Influencing policy in community care: the impact of care coordination and community care research on Personal Budgets and National Dementia Strategies in England. (ICS-02)
Submitting Institution
University of ManchesterUnit of Assessment
Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and PharmacySummary Impact Type
HealthResearch Subject Area(s)
Medical and Health Sciences: Nursing, Public Health and Health Services
Summary of the impact
The Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) at the University of
Manchester (UoM) has
run a programme of research examining community care of older people since
1996. The findings
have informed key government decision-making around two important national
policy initiatives
between 2008 and 2013: (1) the development and implementation of Personal
Budgets in Social
and Health Care and (2) National Strategies to improve Dementia Services.
This has affected the
national provision of social care for older people and other adult social
care users. In 2011-12,
there were over 1.2 million people in England receiving social care
affected by these policy
changes (over 800,000 aged 65+), with a cost of £6,600m spent on their
care (NHS and Social
Care Information Centre).
Underpinning research
See section 3 for references [1-6]; see section 5 for corroborating
sources (S1-S10); UoM
researchers are given in bold. In REF3a and REF5 this case study is
referred to as ICS-02.
Background to the research
Research by Challis's PSSRU staff (UoM, 1996-date) identified key
characteristics of case
management with devolved budgets as a mechanism to improve the quality and
effectiveness of
community care for frail older people, reduce nursing home admissions and
enhance quality of life
of older people and their carers (initial work Challis and Davies,
Case Management in Community
Care, 1986; followed by Challis et al., Care Management
and Health Care of Older People, 1995;
2002). Our work in 1980s shaped the White Paper Caring for People
(1989) (para 3.3.3) and the
subsequent NHS and Community Care Act (1990). We then worked with
the Department of Health
(DH) to prepare implementation practice guidance. Following national
implementation
(commencement 1993), the research team, by then based at UoM, were funded
by DH to evaluate
the process of implementation in England. The impact reported in this
case study relates to this
work undertaken since 1996 by PSSRU at UoM.
Underpinning research at UoM
Key researchers:
-
David Challis (Professor, 1996-date)
-
Karen Stewart (Honorary Research Fellow,1999-2000; Research
Fellow, 2001-2004;
Research Fellow, 2010-date)
-
Paul Clarkson (Research Associate/Fellow, 1998-date)
-
Jane Hughes (Lecturer, 1997-date)
-
Mark Wilberforce (Project Manager, 2008-date)
Our work explored the emerging arrangements for case management and
coordinated care
provision, and identified patterns of change from 1993 onwards. It showed
significant variation in
care management arrangements across England, with very little evidence of
the presence of
intensive care management, devolved budgets or integration of health and
social care at this level,
despite these being criteria determining outcomes in the previous research
[1-3]. Our findings were
fed directly to policy makers, appeared in DH Social Services Inspectorate
publications through the
period, were cited in Audit Commission reports (e.g. Coming of Age,
1997; Supporting Older
People, 2004),and were the subject of a full chapter in the report
of the Royal Commission on Long
Term Care (1999).
Subsequently, devolving budgets to the front line, closer to patients and
service users was taken
up more widely by others, initially in the learning disability field.
These ideas fed into the proposals
for individual budgets in the Social Care Green Paper of 2005 and the
White Paper Our Health Our
Care Our Say (2006). The UoM team, in collaboration with other
DH-funded social care
researchers, were requested by DH to evaluate a national pilot of
Individual Budgets, devolved to
the service user or patient. A randomised controlled trial examined the
outcomes of implementation
of individual budgets (a form of personal budget) in 13 pilot local
authorities along with a detailed
process and contextual study (IBSEN) [4]. The key findings identified
variations in benefit for
different user groups of the model of personal budget employed
(predominantly a direct payment),
as well as important facets of staff response and impact relevant to wider
implementation. Of major
relevance were poor outcomes for older people of the direct payment
approach. Our findings
recommended care manager held budgets as an alternative option for older
people [4].
