Search

Purpose: This paper aims to outline the initial pilot use of the client complexity matrix (CCM), an outcome measure developed for an NHS Adult Intellectual Disabilities Intensive Support Team (IST) in the West Midlands of England. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed method approach was used to report the results and evaluate the use of the CCM within this IST. The CCM was trialled for six months between January 2022 and June 2022. CCM scores pre and post IST intervention were analysed via t-test, and qualitative feedback from clinicians is detailed. Findings: Analysis suggests the CCM captures service success showing a significant decrease in complexity and risk post-intervention. Qualitative comments from clinicians were generally positive; however, there were requested changes regarding specific presentations, use of labels/language and for a digital version. Research limitations/implications: The tool is not co-constructed with the client. Because of this IST's caseload, the sample size was small. Only one clinician was asked to complete the CCM pre and post intervention. Future use of the measure will encourage two clinicians to complete the measure to evidence its inter-rater reliability. Each client's specific presentation was not explicitly analysed here. Practical implications: The CCM will be updated using the feedback from clinicians and from the peer review process. Research that examines the generalisability of this measure to other IST services would be beneficial. Originality/value: The CCM appears to fill a gap in outcome measurements for this IST service which looks at breadth and depth of client complexity and risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In this viewpoint article, the authors consider the challenges in implementing restrictive policies, with a particular focus on how these policies are experienced, in practice, from alternative standpoints.Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw on social science studies of decommissioning work to highlight how patient and official versions of value often vary, creating difficulties and distrust as restrictive policies are implemented. Patients and the public are well aware that financial calculations are somehow embedded in concepts of "evidence" and "value" but are usually unfamiliar with the social infrastructures that produce and utilise such concepts. The authors discuss with reference to a contemporary restrictive programme in England.Findings: While policymakers and researchers frequently present restrictive policies as "win-win" scenarios (achieving both cost-savings for healthcare services and improved patient care), social science analyses highlight the potential for tensions and controversies between stakeholders. The authors recognise that cost containment is a necessary component of policymaking work but argue that policymakers and researchers should seek to map (and make visible) the socially organised reasoning, systems and processes that are involved in enacting restrictive policies. Although transparency may pose challenges, it is important for informed democratic engagement, allowing legitimate scrutiny of whose voices are being heard and interests served (the "winners" and "losers").Originality/value: The authors argue for social science analyses that explore overuse, value and restrictive practices from alternative (e.g. patient) standpoints. These can provide important insights to help identify priorities for intervention and support better communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]