in long-stay settings, their families or frontline staff. Without listening to these voices, genuine solutions will be difficult to find.

Integrated Health and Social Care in England: Ten Years On.

INTRODUCTION: As part of major policy reforms begun in 2010, England introduced a wave of initiatives to encourage more integrated care between health and social care. These built on previous attempts which sought to achieve similar objectives through a focus on better partnership working. This article provides an overview and critical commentary on integrated care policy in England from 2010-2020 based on reviews by regulators, parliamentary committees and the national audit office. OVERVIEW OF POLICY: Integrated care became a priority through the work of the Future Forum, a group of leading stakeholders established due to concerns about greater competition in public health care. This led to a public statement of shared commitment to integrated care by national health and social care bodies. Early mechanisms included a pooled fund to achieve nationally set objectives, the creation of local authority led partnership boards, and high profile innovation programmes. Later in the 2010's, new health led partnerships became more dominant vehicles to achieve integrated care at regional level. IMPACT OF POLICY: Despite progress within a few local areas, and reduction in delayed discharges from hospital the overall picture from national reviews was that expected improvements were not achieved. Emergency admissions to hospital continued to grow, patients within primary care reported being less involved in their care, and health inequalities worsened. The initial response to COVID-19 was health-centric contributing to outbreaks in care homes and inadequate supplies of protective personal equipment. The ability of leaders to look beyond their organisations' interests was reported as vital for local progress. National government performance frameworks discouraged system based working and chronic underfunding of social care led to major capacity and workforce challenges. CONCLUSION: The experience of England suggests that greatest progress is made when integrated care focusses on tangible issues and when there is a clear understanding of how success will be measured. Even with considerable investment and intent progress should be expected to be slow and difficult. Layering of numerous policy initiatives provides confusion and can distract from the important work of relationship building. And ultimately, integrated care cannot by itself address major inadequacies in the underlying resources and structural inequalities.

Initiatives for improving delayed discharge from a hospital setting: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The overarching objective of the scoping review was to examine peer reviewed and grey literature for best practices that have been developed, implemented and/or evaluated for delayed discharge involving a hospital setting. Two specific objectives were to review what the delayed discharge initiatives entailed and identify gaps in the literature in order to inform future work. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Electronic databases and websites of government and healthcare organisations were searched for eligible articles. Articles were required to include an initiative that focused on delayed discharge, involve a hospital setting and be published between 1 January 2004 and 16 August 2019. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel. Following extraction, a policy framework by Doern and Phidd was adapted to organise the included initiatives into categories: (1) information sharing; (2) tools and guidelines; (3) practice changes; (4) infrastructure and finance and (5) other. RESULTS: Sixty-six articles were included in this review. The majority of initiatives were categorised as practice change (n=36), followed by information sharing (n=19) and tools and guidelines (n=19). Numerous initiatives incorporated multiple categories. The majority of initiatives were implemented by multidisciplinary teams and resulted in improved outcomes such as reduced length of stay and discharge delays. However, the experiences of patients and families were rarely reported. Included initiatives also lacked important contextual information, which is essential for replicating best practices and scaling up. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified a number of initiatives that have been implemented to target delayed discharges. While the majority of initiatives resulted in positive outcomes, delayed discharges remain an international problem. There are significant gaps and limitations in evidence and thus, future work is warranted to develop solutions that have a sustainable impact.

Protocol for a scoping review exploring the use of patient-reported outcomes in adult social care.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of a person's own views of their health, functioning and quality of life. They are typically assessed using validated, self-completed questionnaires known as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are used in healthcare settings to support care planning, clinical decision-making, patient-practitioner communication and quality improvement. PROMs have a potential role in the delivery of social care where people often have multiple and complex long-term health conditions. However, the use of PROMs in this context is currently unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to explore the evidence relating to the use of PROMs in adult social care. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), PsychInfo (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Social Care Online (SCIE), Web of Science and EMBASE (Ovid) were searched on 29 September 2020 to identify eligible studies and other publically available documents published since 2010. A grey literature search and hand searching of citations and reference lists of the included studies will also be undertaken. No restrictions on study design or language of publication will be applied. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal of the included documents will use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and AACODS (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance) checklists. A customised data charting table will be used for data extraction, with analysis of qualitative data using the framework method. The review findings will be presented as tables and in a narrative summary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publically available sources. Review findings will be shared with service users and other relevant stakeholders and disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io).

Who knows best? Older people's and practitioner contributions to understanding and preventing avoidable hospital admissions.

Whenever there are well-publicised pressures on acute care, there is a tendency for policy makers and the media to imply that a significant number of older people may be taking up hospital beds when they do not really need the services provided there. However, evidence to back up such claims is often lacking, and existing research tends to fail to engage meaningfully with older people themselves. In contrast, this research explores the emergency hospital admissions of older people in three English case study sites, drawing on the lived experience of older people and the practice wisdom of front-line staff to explore the appropriateness of each admission and scope for alternatives to hospital. Contrary to popular opinion, the study did not find evidence of large numbers of older people being admitted to hospital inappropriately. Indeed, some of the older people concerned delayed seeking help and only ended up at hospital as a very last resort, possibly due to concerns about being seen as a burden on scarce public resources. While older people and front-line staff identified a number of suggestions to improve services in future, there seemed few clear cut, easy answers to the longstanding dilemma of how best to reduce emergency admissions. Seeking to understand and potentially reduce emergency hospital admissions is complex, and it is important to consider the experiences and expertise of older people and front-line staff.

