Choice in the context of informal care-giving

Extending choice and control for social care service users is a central feature of current English policies. However, these have comparatively little to say about choice in relation to the informal carers of relatives, friends or older people who are disabled or sick. To explore the realities of choice as experienced by carers, the present paper reviews research published in English since 1985 about three situations in which carers are likely to face choices: receiving social services; the entry of an older person to long-term care; and combining paid work and care. Thirteen electronic databases were searched, covering both the health and social care fields. Databases included: ASSIA; IBSS; Social Care Online; ISI Web of Knowledge; Medline; HMIC Sociological Abstracts; INGENTA; ZETOC; and the National Research Register. The search strategy combined terms that: (1) identified individuals with care-giving responsibilities; (2) identified people receiving help and support; and (3) described the process of interest (e.g. choice, decision-making and self-determination). The search identified comparatively few relevant studies, and so was supplemented by the findings from another recent review of empirical research on carers' choices about combining work and care. The research evidence suggests that carers' choices are shaped by two sets of factors: one relates to the nature of the care-giving relationship; and the second consists of wider organisational factors. A number of reasons may explain the invisibility of choice for carers in current policy proposals for increasing choice. In particular, it is suggested that underpinning conceptual models of the relationship between carers and formal service providers shape the extent to which carers can be offered choice and control on similar terms to service users. In particular, the exercise of choice by carers is likely to be highly problematic if it involves relinquishing some unpaid care-giving activities

The social value of a QALY : raising the bar or barring the raise?

Background: Since the inception of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England, there have been questions about the empirical basis for the cost-per-QALY threshold used by NICE and whether QALYs gained by different beneficiaries of health care should be weighted equally. The Social Value of a QALY (SVQ) project, reported in this paper, was commissioned to address these two questions. The results of SVQ were released during a time of considerable debate about the NICE threshold, and authors with differing perspectives have drawn on the SVQ results to support their cases. As these discussions continue, and given the selective use of results by those involved, it is important, therefore, not only to present a summary overview of SVQ, but also for those who conducted the research to contribute to the debate as to its implications for NICE. Discussion: The issue of the threshold was addressed in two ways: first, by combining, via a set of models, the current UK Value of a Prevented Fatality (used in transport policy) with data on fatality age, life expectancy and age-related quality of life; and, second, via a survey designed to test the feasibility of combining respondents’ answers to willingness to pay and health state utility questions to arrive at values of a QALY. Modelling resulted in values of £10,000-£70,000 per QALY. Via survey research, most methods of aggregating the data resulted in values of a QALY of £18,000-£40,000, although others resulted in implausibly high values. An additional survey, addressing the issue of weighting QALYs, used two methods, one indicating that QALYs should not be weighted and the other that greater weight could be given to QALYs gained by some groups. Summary: Although we conducted only a feasibility study and a modelling exercise, neither present compelling evidence for moving the NICE threshold up or down. Some preliminary evidence would indicate it could be moved up for some types of QALY and down for others. While many members of the public appear to be open to the possibility of using somewhat different QALY weights for different groups of beneficiaries, we do not yet have any secure evidence base for introducing such a system

Suicide amongst psychiatric in-patients who abscond from the ward: a national clinical survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Suicide prevention by mental health services requires an awareness of the antecedents of suicide amongst high risk groups such as psychiatric in-patients. The goal of this study was to describe the social and clinical characteristics of people who had absconded from an in-patient psychiatric ward prior to suicide, including aspects of the clinical care they received.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We carried out a national clinical survey based on a 10-year (1997-2006) sample of people in England and Wales who had died by suicide. Detailed data were collected on those who had been in contact with mental health services in the year before death.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 1,851 cases of suicide by current psychiatric in-patients, 14% of all patient suicides. 1,292 (70%) occurred off the ward. Four hundred and sixty-nine of these patients died after absconding from the ward, representing 25% of all in-patient suicides and 38% of those that occurred off the ward. Absconding suicides were characterised by being young, unemployed and homeless compared to those who were off the ward with staff agreement. Schizophrenia was the most common diagnosis, and rates of previous violence and substance misuse were high. Absconders were proportionally more likely than in-patients on agreed leave to have been legally detained for treatment, non-compliant with medication, and to have died in the first week of admission. Whilst absconding patients were significantly more likely to have been under a high level of observation, clinicians reported more problems in observation due to either the ward design or other patients on the ward.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Measures that may prevent absconding and subsequent suicide amongst in-patients might include tighter control of ward exits, and more intensive observation of patients, particularly in the early days of admission. Improving the ward environment to provide a supportive and less intimidating experience may contribute to reduced risk.</p

Is group cognitive behaviour therapy for postnatal depression evidence-based practice? A systematic review

