Search

This study explores the experiences of professionals who worked with care home residents with impaired mental capacity in England and Wales during the COVID‐19 pandemic. It explores (i) how competing risks were balanced and (ii) how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) functioned in care homes under pandemic conditions, with particular focus on its associated Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy (IMCA) systems. Between March and May 2021, we held an online survey and five focus groups aimed at professionals who worked in or with care homes during the pandemic. The study explored issues pertaining to residents with impaired mental capacity, alongside several other topics on which we report elsewhere. For this paper, we filtered data to only include responses from 'capacity professionals'. The resulting sample comprised 120 (out of 266) survey participants and 18 (out of 22) focus group participants. We performed manifest content analysis on the filtered data and found that (1) participants reported a 'massive discrepancy' between the ways different care homes balanced the risk of COVID‐19 infection with the risks associated with severe restrictions. (2) Some suggested this was due to vague guidance, as well as care home type and size. Participants told us the pandemic (3) obstructed smooth operation of statutory safeguards designed to protect residents' human rights and (4) resulted in confusion about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis. Our findings raise concerns about the impact of pandemic‐related measures upon care home residents with impaired mental capacity. We urge further exploration and analysis of (a) the variability and inconsistency of restrictions applied at care homes, (b) the strain placed on key safeguards associated with the MCA, (c) uncertainty about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis and (d) the human rights implications hereof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of supporting unpaid carers for people living with dementia (PLWD) is recognised in adult social care policy both nationally and internationally. In the UK, social care legislation emphasises care and support should help people achieve the outcomes that matter to them in their life; this includes the opportunity to take a break from caring routines and responsibilities. Accordingly, there is growing policy and practice interest in short breaks provision to address the diversity of carer break needs and preferences and deliver meaningful outcomes for carers and those they support. This paper reports findings from qualitative staff interviews that offered strategic and operational insights into short breaks provision. It presents a dynamic model of the short break landscape in a region of Wales, describing factors shaping local and regional decision‐making. The model identifies key challenges (barriers) and opportunities (enablers) that shape the planning, commissioning and delivery of bespoke short breaks for spousal carers and their partner living with dementia. Through highlighting the interplay between complex context‐specific processes and contingences, the model informs initial theory development in short breaks provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To elicit the barriers and facilitators experienced by social prescribing service providers when designing and delivering social prescribing services to support adult mental health. Design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with social prescribing service providers across England and Wales in the third sector. Data were analysed in accordance with the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Thematic Framework Analysis (TFA). Results. Twenty‐one providers (15 females and 6 males) from 17 social prescribing services agreed to participate. Nine analytical themes were identified across seven TDF domains associated with the design of services (e.g., skills and environmental context and resources). Thirteen analytical themes across nine TDF domains were associated with the delivery of services (e.g., beliefs about consequences and optimism). Key recommendations for future social prescribing services were increasing public knowledge of social prescribing; clearly communicating the role of a social prescriber to the public and professionals; providing training to providers on how to safely and effectively lived experiences; adopting a person‐centred approach, including use of person‐centred measures of mental health and well‐being; and strategies to address sustainability of social prescribing services. Conclusions. Service providers are an essential part of the design and delivery of social prescribing services. Person‐centred care, sustainable funding, and improved knowledge of social prescribing all warrant further research. Sustainable funding for social prescribing remains a salient policy‐level barrier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]