Interviewing older people about their experiences of emergency hospital admission: methodology in health services research.

This essay makes the case for increased use of patient-centred methodologies, which involve patients and the public, in the area of emergency admissions research in the United Kingdom. Emergency admission research has rarely made use of the patient voice when attempting to find a rate of 'inappropriate' admission for older people, instead focusing on professional viewpoints and more abstract tools. We argue for the important insights that patients and their families bring to emergency admissions research and for the need to listen to and use these voices to find more holistic responses to the issue of unplanned admissions to hospital for those aged over 65. This area of health services research is highly complex, but without involving the patient viewpoint we risk not understanding the full story of events leading up to admission and what preventative measures might have helped, and therefore we also risk developing less effective, simplistic solutions. In the face of increasing challenges to the National Health Service's ability to provide safe, effective and affordable care for older people, researchers need to listen to those with direct and longitudinal experience of their ill health and admission.

Factors affecting the changing role of GP clinicians in community hospitals: a qualitative interview study in England.

BACKGROUND: GPs were a key driving force for the development of a network of community hospitals across England, and have provided medical cover for most of them. However, during the past decade there has been a significant shift, with the dominant trend appearing to be one of declining GP involvement. AIM: To explore how and why the role of GPs within community hospitals in England is changing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in a sample of nine diverse community hospitals in England. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with community hospital clinical staff. RESULTS: In all, 20 interviews were conducted and two models of medical care observed: GPs employed by a practice and trust-employed doctors. Interviewees confirmed the trend towards declining GP involvement, with the factors driving change identified as being GP workload and recruitment challenges, a change from 'step-up' admissions from the community to 'step-down' admissions from acute hospitals, fewer local patients being admitted, increased medical acuity of patients admitted, increased burden of medical support required, and inadequate remuneration. The majority of doctors viewed community hospital work in a positive light, welcoming the opportunities for personal development and to acquire new clinical skills. GPs viewed community hospital work as an extension of primary care, adding to job satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Multiple factors have driven changes in the role of GP community hospital clinicians. The NHS needs to develop a focused strategy if GPs are to remain engaged with community hospital work.

Older people and the relationship between hospital services and intermediate care: results from a national evaluation.

In the UK, new intermediate care services have been established to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, facilitate effective discharge and prevent premature care home admissions. This paper reports findings from a national evaluation of intermediate care, focusing on the relationship between hospital services and intermediate care. Participants included key managers and practitioners involved in the planning, management and delivery of intermediate care in five case study sites. During the study, they identified a range of tensions between hospital services and intermediate care, including concerns about the role and involvement of acute clinicians; the safety, quality and appropriateness of intermediate care; access to and eligibility for intermediate care; a lack of understanding and awareness of intermediate care; and the risk of intermediate care being dominated by acute pressures. Although participants were able to identify several practical ways forward, resolving such fundamental tensions seems to require significant and long-term cultural change in the relationship between acute and intermediate care. Overall, this study raises questions about the extent to which intermediate care will be able to rebalance the current health and social care system and make a substantial contribution to tackling ongoing concerns about emergency hospital admissions and delayed transfers of care.

The art of the possible: reforming community health services.

In England, there has been a long standing tendency to seek to reform health services via large-scale structural reorganization and via seeking (at least in principle) to boost the power of health care commissioners to redesign services. Based on a review of community nursing services in an urban Primary Care Trust, this paper argues that such an approach has led to a situation where positive service development has stalled as senior managers prepare for the next reorganization (rather than focus on service improvement); where the underlying causes of failure to bring about universal transformation of community health services have not been addressed by ongoing organizational changes; and where providers now seem to look to commissioners to change services (rather than changing them themselves). In contrast, the paper argues that there is significant scope for those working in and managing community health services to focus on what is within their power to change--rather than waiting for others to do it for them.

Health System Performance Measurement: A UK Perspective.

In response to the lead article by Kuluski et al. (2017), this commentary draws on UK debates around the quality of healthcare and on the author's personal experience training as a social worker. Judging whether a service has "worked" has to involve understanding what a good outcome would be for the person receiving it. While carers provide important insights here, the "user" may have a different view, and reconciling different perspectives can be challenging. Although individual services may have fulfilled their part of the process, it is important to look at the person's overall experience (although this is difficult to achieve in practice). There is also no point measuring patient experience if we are not prepared to really listen to the feedback we receive. Moving forward, the UK's personalization agenda - which focuses on giving people greater choice and control - may enhance the aims of Kuluski et al.'s work.

The governance of integrated health and social care in England since 2010: great expectations not met once again?

Integrating health and social care has long been a goal of policy-makers and practitioners. Yet, this aim has remained elusive, partly due to conflicting definitions and a weak evidence base. As part of a special edition exploring the use of the TAPIC (transparency, accountability, participation, integrity and capability) framework in different national contexts and inter-agency settings, this article examines the governance of integrated care in England since 2010, focusing on the extent to which thesefive governance attributes are applicable to integrated care in England. The plethora of English policy initiatives on integrated care (such as the 'Better Care Fund', personal health budgets, and 'Sustainability and Transformation Plans') mostly shows signs of continuity over time although the barriers to integrated care often persist. The article concludes that the contribution of integrated care to improved outcomes remains unclear and yet it remains a popular policy goal. Whilst some elements of the TAPIC framework fit less well than others to the case of integrated care, the case of integrated care can be better understood and explained through this lens.