ABSTRACT
BackgroundLocal Healthwatch organisations are an important part of the landscape of health and care commissioning and provision in England. In addition, local Healthwatch organisations are a key means by which users of services are given voice to influence decisions about health and care commissioning and provision.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore and enhance the operation and impact of local Healthwatch in ensuring effective patient and public voice in the commissioning and provision of NHS services.DesignWe used mixed methods, including a national survey (96/150 responses, 68%);actor network theory-inspired ethnographic data collection in five local Healthwatch organisations (made up of 75 days' fieldwork, 84 semistructured interviews, 114 virtual interviews, observations during the COVID-19 pandemic and documentary analysis) and serial interviews about experiences during the pandemic with 11 Healthwatch staff and four volunteers who were members of a Healthwatch Involvement Panel (which also guided data collection and analysis). Finally, we ran five joint interpretive forums to help make sense of our data.SettingOur five Healthwatch case study organisations are of varying size and organisational form and are located in different parts of England.ResultsWe found significant variation in the organisation and work of Healthwatch organisations nationally, including hosting arrangements, scale of operations, complexity of relationships with health and care bodies, and sources of income beyond core funding. Key points of divergence that were consequential for Healthwatch activities included the degree of autonomy from host organisations and local understandings of accountability to various constituencies. These points of divergence gave rise to very different modes of operation and different priorities for enacting the nationally prescribed responsibilities of Healthwatch organisations locally. Large variations in funding levels created Healthwatch organisations that diverged not just in scale but in focus. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, Healthwatch found new approaches to giving voice to the views of the public and formed effective relationships with other agencies.RecommendationsWe identified generalisable principles of good practice regarding the collection and communication of evidence. Policy implications relate to (1) the overall funding regime for Healthwatch and potential inequalities in what is available to local populations and (2) the development of Healthwatch's role given the evolution of local health and care systems since 2012.Future workFuture studies should explore (1) the consequences of the development of integrated care systems for local Healthwatch organisations, (2) Healthwatch in an international comparative perspective, (3) how the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has reconfigured the voluntary sector locally and (4) how Healthwatch responds formally and informally to a newly emerging focus on public health and health inequalities.LimitationsThe survey sought only self-reported information on impact and we were unable to recruit a Healthwatch that hosted several contracts.ConclusionsThe diversity of the Healthwatch network belies its otherwise unitary appearance. This diversity – especially in differential funding arrangements – has considerable implications for equity of access to influencing health and care planning and provision for residents across England.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
ABSTRACT
Older people living in care homes are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality if they contract COVID-19 or other infectious diseases. Measures used to protect residents include social distancing and isolation, although implementation is challenging. This review aimed to assess the social distancing and isolation strategies used by care homes to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. Seven electronic databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Social Care Online, and Web of Science Core Collection. Grey literature was searched using MedRxiv, PDQ-Evidence, NICE Evidence Search, LTCCovid19.org and TRIP. Extracted data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and tabulation. 103 papers were included (10 empirical studies, seven literature reviews, and 86 policy documents). Strategies used to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases included social distancing and isolation of residents and staff, zoning and cohorting of residents, restriction of resident movement/activities, restriction of visitors and restriction of staff working patterns. This review demonstrates a lack of empirical evidence and the limited nature of policy documentation around social distancing and isolation measures in care homes. Evaluative research on these interventions is needed urgently, focusing on the well-being of all residents, particularly those with hearing, vision or cognitive impairments.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Physical Distancing , Social SupportABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Older people living in residential and nursing care homes often have complex needs and are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality, especially if they contract COVID-19. Care homes use infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing and isolating residents to protect them from COVID-19. The care home sector has stated that implementing social distancing and isolation when caring for residents is a significant challenge. This paper presents the protocol of a mixed-methods study to explore and understand the real-life experiences of implementing social distancing and isolation of residents in care homes for older people from the perspective of residents, families/friends and staff working in and with care homes. The study aims to develop a toolkit of resources for health and care delivery now and for future outbreaks of infectious diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is a rapid review of evidence to collate knowledge on the mechanisms and measures used by care homes and long-term facilities to socially distance and isolate older people or control the spread of other infectious and contagious diseases. The review results will contribute to participant interviews in phase 2 and toolkit development in phase 3. Phase 2 will involve case studies with six care homes in England, involving the conduct of individual interviews with residents, families and friends, and staff, collection of care home policies and protocols related to social distancing and isolation for residents, and routinely collected care home data. A focus group with a purposive sample of external key informants will also be conducted. Phase 3, synthesising findings from phases 1 and 2, will inform the codesign of a toolkit of resources for residents, families/friends and care homes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (20/WM/0318). To maximise impact, we will work closely with the Study Committees and the Patient and Public Involvement group to ensure the findings reach key stakeholders, including residents, families/friends, care homes, commissioners and organisations representing care home providers. We will disseminate the study outputs in peer-reviewed and professional journals, at professional conferences and via other knowledge transfer activities with the care home sector, and resident and carer organisations. The toolkit comprising evidence-informed guidance and resources and a mosaic film will be hosted on a project webpage. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Project reference NIHR132541). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226734.