Our approach to developing communities of practice to foster research capacities for the adult social care workforce.

Background: Efforts to build and foster adult social care research in England have historically encountered more challenges to its growth and expansion compared with health research, with a sector facing significant barriers in facilitating research activity due to a lack of resourcing, poor valuation or understanding of the profile of social care research. The landscape for supporting research in adult social care has been rather bleak, but in recent years there has been recognition of the need to foster a research community. The National Institute for Health and Care Research in England have committed to investing in social care research capacity by funding six adult social care partnerships, with one based in Southeast England. Process developing Communities of Practice COPs: Three large online networking events were held in the first year of the project to engage managers and practitioners from the local authority and from the wider adult social care sector. These took place in July and November 2021, with a last event in March 2022. Two COPs were identified, following an ordering and thematising process of feedback from the networking events, of: (a) Supporting people with complex needs throughout the lifespan, and (b) Enhancing, diversifying and sustaining the social care workforce. Whilst it would be premature to identify their long-term impacts, through the facilitation of 20 COP meetings held so far, alongside the engagement platforms and enrichment resources, these have provided a space for regular communication in the sector, knowledge sharing and networking between COP members. Conclusions: The COP framework offers a collaborative approach to initiating research from the grass-roots level in adult social care. This paper focuses on how the COP model offers great promise for knowledge-exchange providing a forum to generate and disseminate knowledge around social care in our two COP domains.

Social care research looks into how care and support is delivered enabling people to continue to be independent, keep their dignity and help them achieve a better quality of life. The social care sector is responsible for delivering services and are provided by local authorities, third or private sector organisations. Research in adult social care is important to help the social care workforce understand which approaches and interventions work and how to improve the quality of care and support. However, there are barriers with setting up and running a research study in the social care sector, including limited dedicated time for the social care workforce to do research, accessing participants through providers, commissioners or unpaid carers, and due to the fragmented nature of the sector, difficulties in facilitating or supporting research. There are few opportunities for the social care workforce to develop their skills and experiences to undertake their own research. In order to help the social care workforce foster a culture of research and learning, we have used a well-known group learning and sharing framework called Communities of Practice (COPs) to help generate a culture of research involving all providers and users of social care. We developed the COPs by inviting them to three online networking events to identify what topics of research are important to providers and users. Their ideas were then put into themes and discussed, and two areas were finally decided upon for the COPs of: (a) Supporting people with complex needs throughout the lifespan, and (b) Enhancing, diversifying and sustaining the social care workforce. The COPs provide a place for users and providers to meet and discuss what research is important to them to identify some potential solutions to the problems encountered in adult social care.

Family carer experiences of hospice care at home: Qualitative findings from a mixed methods realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hospice-at-home aims to enable patients approaching end-of-life to die at home and support their carers. A wide range of different service models exists but synthesised evidence on how best to support family carers to provide sustainable end-of-life care at home is limited. AIM: To explore what works best to promote family carers' experiences of hospice-at-home. DESIGN: Realist evaluation with mixed methods. This paper focuses on qualitative interviews with carers (to gain their perspective and as proxy for patients) and service providers from 12 case study sites in England. Interviews were coded and programme theories were refined by the research team including two public members. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with carers (involved daily) of patients admitted to hospice-at-home services (n = 58) and hospice-at-home staff (n = 78). RESULTS: Post bereavement, 76.4% of carers thought that they had received as much help and support as they needed and most carers (75.8%) rated the help and support as excellent or outstanding. Of six final programme theories capturing key factors relevant to providing optimum services, those directly relevant to carer experiences were: integration and co-ordination of services; knowledge, skills and ethos of hospice staff; volunteer roles; support directed at the patient-carer dyad. CONCLUSIONS: Carers in hospice-at-home services identified care to be of a higher quality than generic community services. Hospice staff were perceived as having 'time to care', communicated well and were comfortable with dying and death. Hands-on care was particularly valued in the period close to death.

Scale and spread of innovation in health and social care: Insights from the evaluation of the New Care Model/Vanguard programme in England.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how to achieve scale and spread beyond the early local adoption of an innovative health care programme. We use the New Care Model - or 'Vanguard' - programme in the English National Health Service to illuminate the process, assessing why only one of five Vanguard programmes was successfully scaled up. METHODS: We interviewed a wide range of stakeholders involved in the Vanguard programme, including programme leads, provider organisations, and policymakers. We also consulted relevant documentation. RESULTS: A lack of direction near the end of the Vanguard programme, a lack of ongoing resources, and limited success in providing real-time monitoring and evaluation may all have contributed to the failure to scale and spread most of the Vanguard models. CONCLUSIONS: This programme is an example of the 'scale and spread paradox', in which localism was a key factor influencing the successful implementation of the Vanguards but ultimately limited their scale and spread.

What makes a socially skilled leader? Findings from the implementation and operation of New Care Models (Vanguards) in England.

PURPOSE: The article aims to argue that the concept of "distributed leadership" lacks the specificity required to allow a full understanding of how change happens. The authors therefore utilise the "Strategic Action Field Framework" (SAF) (Moulton and Sandfort, 2017) as a more sensitive framework for understanding leadership in complex systems. The authors use the New Care Models (Vanguard) Programme as an exemplar. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using the SAF framework, the authors explored factors affecting whether and how local Vanguard initiatives were implemented in response to national policy, using a qualitative case study approach. The authors apply this to data from the focus groups and interviews with a variety of respondents in six case study sites, covering different Vanguard types between October 2018 and July 2019. FINDINGS: While literature already acknowledges that leadership is not simply about individual leaders, but about leading together, this paper emphasises that a further interdependence exists between leaders and their organisational/system context. This requires actors to use their skills and knowledge within the fixed and changing attributes of their local context, to perform the roles (boundary spanning, interpretation and mobilisation) necessary to allow the practical implementation of complex change across a healthcare setting. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The SAF framework was a useful framework within which to interrogate the data, but the authors found that the category of "social skills" required further elucidation. By recognising the importance of an intersection between position, personal characteristics/behaviours, fixed personal attributes and local context, the work is novel.

Investigating the nature and quality of locally commissioned evaluations of the NHS Vanguard programme: an evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: With innovation in service delivery increasingly viewed as crucial to the long-term sustainability of health systems, NHS England launched an ambitious new model of care (Vanguard) programme in 2015. Supported by a £350 million transformation fund, 50 Vanguard sites were to act as pilots for innovation in service delivery, to move quickly to change the way that services were delivered, breaking down barriers between sectors and improving the coordination and delivery of care. METHODS: As part of a national evaluation of the Vanguard programme, we conducted an evidence synthesis to assess the nature and quality of locally commissioned evaluations. With access to a secure, online hub used by the Vanguard and other integrated care initiatives, two researchers retrieved any documents from a locally commissioned evaluation for inclusion. All identified documents were downloaded and logged, and details of the evaluators, questions, methodological approaches and limitations in design and/or reporting were extracted. As included evaluations varied in nature and type, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: We identified a total of 115 separate reports relating to the locally commissioned evaluations. Five prominent issues relating to evaluation conduct were identified across included reports: use of logic models, number and type of evaluation questions posed, data sharing and information governance, methodological challenges and evaluation reporting in general. A combination of resource, data and time constraints means that evaluations often attempted to but did not fully address the wide range of questions posed by individual Vanguards. CONCLUSIONS: Significant investment was made in independent local evaluations of the Vanguard programme by NHS England. This synthesis represents the only comprehensive attempt to capture methodological learning and may serve as a key resource for researchers and policy-makers seeking to understand investigating large-scale system change, both within the NHS and internationally. PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42017069282).

Factors influencing trends in opioid prescribing for older people: a scoping review.

AIM: The review aimed to identify factors influencing opioid prescribing as regular pain-management medication for older people. BACKGROUND: Chronic pain occurs in 45%-85% of older people, but appears to be under-recognised and under-treated. However, strong opiate prescribing is more prevalent in older people, increasing at the fastest rate in this age group. METHODS: This review included all study types, published 1990-2017, which focused on opioid prescribing for pain management among older adults. Arksey and O'Malley's framework was used to scope the literature. PubMed, EBSCO Host, the UK Drug Database, and Google Scholar were searched. Data extraction, carried out by two researchers, included factors explaining opioid prescribing patterns and prescribing trends. FINDINGS: A total of 613 papers were identified and 53 were included in the final review consisting of 35 research papers, 10 opinion pieces and 8 grey literature sources. Factors associated with prescribing patterns were categorised according to whether they were patient-related, prescriber-driven, or system-driven. Patient factors included age, gender, race, and cognition; prescriber factors included attitudes towards opioids and judgements about 'normal' pain; and policy/system factors related to the changing policy landscape over the last three decades, particularly in the USA. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of context-dependent factors appeared to influence opioid prescribing for chronic pain management in older adults, but the findings were inconsistent. There is a gap in the literature relating to the UK healthcare system; the prescriber and the patient perspective; and within the context of multi-morbidity and treatment burden.