Search

Background Social prescribing link workers have become part of primary health care in recent years. They help patients to recognise non-medical factors affecting their health and identify sources of support, often in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. They form part of wider work to strengthen person-centred care, which actively seeks to engage individuals in decision-making about their health, taking into account their medical, social, psychological, financial and spiritual circumstances. Objective To understand how buy-in to social prescribing and the link worker role is established for a patient, and how this relates to person-centred care. Design A realist evaluation. Setting Patients engaging with link workers in seven different parts of England were involved. Methods As part of data collection, we observed link workers interacting with 35 patients. We also interviewed 61 patients and re-interviewed 41 of them 9–12 months later. Data were coded and developed into context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which were used to produce a programme theory. Results Data highlighted how patients might be uncertain about the link worker role but agree to a referral as they sought assistance with their non-medical issues. Patients talked about experiencing a sense of hope through the trust they developed in a link worker. This trust was established through the communication skills and knowledge demonstrated by a link worker, and by their ability to act as an anchor point when required – a reliable, consistent source of support to whom patients could offload. The link worker role also involved connecting patients to external support, which called for sensitivity around how ready someone was to move forward; this was shaped by a patient’s motivation but also their capacity to make changes given other demands in their life. Connecting patients to external support could be affected by structural factors outside the link workers’ control (e.g. housing options or employment opportunities). Limitations We did not interview patients who had rejected the offer of social prescribing, and most had a positive view of meeting with a link worker. Conclusions Person-centred care is engendered by link workers through their skills, knowledge and ability to respond to the individual readiness of patients to engage with external support. It can be curtailed by structural factors outside link workers’ sphere of control, such as access to housing or caring responsibilities of patients. This can hinder patients’ ability to ‘connect to’, leaving link workers to continue ‘connecting with’ patients as they act as an anchor point. Future work Exploration is required of factors affecting patients who interact with a link worker but do not access external support. Longitudinal work with a cohort of patients, speaking to them on a regular basis, may provide further understanding in this respect. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR130247. Plain language summary People’s health and well-being can be affected by non-medical issues (e.g. loneliness, money worries, housing problems). Social prescribing helps people with these issues by connecting them to support, often in the voluntary-community sector. Link workers are key to social prescribing. They listen to people talk about non-medical issues affecting how they feel physically and/or psychologically. They also connect people to external support – such as a befriending service, volunteering opportunities, organisations that give advice on money/housing, or other community groups. It is an important role, but we need to know more about how link workers work best, which our study set out to do. In our study, we collected data around seven link workers in different areas of England. As part of data collection, we interviewed 61 patients and re-interviewed 41 of them 9–12 months later. We also watched 35 patients meeting with a link worker. We found that patients were often unsure about what to expect when a doctor referred them to a link worker. However, they hoped this person could help them with their non-medical issues. When link workers were warm, non-judgmental and listened, patients were more likely to trust them. This trust was increased when link workers shared knowledge of and directed patients towards options in the community that could support their non-medical issues. Patients thought it was important for link workers to be a consistent source of support, who did not push them to do things they were not ready to try. Our research provides an insight into how link workers can provide a person-centred approach when supporting patients. This means that the needs, values and individual situation of patients take priority. It calls for an equal partnership to be created between a patient and link worker in deciding how to address the former’s non-medical issues.

Background Social prescribing addresses non-medical factors affecting health and well-being. Link workers are key to its delivery by connecting people to relevant support, often in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Funding from the National Health Service means that link workers are becoming a common part of primary care in England. Objective To explore and understand the implementation of link workers in primary care in England. Design A realist evaluation addressed the question – When implementing link workers in primary care to sustain outcomes – what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances? Setting Link workers and staff associated with seven primary care sites across England. Methods Researchers spent 3 weeks with each link worker, going to meetings with them, watching them interact with patients, with healthcare staff and with voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. In addition, interviews were conducted with 61 patients and 93 professionals (voluntary, community and social enterprise representatives and healthcare staff, including link workers). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 41 patients and with link workers 9–12 months later. Data were coded and developed into statements to identify how context around the link worker triggers mechanisms that lead to intended and unintended outcomes. Results We found that link workers exercise micro-discretions in their role – actions and advice-giving based on personal judgement of a situation, which may not always reflect explicit guidance or protocols. Our analysis highlighted that micro-discretions engender positive connections (with patients, healthcare staff, the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector) and promote buy-in to the link worker role in primary care. Micro-discretions supported delivery of person-centred care and enhanced job satisfaction. Data also highlighted that lack of boundaries could place link workers at risk of overstepping their remit. Limitations Our research focused on link workers attached to primary care; findings may not be applicable to those working in other settings. Data were collected around seven link worker cases, who were selected purposively for variation in terms of geographical spread and how/by whom link workers were employed. However, these link workers were predominately white females. Conclusions Enabling link workers to exercise micro-discretions allows for responsiveness to individual patient needs but can result in uncertainty and to link workers feeling overstretched. Future work Poor link worker retention may, in part, be associated with a lack of clarity around their role. Research to explore how this shapes intention to leave their job is being conducted by authors of this paper. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR130247. Plain language summary Problems in life affecting people’s health and well-being cannot always be fixed with medication. For example, loneliness can lower people’s mood, or worries about money can cause them to feel anxious. Social prescribing link workers are employed to support individuals with these ‘non-medical’ issues. They listen to people to find out about them and their circumstances. They may connect them to community groups, organisations or services, or help them get advice about things like benefits or housing. Our study explored how link workers are being implemented in primary care in England. We studied seven link workers based in different parts of England. We spent 3 weeks with each link worker, observing them at their workplace. We also interviewed these link workers and people they worked with; this included 61 patients, 61 primary care staff, 5 other link workers and 20 individuals from the voluntary or community sector. We found big differences in what link workers did in their roles; in how long they saw patients for and how often, how many patients they were supporting at one time, their professional and personal backgrounds, whether they worked in a practice alone or were part of a bigger team of people delivering social prescribing. Link workers had varying levels of flexibility (or discretion) in their jobs; this allowed them to support patients’ individual needs. Such flexibility gave them job satisfaction as they were able to use their judgement about how to work with patients to provide person-centred support. However, if this went too far – and link workers had too few boundaries and not enough guidance – they ended up feeling overwhelmed by their job.