Background: There is evidence that psychological therapies including cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) may be effective in reducing postnatal depression (PND) when offered to individuals. In clinical practice, this is also implemented in a group therapy format, which, although not recommended in guidelines, is seen as a cost-effective alternative. To consider the extent to which group methods can be seen as evidence-based, we systematically review and synthesise the evidence for the efficacy of group CBT compared to currently used packages of care for women with PND, and we discuss further factors which may contribute to clinician confidence in implementing an intervention. Methods: Seventeen electronic databases were searched. All full papers were read by two reviewers and a third reviewer was consulted in the event of a disagreement on inclusion. Selected studies were quality assessed, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, were data extracted by two reviewers using a standardised data extraction form and statistically synthesised where appropriate using the fixed-effect inverse-variance method. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed group CBT to be effective in reducing depression compared to routine primary care, usual care or waiting list groups. A pooled effect size of d = 0.57 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.80, p < 0.001) was observed at 10–13 weeks post-randomisation, reducing to d = 0.28 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.53, p = 0.025) at 6 months. The non-randomised comparisons against waiting list controls at 10–13 weeks was associated with a larger effect size of d = 0.94 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.47, p < 0.001). However due to the limitations of the available data, such as ill-specified definitions of the CBT component of the group programmes, these results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Although the evidence available is limited, group CBT was shown to be effective. We argue, therefore, that there is sufficient evidence to implement group CBT, conditional upon routinely collected outcomes being benchmarked against those obtained in trials of individual CBT, and with other important factors such as patient preference, clinical experience, and information from the local context taken into account when making the treatment decision

Social work students as community partners in a family intervention programme

Summary: This paper describes the findings from the evaluation of a UK initiative which engaged social work students as community partners within an educational based family intervention programme. Fourteen social work students in the first year of a BA (Hons) were placed in the programme to meet the volunteering requirements of their 'Community Project'. By engaging with the community-based family programme at an early stage in their education, students experienced the benefits of interventions, focussing on sustainability, citizenship and parent participation. We describe the approach and discuss the evaluation outcomes to illustrate the potential of utilising co-learning with families in social work education. In taking up the role of community partners, students observed first-hand the value of incorporating horizontal relationships into their learning and experienced direct knowledge exchange with service users at an early stage in their training. Findings: The findings suggest that this experience enabled students to connect with conceptualisations of macro alongside micro practice in their professional development as social workers. Further, connecting critical social theories with the direct experience of families promoted the learners own empowerment and conscientization. Application: This provided a means of embedding social work values and aspirations towards social justice in their future practice orientation

How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature

Background: Communities of Practice (CoPs) are promoted in the healthcare sector as a means of generating and sharing knowledge and improving organisational performance. However CoPs vary considerably in the way they are structured and operate in the sector. If CoPs are to be cultivated to benefit healthcare organisations, there is a need to examine and understand their application to date. To this end, a systematic review of the literature on CoPs was conducted, to examine how and why CoPs have been established and whether they have been shown to improve healthcare practice. Methods. Peer-reviewed empirical research papers on CoPs in the healthcare sector were identified by searching electronic health-databases. Information on the purpose of establishing CoPs, their composition, methods by which members communicate and share information or knowledge, and research methods used to examine effectiveness was extracted and reviewed. Also examined was evidence of whether or not CoPs led to a change in healthcare practice. Results: Thirty-one primary research papers and two systematic reviews were identified and reviewed in detail. There was a trend from descriptive to evaluative research. The focus of CoPs in earlier publications was on learning and exchanging information and knowledge, whereas in more recently published research, CoPs were used more as a tool to improve clinical practice and to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practice. Means by which members communicated with each other varied, but in none of the primary research studies was the method of communication examined in terms of the CoP achieving its objectives. Researchers are increasing their efforts to assess the effectiveness of CoPs in healthcare, however the interventions have been complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to directly attribute the change to the CoP. Conclusions: In keeping with Wenger and colleagues' description, CoPs in the healthcare sector vary in form and purpose. While researchers are increasing their efforts to examine the impact of CoPs in healthcare, cultivating CoPs to improve healthcare performance requires a greater understanding of how to establish and support CoPs to maximise their potential to improve healthcare

Does Choose & Book fail to deliver the expected choice to patients? A survey of patients' experience of outpatient appointment booking

Provisional abstract: Background: Choose and Book is a central part of the UK Government patient choice agenda that seeks to provide patients with a choice over the time, date and place of their first outpatient appointment. This is done through the use of a computerised booking system. After a 2004 pilot study, Choose and Book was formally launched in January 2006. This is the first study of patient experience of Choose and Book since then. Methods: A questionnaire survey of reported experience of choice over the time, data and place of appointment, carried out in a National Health Service hospital in London. 104 patients at their first outpatient appointment completed the questionnaire, consisting of a consecutive series of patients referred through Choose and Book and a sample referred through the conventional booking system. Results: Among the Choose and Book patients, 66% (31/47; 95% CI 52 to 78%) reported not being given a choice of appointment date, 66% (31/47; 95% CI 52 to 78%) reported not being given a choice of appointment time, 86% (37/43; 95% CI 74 to 94%) reported being given a choice of fewer than four hospitals in total and 32% (15/47; 95% CI 20 to 46%) reported not being given any choice of hospital. Conclusions: In this study, patients did not experience the degree of choice that Choose and Book was designed to deliver

Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression - study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to "collaborative care" - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>ISRCTN32829227</p