Search

Background: Innovation for reforming health and social care is high on the policy agenda in the United Kingdom in response to the growing needs of an ageing population. However, information about new innovations of care being implemented is sparse., Methods: We mapped innovations for people in later life in two regions, North East England and South East Scotland. Data collection included discussions with stakeholders (n = 51), semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and website searches that focused on technology, evaluation and health inequalities. We analysed qualitative data using framework and thematic analyses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively., Results: One hundred eleven innovations were identified across the two regions. Interviewees reported a wide range of technologies that had been rapidly introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and many remained in use. Digital exclusion of certain groups of older people was an ongoing concern. Innovations fell into two groups; system-level ones that aimed to alleviate systems pressures such as preventing hospital (re)admissions, and patient-level ones which sought to enhance health and wellbeing directly. Interviewees were aware of the importance of health inequalities but lacked data to monitor the impact of innovations on these, and evaluation was challenging due to lack of time, training, and support. Quantitative findings revealed that two thirds of innovations (n = 74, 67%) primarily focused on the system level, whilst a third (n = 37, 33%) primarily focused on the patient-level. Overall, over half (n = 65, 59%) of innovations involved technologies although relatively few (n = 12, 11%) utilised advanced technologies. Very few (n = 16, 14%) focused on reducing health inequalities, and only a minority of innovations (n = 43, 39%) had undergone evaluation (most of which were conducted by the service providers themselves)., Conclusions: We found a wide range of innovative care services being developed for people in later life, yet alignment with key policy priorities, such as addressing health inequalities, was limited. There was a strong focus on technology, with little consideration for the potential to widen the health inequality gap. The absence of robust evaluation was also a concern as most innovations were implemented without support to monitor effectiveness and/or without plans for sustainability and spread., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Responsibility for health and social care was devolved to Scotland in 1999 with evidence of diverging policy and organisation of care compared to England. This paper provides a comparative overview of major health and social care policies in England and Scotland published between 2011 and 2023 relating to the care of older people., Methods: We searched United Kingdom (UK) and Scotland government websites for macro-level policy documents between 2011 and 2023 relating to the health and social care of older people (aged 65+). Data were extracted and emergent themes were summarised according to Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model., Results: We reviewed 27 policies in England and 28 in Scotland. Four main policy themes emerged that were common to both countries. Two related to the structure of care: integration of care and adult social care reform. Two related to service delivery/processes of care: prevention and supported self-management and improving mental health care. Cross-cutting themes included person-centred care, addressing health inequalities, promoting use of technology, and improving outcomes., Conclusion: Despite differences in the structure of care, including more competition, financial incentivization, and consumer-based care in England compared to Scotland, there are similarities in policy vision around delivery/processes of care (e.g. person-centred care) and performance and patient outcomes. Lack of UK-wide health and social care datasets hinders evaluation of policies and comparison of outcomes between both countries., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)