In resource-stretched emergency departments, people accompanying patients play key roles in patients’ care. This article presents analysis of the ways health professionals and accompanying persons talked about admission decisions and caring roles. The authors used an ethnographic case study design involving participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 13 patients, 17 accompanying persons and 26 health care professionals in four National Health Service hospitals in south-west England. Focused analysis of interactional data revealed that professionals’ standardization of the patient–carer relationship contrasted with accompanying persons’ varied connections with patients. Accompanying persons could directly or obliquely express willingness, ambivalence and resistance to supporting patients’ care. The drive to avoid admissions can lead health professionals to deploy conversational skills to enlist accompanying persons for discharge care without exploring the meanings of their particular relationship with the patients. Taking a relationship-centered approach could improve the attention to accompanying persons as co-producers of health care and participants in decision-making.

Abstract Background Fragmented care results in poor outcomes for individuals with complexity of need. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is perceived to be a potential solution, but an absence of accessible evidence and the lack of a scalable ‘blue print’ mean that services are ‘experimenting’ with new models of care with little guidance and support. This paper presents an approach to the implementation of P3C using collaborative action, providing examples of early developments across this programme of work, the core aim of which is to accelerate the spread and adoption of P3C in United Kingdom primary care settings. Methods Two centrally funded United Kingdom organisations (South West Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and South West Academic Health Science Network) are leading this initiative to narrow the gap between research and practice in this urgent area of improvement through a programme of service change, evaluation and research. Multi-stakeholder engagement and co-design are core to the approach. A whole system measurement framework combines outcomes of importance to patients, practitioners and health organisations. Iterative and multi-level feedback helps to shape service change while collecting practice-based data to generate implementation knowledge for the delivery of P3C. The role of the research team is proving vital to support informed change and challenge organisational practice. The bidirectional flow of knowledge and evidence relies on the transitional positioning of researchers and research organisations. Results Extensive engagement and embedded researchers have led to strong collaborations across the region. Practice is beginning to show signs of change and data flow and exchange is taking place. However, working in this way is not without its challenges; progress has been slow in the development of a linked data set to allow us to assess impact innovations from a cost perspective. Trust is vital, takes time to establish and is dependent on the exchange of services and interactions. If collaborative action can foster P3C it will require sustained commitment from both research and practice. This approach is a radical departure from how policy, research and practice traditionally work, but one that we argue is now necessary to deal with the most complex health and social problems.

Background: Hospital emergency admissions have risen annually, exacerbating pressures on emergency departments (EDs) and acute medical units. These pressures have an adverse impact on patient experience and potentially lead to suboptimal clinical decision-making. In response, a variety of innovations have been developed, but whether or not these reduce inappropriate admissions or improve patient and clinician experience is largely unknown. Aims: To investigate the interplay of service factors influencing decision-making about emergency admissions, and to understand how the medical assessment process is experienced by patients, carers and practitioners. Methods: The project used a multiple case study design for a mixed-methods analysis of decision-making about admissions in four acute hospitals. The primary research comprised two parts: value stream mapping to measure time spent by practitioners on key activities in 108 patient pathways, including an embedded study of cost; and an ethnographic study incorporating data from 65 patients, 30 carers and 282 practitioners of different specialties and levels. Additional data were collected through a clinical panel, learning sets, stakeholder workshops, reading groups and review of site data and documentation. We used a realist synthesis approach to integrate findings from all sources. Findings: Patients’ experiences of emergency care were positive and they often did not raise concerns, whereas carers were more vocal. Staff’s focus on patient flow sometimes limited time for basic care, optimal communication and shared decision-making. Practitioners admitted or discharged few patients during the first hour, but decision-making increased rapidly towards the 4-hour target. Overall, patients’ journey times were similar, although waiting before being seen, for tests or after admission decisions, varied considerably. The meaning of what constituted an ‘admission’ varied across sites and sometimes within a site. Medical and social complexity, targets and ‘bed pressure’, patient safety and risk, each influenced admission/discharge decision-making. Each site responded to these pressures with different initiatives designed to expedite appropriate decision-making. New ways of using hospital ‘space’ were identified. Clinical decision units and observation wards allow potentially dischargeable patients with medical and/or social complexity to be ‘off the clock’, allowing time for tests, observation or safe discharge. New teams supported admission avoidance: an acute general practitioner service filtered patients prior to arrival; discharge teams linked with community services; specialist teams for the elderly facilitated outpatient treatment. Senior doctors had a range of roles: evaluating complex patients, advising and training juniors, and overseeing ED activity. Conclusions: This research shows how hospitals under pressure manage complexity, safety and risk in emergency care by developing ‘ground-up’ initiatives that facilitate timely, appropriate and safe decision-making, and alternative care pathways for lower-risk, ambulatory patients. New teams and ‘off the clock’ spaces contribute to safely reducing avoidable admissions; frontline expertise brings value not only by placing senior experienced practitioners at the front door of EDs, but also by using seniors in advisory roles. Although the principal limitation of this research is its observational design, so that causation cannot be inferred, its strength is hypothesis generation. Further research should test whether or not the service and care innovations identified here can improve patient experience of acute care and safely reduce avoidable admissions. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (project number 10/1010/06). This research was supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.