Developing a framework for gathering and using service user experiences to improve integrated health and social care: the SUFFICE framework.

BACKGROUND: More people than ever receive care and support from health and social care services. Initiatives to integrate the work of health and social care staff have increased rapidly across the UK but relatively little has been done to chart and improve their impact on service users. Our aim was to develop a framework for gathering and using service user feedback to improve integrated health and social care in one locality in the North of England. METHODS: We used published literature and interviews with health and social care managers to determine the expected service user experiences of local community-based integrated teams and the ways in which team members were expected to work together. We used the results to devise qualitative data collection and analysis tools for gathering and analyzing service user feedback. We used developmental evaluation and service improvement methodologies to devise a procedure for developing service improvement plans. FINDINGS: We identified six expected service user experiences of integrated care and 15 activities that health and social care teams were expected to undertake. We used these to develop logic models and tools for collecting and analysing service user experiences. These include a narrative interview schedule, a plan for analyzing data, and a method for synthesizing the results into a composite 'story'. We devised a structured service improvement procedure which involves teams of health and social care staff listening to a composite service user story, identifying how their actions as a team may have contributed to the story and developing a service improvement plan. CONCLUSIONS: This framework aims to put service user experiences at the heart of efforts to improve integration. It has been developed in collaboration with National Health Service (NHS) and Social Care managers. We expect it to be useful for evaluating and improving integrated care initiatives elsewhere.

Why do patients develop severe pressure ulcers? A retrospective case study.

OBJECTIVES: This study focuses on the ways in which the organisational context can influence the development of severe pressure ulcers. Severe pressure ulcers are important indicators of failures in the organisation and delivery of treatment and care. We have a good understanding of patients' risk factors, but a poor understanding of the role played by the organisational context in their development. SETTING: The study was undertaken in six sites in Yorkshire, England. The settings were sampled in order to maximise diversity, and included patients' own homes, acute hospital medical and surgical wards, a community hospital and a nursing home during a period of respite care. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected about eight individuals who developed severe pressure ulcers, using a retrospective case study design. The data sources included interviews with individuals with severe pressure ulcers, and with staff who had treated and cared for them, and clinical notes. RESULTS: 4 accounts indicated that specific actions by clinicians contributed to the development of severe pressure ulcers. Seven of the 8 accounts indicated that they developed in organisational contexts where (1) clinicians failed to listen and respond to the patients' or carers' observations about their risks or the quality of their treatment and care, (2) clinicians failed to recognise and respond to clear signs that a patient had a pressure ulcer or was at risk of developing one and (3) services were not effectively coordinated. CONCLUSIONS: Patient accounts could only be partially explained in terms of specific events or sequences of events. The findings support the conclusion that there was general acceptance of suboptimal clinical practices in 7 of the 8 contexts where patients developed severe pressure ulcers.

A comparison of offenders with intellectual disability across three levels of security.

BACKGROUND: A number of authors have described, with disparate results, the prevalence of people with intellectual disability and their characteristics, in a range of offender cohorts defined by service use. These have included high security, a range of criminal justice services and community services. There is a need for research comparing cohorts of offenders with intellectual disabilities across different settings. AIM AND HYPOTHESIS: To conduct such a comparison and test the hypothesis that severity of characteristics measured will be highest in highest levels of residential security. METHOD: A clinical-record-based comparison a offenders with intellectual disability in high security (n = 73), medium/low security (n = 70), and a community service (n = 69). RESULTS: Groups were similar in age and tested IQ levels. Early psychiatric service contact had been more likely in the lower security groups. In line with the hypothesis, more complex presentations, in particular comorbid personality disorder, was more likely in the highest security group. Both fatal and non-fatal interpersonal violence convictions were significantly related to group, with more in the high security group sustaining a conviction both at the index offence and prior to that. Over 50% of all groups had at least one conviction for a sexual offence. A regression model accounting for 78% of the variance was made up largely of disposal variables (Mental Health Act status and probation) and indications of antisocial traits (criminal damage, lifetime conviction for murder and ICD-10 personality disorder classification). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The authors show that context of sampling affects most relationships between intellectual disability (ID) and offending when the methods for measuring ID are held constant. The results also present several questions on the relationship between risk, services available in an area and referral to higher security.

Quality and costs of community-based residential supports for people with mental retardation and challenging behavior.

A longitudinal matched-groups design was used to examine the quality and costs of community-based residential supports to people with mental retardation and challenging behavior. Two forms of provision were investigated: noncongregate settings, where the minority of residents had challenging behavior, and congregate settings, where the majority of residents had challenging behavior. Data were collected for 25 people in each setting. We collected information through interviewing service personnel in each type of setting on the costs of service provision, the nature of support provided, and the quality of life of residents. We also conducted observations in each setting. Results suggest that noncongregate residential supports may be more cost effective than congregate residential supports.