Search

Purpose Comment on the contribution that housing can make to delivering better health and wellbeing outcomes. More specifically, the purpose of this paper is threefold: summarise recent evidence that makes the case for housing in helping to address health and social care issues; comment on the challenges and opportunities of partnership working; and describe examples of interesting and innovative local joint provision.Design/methodology/approach Draws on the author's briefing papers on housing, health and social care for housing quality network, which is a national housing consultancy organisation as well as the author's role as Chairperson of East Midlands Housing Care and Support, which is a regional housing association.Findings Collaboration between housing, health and social care is making slow progress at the national level in England. This is despite an ever-increasing evidence base highlighting that good housing can help to address issues, such as delayed discharges. Nevertheless, there are an increasing number of interesting examples of successful local initiatives on housing, health and adult social care. The way forward is to facilitate joint working at a local level.Originality/value Focusses on the success of examples of local joint working between housing, health and social care to achieve better outcomes for vulnerable people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Changes in demographics and disease patterns are challenging health and care systems across the world. In England, national policies have reset the direction of travel for the NHS. Collaboration, integration and personalisation are intended to become prime principles and drivers for new models of care. Central to this is the concept of population health management. This has emerged, internationally, as a method to improve population health. Fundamental for population health management to succeed is the use of integrated data, analytics combined with professional insight and the adoption of a learning health system culture. This agenda reaches beyond the NHS in England and the public health profession to embrace a broad range of stakeholders. By drawing on international experience and early experience of implementation in the United Kingdom, the potential for health and care systems in England to become world leading in population health management is explored. Design/methodology/approach: A viewpoint paper. Findings: Population health management is a major change in the way health and care systems look at the challenges they are facing. It makes what is happening to individuals, across the continuum of care, the essence for insight and action. The NHS has the components for success and the potential to become world leading in delivery of population health management as part of its integrated care agenda. Originality/value: This is the first viewpoint paper to set out how population health management contributes to the integrated care agenda in the NHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal for Quality in Health Care is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An endemic challenge facing healthcare systems around the world is how to spread innovation more widely and sustainably. A common response to this challenge involves conducting pilot implementation studies to generate evidence of the innovation's benefits. However, despite the key role that such studies play in the local adoption of innovation, their contribution to the wider spread and sustainability of innovation is relatively under-researched and under-theorized. In this paper we examine this contribution through an empirical examination of the experiences of an innovation intermediary organization in the English NHS (National Health Service). We find that their work in mobilizing pilot-based evidence involves three main strands; configuring to context; transitioning evidence; and managing the transition. Through this analysis we contribute to theory by showing how the agency afforded by intermediary roles can support the effective transitioning of pilot-based evidence across different phases in the innovation journey, and across different occupational groups, and can thus help to create a positive feedback loop from localized early implementers of an innovation to later more widespread adoption and sustainability. Based on these findings, we develop insights on the reasons for the unnecessary repetition of pilots – so-called 'pilotitis'- and offer policy recommendations on how to enhance the role of pilots in the wider spread and sustainability of innovation. • Innovation intermediaries mobilize evidence from pilot studies to spread innovation. • Pilot-based evidence can link early adoption to wider spread and sustainability. • Mobilizing involves co-creating multiple forms of evidence with different groups. • Intermediary roles allow transitioning of pilot-based evidence into wider adoption. • Pilotitis involves a failure to transition evidence along the innovation journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care. Method We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in- difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment. Results We found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month). Conclusions Our analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy driven change is challenging, with a significant gap between theory and practice. A key tension in enacting such change is achieving a balance between bottom-up development of local, context-specific approaches, and top-down, centrally determined policy solutions and their mutual sequencing. Ideal type models of the policy-making process envisage a rational ordered approach, driven by evidence and accompanied by ongoing evaluation of outcomes (Parsons, 1995, p77); however, the reality is far more complex. We examine the implementation and early operation of the New Care Models (NCM) Vanguard programme in England, using Matland's (1995) ambiguity-conflict model, to explore the aims and expectations of the programme. We consider the relationship between top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy development and draw attention to the pressures coming from what was initially perceived as a permissive policy approach of encouraging experimentation, whilst also requiring rapid learning, scale and spread. We suggest that future programmes for large-scale policy implementation initiatives could be crafted differently to take account of the environment of implementation and render ambitions more realistic. Rather than aiming to create a set of definite products and templates, it may be that a set of principles for design and implementation should be developed and spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emeritus Professor Alan Glasper, from the University of Southampton, discusses a recent report showing how trusts rated as outstanding by the regulator have embedded a culture of change that involves all staff [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]