Investors in People : research on the New Choices approach

"Investors in People (IIP) is a business development tool that was first launched in 1991. The IIP Standard enables organisations to assess how they are managing people, and where improvements can be made. There are 39 evidence requirements which must be met for an organisation to be recognised as meeting the IIP Standard. The New Choices approach to IIP was introduced in May 2009 to provide greater flexibility and customisation of IIP to an employer’s priorities and goals. It also allows progress beyond the IIP Standard and incorporates additional recognition in the form of Bronze, Silver and Gold award levels (for which organisations must provide evidence that they meet at least 65, 115 or 165 evidence requirements respectively). In April 2010, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills took over strategic ownership of IIP and was keen to understand the differences made by New Choices. The overall aim of this research is to identify the impact that the New Choices approach has had on perceptions and take up of IIP, with a view to informing future strategy for IIP and contributing to meeting longer-term objectives for IIP. The project methodology included: preliminary research (familiarisation with the IIP literature review, a review of management information, and discussions with key stakeholders); an e-survey of employers engaged with the New Choices approach; and 15 employer case studies to add depth to the understanding of how New Choices was working in practice. The New Choices approach was introduced across the UK in May 2009 (after being piloted in Scotland and some parts of England), so at the time of writing has been operational for less than two years. This is a relatively short period of time in which to judge the impact of the New Choices approach, as further benefits are likely to accrue over the long term. As such, this review has not identified significant direct benefits experienced by employers who have followed the extended framework and achieved a Bronze, Silver or Gold award level, though it has identified some changes that may contribute to increased business efficiency" - page i

Promoting independence, health and well-being for older people: : a feasibility study of computer-aided health and social risk appraisal system in primary care

© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Walters et al, BMC Family Practice (2017), 18:47, DOI: 10.1186/s12875-017-0620-6Abstract Background: With population ageing, research is needed into new low-cost, scalable methods of effective promotion of health and wellbeing for older people. We aimed to assess feasibility, reach and costs of implementing a new tailored computer-aided health and social risk appraisal system in primary care. Methods: Design: Feasibility study. Setting: Five General Practices in London (Ealing) and Hertfordshire, United Kingdom (UK) Participants: Random sample of patients aged 65+years. Intervention: The Multi-dimensional Risk Appraisal for Older people (MRA-O) system includes: 1) Postal questionnaire including health, lifestyle, social and environmental domains; 2) Software system generating a personalised feedback report with advice on health and wellbeing; 3) Follow-up of people with new concerning or complex needs by GPs or practice nurses. Evaluation: Feasibility of implementation; participant wellbeing, functional ability and quality of life; social needs, health risks, potential lifestyle changes; and costs of implementation. Results: Response rates to initial postal invitations were low (526/1550, 34%). Of these, 454/526 (86%) completed MRA-O assessments. Compared to local UK Census data on older people, participants were younger, more were owner-occupiers and fewer were from ethnic minority groups than expected. A range of problems was identified by participants, including pain in last week (269/438, 61.4%), low physical activity (173/453, 38.2%), sedentary lifestyle (174/447, 38.3%), falls (117/439, 26.7%), incontinence (111/441 25.2%), impaired vision 116/451 (25.7%), impaired hearing (145/431, 33.6%), depressed mood (71/451, 15.7%), impaired memory (44/444 9.9%), social isolation (46/449, 10.2%) and loneliness (31/442, 7.0%). Self-rated health was good/excellent in 312/437 (71.4%), and quality of life and well-being were slightly above age-specific population norms. Implementation costs were low. Practices reviewed medical records of 143/454 (31.5%) of participants as a consequence of their responses, and actively followed up 110/454 (24.2%) of their patients. Conclusions: A computer-aided risk appraisal system was feasible for General Practices to implement, yields useful information about health and social problems, and identifies individual needs. Participation rates were however low, particularly for the oldest old, the poorest, and ethnic minority groups, and this type of intervention may increase inequalities in access. Widespread implementation of this approach would require work to address potential inequalities.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio