Search

Social care Personal Assistants (PAs) are directly employed by individuals to assist with activities of daily living such as help or support with personal care, shopping, household tasks and community participation. This option is encouraged by UK public funding. In England, disabled people's support organisations initially offered assistance with such arrangements, although numbers doing this have declined. The Covid‐19 pandemic provided the opportunity to ask those remaining organisations providing support for PA employers about their activities during this time and the questions being posed to them by PA employers. This paper reports data from 15 interviews undertaken March–July 2021 with disability support organisation representatives. We identified one overarching theme 'Working to prevent and challenge marginalisation of PA employers', with three related subthemes: (1) Advocating for the voice of a forgotten group; (2) Needing to be proactive and (3) Adapting to new tasks and ways of working. Participant accounts focused on representing the needs of disabled people to the authorities and providing concise, timely and accurate information to PA employers, particularly around the use of public funds during Covid‐19. Remote working amplified the digital‐divide, resulting in these organisations working hard to ensure PA employers received important information about their support options. Befriending services and Covid‐hubs were established by some organisations to reduce isolation and risks of poor mental health amongst PA employers. Many of the challenges facing PA employers existed pre‐pandemic but were perceived to have been heightened during it, reflecting the value of and need for the work of these local support organisations. Our findings suggest areas where effective contingency planning drawn from closer collaboration between disability support organisations and central and local government might usefully be focussed. The potential for specific services or organisations to be commissioned to provide such support is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing attention has focused on the role of joint commissioning in health and social care policy and practice in England. This paper provides an empirical examination of the three discourses of joint commissioning developed from an interpretative analysis of documents by Dickinson et al. (2013; BMC Health Services Research, 13) and applied to data from our study exploring the role of knowledge in commissioning in England. Based on interviews with 92 participants undertaken between 2011 and 2013, our analysis confirms that the three discourses of prevention or empowerment or efficiency are used by professionals from across health and social care organisations to frame their experiences of joint commissioning. However, contrary to Dickinson et al., we also demonstrate that commissioners and other stakeholders combine and trade off these different discourses in unexpected ways. Moreover, at sites where the service user experience was central to the commissioning process (joint commissioning as empowerment), a greater sense of agreement about commissioning decisions appeared to have been established even when the other discourses were also in play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]