Further work on case management and community care continued, and
included case
management for older people with dementia, based in a multidisciplinary
community mental health
team. This indicated enhanced community tenure of older people and
improved quality of life for
their carers [5, 6]. Building on this we undertook work to inform
Objective 6 of the National
Dementia Strategy (2009) (see S6 below) by collating and
synthesising existing evidence from
PSSRU studies alongside new empirical data to adjudge the relative merits
of different approaches
to the provision of home care for people with dementia. Summarised for
commissioners, it was
placed on the DH website for its Dementia Commissioning Pack.
References to the research
1. Challis DJ, Hughes J, Jacobs SR, Stewart KJ, Weiner K.
Are different forms of care-management
for older people in England associated with variations in case-mix,
service use
and care-managers' use of time? Ageing and Society.
2007;27(01):25-48.
DOI:10.1017/S0144686X06005320
2. Stewart KJ, Challis DJ, Carpenter G I, Dickinson E. Assessment
approaches for older people
receiving social care: content and coverage. International Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry. 1999;
14(2): 147-56. DOI:
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1166(199902)14:2<147::AID-GPS901>3.0.CO;2-8
3. Weiner K, Stewart KJ, Hughes J, Challis DJ, Darton R.
Care Management Arrangements for
Older People in England: key areas of variation in a national study. Ageing
and Society.
2002;22(4): 419-39. DOI: 10.1017/S0144686X02008711
4. Glendinning C, Challis DJ, Fernandez JL, Jacobs SR,
Jones K, Knapp M, Manthorpe J,
Moran N, Netten A, Stevens M, Wilberforce M. (2008). Evaluation
of the Individual Budgets
Pilot Programme. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of
York; 2008.
URL: http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/social-work-care-services/spru/135057IBSEN.pdf
5. Challis DJ, von Abendorff R, Brown P, Chesterman J, Hughes
J. (2002). Care management,
dementia care and specialist mental health services: an evaluation. International
Journal of
Geriatric Psychiatry. 2002; 17: 315-25. DOI: 10.1002/gps.595
6. Challis DJ, Sutcliffe C, Hughes J, von Abendorff R,
Brown P, Chesterman J. Supporting
People with Dementia at Home. Farnham: Ashgate; 2009.
Details of the impact
See section 5 for numbered corroborating sources (S1-S10).
1. Personal Budgets in social care and health care
Personal Budgets in Social Care were introduced in 2008. The national
evaluation of the Individual
Budgets pilot projects (The "IBSEN" Report [4]), undertaken by the UoM
team in collaboration with
other social care research centres, informed the development and
implementation of national
policy on the individualisation of care within adult social care services.
This research influenced and fed into national and local policy
development through meetings of
the research team with Ministers and policy makers. The former is
evidenced in the White Paper
Shaping the Future of Care Together (Cm 7673, 2009) and the
documents Personal Budgets for
Older People: Making it happen (S2) and A Vision for Adult
Social Care: Capable Communities and
Active Citizens (S3). The direction of the policy was altered as a
direct consequence of our
research findings, most notably in the care of older people. New DH
guidance was issued
indicating the use of approaches derived from our earlier case management
research, with the
option of care manager held budgets for older people (S1, S2).
Reach and significance of the impact
- The IBSEN evaluation [4] prompted a specific Government response to
the findings for
implementation of Individual Budgets, particularly with older people,
and continues to be a
focus of Government concern in policy delivery (S1-S3). Upon completion
of the pilots, the DH
invested £520m in a national roll-out. Since personal budgets are now to
become the norm,
this is relevant to all people in receipt of social care. In 2011-12
this involved over 1.2 million
people in England (800,000 plus over 65 years) with an expenditure of
£6.6 billion spent on
community care. Currently, £3.3 billion is allocated through personal
budgets reaching 76% of
all currently eligible adult social care users (ADASS Survey, 2013).
