Navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map: lessons from setting up the BATH-OUT-2 randomised controlled trial in adult social care and housing services in English local authorities.

Populations around the world are rapidly ageing and more people are living with multiple long-term conditions. There is an urgent need for evidence about high quality, cost-effective, and integrated systems of health and social care. Health research funders are now also prioritising research in adult social care and wider local authority settings, e.g. housing services.Developing the evidence base for adult social care should include implementing randomised controlled trials, where appropriate. Within the UK, the clinical trial is the established road map for evaluating interventions in the National Health Service (NHS). However, adult social care and local authorities are relatively uncharted territory for trials. BATH-OUT-2 is one of the first clinical trials currently underway within adult social care and housing adaptations services in six English local authorities. It provides an opportunity to explore how the clinical trial road map fares in these settings.Whilst setting up BATH-OUT-2, we encountered challenges with securing funding for the trial, lack of non-NHS intervention costs, using research and support costs as intended, gaining approvals, identifying additional trial sites, and including people who lack the mental capacity to provide informed consent. Overall, our experience has been like navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map. In the UK, the clinical trial road map was developed for medical settings. Its key features are integrated within the NHS landscape but have been largely absent, unfamiliar, inaccessible, or irrelevant in social care and wider local authority terrain. Navigating the set-up of a clinical trial outside the NHS has been a complicated and disorientating journey.BATH-OUT-2 highlights how local authorities generally and adult social care specifically are a relatively new and certainly different type of setting for trials. Whilst this poses a challenge for conducting trials, it also presents an opportunity to question longstanding assumptions within trials practices, reimagine the conventional clinical trial road map, and take it in new directions. As the UK research landscape moves forward and becomes better primed for randomised evaluations in local authorities, we propose several suggestions for building on recent progress and advancing trials within adult social care and across health and care systems.

Bathing Adaptations in the Homes of Older Adults (BATH-OUT-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic evaluation and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The onset of disability in bathing is particularly important for older adults as it can be rapidly followed by disability in other daily activities; this may represent a judicious time point for intervention in order to improve health, well-being and associated quality of life. An important environmental and preventative intervention is housing adaptation, but there are often lengthy waiting times for statutory provision. In this randomised controlled trial (RCT), we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bathing adaptations compared to no adaptations and to explore the factors associated with routine and expedited implementation of bathing adaptations. METHODS: BATH-OUT-2 is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group RCT. Adults aged 60 and over who are referred to their local authority for an accessible level access shower will be randomised, using pairwise randomisation, 1:1, to receive either an expedited provision of an accessible shower via the local authority or a usual care control waiting list. Participants will be followed up for a maximum of 12 months and will receive up to four follow-ups in this duration. The primary outcome will be the participant's physical well-being, assessed by the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form-36 (SF-36), 4 weeks after the intervention group receives the accessible shower. The secondary outcomes include the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-36, self-reported falls, health and social care resource use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), social care-related quality of life (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)), fear of falling (Short Falls Efficacy Scale), independence in bathing (Barthel Index bathing question), independence in daily activities (Barthel Index) and perceived difficulty in bathing (0-100 scale). A mixed-methods process evaluation will comprise interviews with stakeholders and a survey of local authorities with social care responsibilities in England. DISCUSSION: The BATH-OUT-2 trial is designed so that the findings will inform future decisions regarding the provision of bathing adaptations for older adults. This trial has the potential to highlight, and then reduce, health inequalities associated with waiting times for bathing adaptations and to influence policies for older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN48563324. Prospectively registered on 09/04/2021.

Normative puzzles for local government: Managing the introduction of single-handed care in England.

A crisis in social care is apparent across the developed world as ageing populations put unprecedented demand on understaffed social care workforces. A recent popular response to this 'care crisis' within the UK involves the 'innovation' of single-handed care (SHC). SHC involves a care package with two or more homecare workers being reduced to one worker using advanced equipment and new moving and handling techniques. In this article, we explore how SHC is rendered in 245 documents from 52 local authorities in England. Using Actor Network Theory as an interpretative lens, we suggest documents attempt to satisfy three 'duties of care': to the individual wellbeing of citizens, morally and fiscally to the collective and to innovation. Each appeal to different stakeholder groups necessary for SHC to work, but the combination of duties can pose problems in enabling coherent stories of SHC. Duties can be kept apart in different documents, but at times they must be brought together in certain textual spaces to enact SHC as a coherent enterprise. Here, the potential tensions that emerge are routinely orientated to as (merely) problems of process that can and should be managed in and through a more refined approach to change management.

'Single-handed care' initiatives and reviews of double-handed homecare packages: A survey of practices in English local authorities with adult social care responsibilities.

International health and social care systems are experiencing unprecedented pressure and demand. 'Single-handed care' initiatives seek to identify whether all or part of a homecare package involving more than one care worker can be safely reduced to a single worker. Little is known about these initiatives across local authorities. The aim of this study was to identify, describe and explain current processes and practices for single-handed care initiatives and double-handed homecare reviews. An electronic survey link was sent to each local authority with social care responsibilities in England. The questions covered a range of areas in relation to single-handed care processes and included a combination of pre-coded and free-text responses. Responses were received from 76 (50%) local authorities. Findings were that over 12,000 reviews were reported within a year with a median of 141 (IQR 45-280) from 53 authorities that provided figures. Reviews were usually led by a local authority occupational therapist. On average, 540 min was spent per review, including conducting and organising the review, documentation, and travel. In nearly half the authorities, double handed care remained at least partially in place following at least 80% of the reviews and remained wholly in place following at least 60%. Local authorities also reported some resistance from homecare providers when implementing single-handed care. The findings have confirmed anecdotal evidence that reviews of double-handed homecare packages are common practice within local authorities. Given the amount of time taken with these reviews, and paucity of evidence on outcomes for people receiving them, further research should evaluate this.

Returning to work after long term sickness absence due to low back pain - the struggle within: a qualitative study of the patient's experience.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of work absence. Assisting individuals back into work is an important part of rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of individuals returning to work after an episode of sickness absence due to LBP. PARTICIPANTS: Five women employed by a UK University who had returned to work. METHOD: In this qualitative study, participants underwent semi-structured interviews about their experiences. The transcripts were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Two primary themes emerged 1) perceived pressure to return to work and 2) strategies employed to relieve the pressure to return. Pressure to return to work arose from a number of sources including guilt and a personal work ethic, internally, and from colleagues and management, externally. This pressure led to the individual employing a number of strategies to reduce it. These ranged from a simple denial of health concerns and decision to return to work regardless of their condition, to placing the responsibility of the decision not to return to work onto a significant other, such as a family member or health care professional. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals returning to work with LBP experience considerable pressure to return and use a range of strategies to mediate that pressure.