Assessing progress in managing and improving quality in nascent integrated care systems in England.

OBJECTIVES: In 2022, England embarked on an ambitious reorganisation to produce an integrated health and care system, intended also to maximise population health. The newly created integrated care systems (ICSs) aim to improve quality of care, by achieving the best outcomes for individuals and populations through the provision of evidence-based services. An emerging approach for managing quality in organisations is the Quality Management System (QMS) framework. Using the framework, this study assessed how ICSs are managing and improving quality. METHODS: Four ICSs were purposively sampled, with the data collected between November 2021 and May 2022. Semi-structured interviews with system leaders (n=60) from health and social care, public health and local representatives were held. We also observed key ICS meetings and reviewed relevant documents. A thematic framework approach based on the QMS framework was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The ICSs placed an emphasis on population health, reducing inequity and improving access. This represents a shift in focus from the traditional clinical approach to quality. There were tensions between quality assurance and improvement, with concerns that a narrow focus on assurance would impede ICSs from addressing broader quality issues, such as tackling inequalities and unwarranted variation in care and outcomes. Partnerships, a key enabler for integration, was seen as integral to achieving improvements in quality. Overall, the ICSs expressed concerns that any progress made in quality development and in improving population health would be tempered by unprecedented system pressures. CONCLUSION: It is unclear whether ICSs can achieve their ambition. As they move away from an assurance-dominated model of quality to one that emphasises openness, learning and improvement, they must simultaneously build the digital infrastructure, staff expertise and culture to support such a shift.

Exploring the views of being a proxy from the perspective of unpaid carers and paid carers: developing a proxy version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT).

BACKGROUND: Outcomes-based policy and administration of public services present a compelling argument for the value of outcomes data. However, there are a number of challenges inherent in collecting these data from people who are unable to complete a paper-based survey or interview due to cognitive or communication impairments. In this paper, we explore the views of being a proxy from the perspective of unpaid carers and paid carers who may be asked to act as a proxy on behalf of the person(s) they care for. We consider the key issues that need to be addressed when adapting an instrument designed to measure social care outcomes, the Adult Social Care Outcomes Tool (ASCOT), into a proxy-report tool. METHODS: Participants took part in either a focus group (35 paid carers in eight focus groups), or a one-to-one interview (eight unpaid carers). All participants were recruited via carer organisations and care providers. Transcripts, field notes and audio data collected during focus groups and interviews were analysed using a thematic framework approach. RESULTS: Participants agreed that any person acting as a proxy would need to be very familiar with the care recipient, as well as their needs and care provision. A number of provisions for proxy respondents were proposed to improve face validity and acceptability of completing a questionnaire by proxy, and to ensure that any potential bias is reduced in the design of the questionnaire. These included: providing two sets of response options for each proxy perspective (the proxy themselves and the proxy view of how they think the care recipient would respond); a comments box to help people explain why they have selected a given response option (especially where these indicate unmet need); and providing clear guidance for the proxy respondent on how they should complete the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown some of the challenges involved in assessing outcomes by proxy and explored some potential ways these can be mitigated. The findings highlight the benefits of developing and testing proxy measures in a robust way to widen participation in social care research.

Implementing personal health budgets in England: a user-led approach to substance misuse.

Personal health budgets (PHBs) in England have been viewed as a vehicle for developing a personalised patient-based strategy within the substance misuse care pathway. In 2009, the Department of Health announced a 3-year pilot programme of PHBs to explore opportunities offered by this new initiative across a number of long-term health conditions, and commissioned an independent evaluation to run alongside as well as a separate study involving two pilot sites that were implementing PHBs within the substance misuse service. The study included a quantitative and qualitative strand. The qualitative strand involved 20 semi-structured interviews among organisational representatives at two time points (10 at each time point) between 2011 and 2012 which are the focus for this current paper. Overall, organisational representatives believed that PHBs had a positive impact on budget-holders with a drug and/or alcohol misuse problem, their families and the health and social care system. However, a number of concerns were discussed, many of which seemed to stem from the initial change management process during the early implementation stage of the pilot programme. This study provides guidance on how to implement and offer PHBs within the substance misuse care pathway: individuals potentially would benefit from receiving their PHB post-detox rather than at a crisis point; PHBs have the potential to improve the link to after-care services, and direct payments can provide greater choice and control, but sufficient protocols are required.

Personalization in the health care system: do personal health budgets have an impact on outcomes and cost?

OBJECTIVES: In England's National Health Service, personal health budgets are part of a growing trend to give patients more choice and control over how health care services are managed and delivered. The personal health budget programme was launched by the Department of Health in 2009, and a three-year independent evaluation was commissioned with the aim of identifying whether the initiative ensured better health- and care-related outcomes and at what cost when compared to conventional service delivery. METHODS: The evaluation used a pragmatic controlled trial design to compare the outcomes and costs of patients selected to receive a personal health budget with those continuing with conventional support arrangements (control group). Just over 1000 individuals were recruited into the personal health budget group and 1000 into the control group in order to ensure sufficient statistical power, and followed for 12 months. RESULTS: The use of personal health budgets was associated with significant improvement in patients' care-related quality of life and psychological wellbeing at 12 months. Personal health budgets did not appear to have an impact on health status, mortality rates, health-related quality of life or costs over the same period. With net benefits measured in terms of care-related quality of life on the adult social care outcome toolkit measure, personal health budgets were cost-effective: that is, budget holders experienced greater benefits than people receiving conventional services, and the budgets were worth the cost. CONCLUSION: The evaluation provides support for the planned wider roll-out of personal health budgets in the English NHS after 2014 in so far as the localities in the pilot sample are representative of the whole country.