- The IBSEN evaluation continues to influence the Government's policy
agenda, with the
research findings forming part of the evidence supporting the recent
White Paper Caring for
our Future (Cm 8373, 2012 - impact assessment) (2012) contributing
to the calculation and
assessment of the likely costs and benefits of policy expansion.
- The IBSEN evaluation was critical to the development of wider
Government policies, most
notably the introduction of the Individual Budget principles in health
care. The published policy
document announcing the piloting of new Personal Health Budgets used the
evaluation
findings to support its case for the policy, in addition to highlighting
concerns raised by IBSEN
over implementation with respect to older people (S4).
- The IBSEN evaluation was used to underpin key elements of the Work and
Pensions White
Paper `Raising Expectations and Increasing Support' (Cm 7506,
2008) in providing the
evidence base to support the Right to Control trial. This
initiative sought to integrate multiple
benefit and funding streams into a single budget under the control of
the recipient.
- The IBSEN evaluation informed the House of Commons Health Select
Committee's
investigation into the social care system in 2009. The final report
reproduced summary findings
within the main text and also used IBSEN data to raise concerns with
respect to age
discrimination in social care (S2, S4) (Cm 7673).
2. National Strategies to improve dementia services in
England and internationally
The UoM team's research exploring the range of community support
available for people with
dementia has informed policy and implementation of dementia care in
England, Ireland, France
and the Netherlands. The roll out of Objective 6 of the National
Dementia Strategy in England (S6),
Community and Personal Support, was influenced through dissemination of
our findings to policy
makers.
Reach and significance of the impact
- The evaluation of case management for older people suffering from
dementia was cited in the
National Dementia Strategy (S6) as providing evidence of the
value of early diagnosis and
intervention to improve quality of life and delay or prevent unnecessary
admission into care
homes (p34). The team also advised a special meeting of the French Fondation
Plan
Alzheimer (sic) in Paris on developing case management in Dementia
Care in 2010 (S9), and
also the Netherlands Institute for Long Term Care (Vilans) in 2007.
- Research examining the relative merits of different approaches to the
provision of home care
for people with dementia informed the DH Commissioning Pack for early
intervention and
prevention in the delivery of community personal support. It is located
on the DH website
http://dementia.dh.gov.uk/contracting-community-support-services/
and the summary findings
from this study are also to be found on several local NHS Commissioning
websites. It is also
cited in the policy document Case for Change — Community Based
Services for People Living
with Dementia (S7) and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on
Dementia (S8) inquiry into cost
effective dementia services. The work is also used extensively in the
planning document of the
Dementia Strategy for Ireland (S10).
Sources to corroborate the impact
Individual/Personal Budgets
S1. Department of Health (2008) Making Personal Budgets Work for
Older People: developing
experience. London: Department of Health.
S2. Department of Health (2010) Personal Budgets for Older People:
Making it happen. London:
Department of Health.
S3. Department of Health (2010) A vision for adult social care:
Capable communities and active
citizens. London: Department of Health
S4. Department of Health (2009) Personal Health Budgets: First
Steps. London: Department of
Health.
S5. House of Commons Health Select Committee (2010) Social Care:
Third Report of Session
2009-10, Volume 1 (HC22-I). London: TSO
Dementia Care
S6. Department of Health (2009) Living Well with Dementia: A
National Dementia Strategy,
London: Department of Health.
S7. Department of Health (2011) Case for Change — Community Based
Services for People Living
with Dementia, London: Department of Health.
S8. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia (2011) The `£20
Billion Question — An Inquiry Into
Cost Effective Dementia Services Improving Lives Through Cost
Effective Dementia Services,
London: House of Commons.
S9. Fondation Alzheimer (2010) Case Management Workshop Report,
Fondation Alzheimer:
Paris. http://www.fondation-alzheimer.org/sites/default/files/BOOK.pdf
S10. Cahill, S., O'Shea, E. and Pierce, M. (2012) Creating
Excellence in Dementia Care: A
research review for Ireland's Dementia Strategy, Trinity College
Dublin and University College
Galway, Ireland.