Diversity in intermediate care

This paper discusses the evolution of intermediate care and presents some interim observations from a survey of providers in England being conducted as part of a national evaluation of intermediate care. Telephone interviews covering various issues concerning the level of provision and style of delivery of intermediate care have been conducted with 70 services to date. Data from these are used to discuss the progress, range and nature of intermediate care in relation to clinician viewpoints and academic and official literature on the subject. Intermediate care ‘on the ground’ is a multiplicitous entity, with provision apparently evolving in accordance with the particularities of local need. Whilst protocols for medical involvement in intermediate care generally appear to be well established, there are some tensions concerning integration of services in a locality, care management processes and questions of flexibility and inclusiveness in relation to eligibility criteria. The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com

The organization, form and function of intermediate care services and systems in England: results from a national survey

This paper reports the results of a postal survey of intermediate care co-ordinators (ICCs) on the organization and delivery of intermediate care services for older people in England, conducted between November 2003 and May 2004. Questionnaires, which covered a range of issues with a variety of quantitative, ‘tick-box’ and open-ended questions, were returned by 106 respondents, representing just over 35% of primary care trusts (PCTs). We discuss the role of ICCs, the integration of local systems of intermediate care provision, and the form, function and model of delivery of services described by respondents. Using descriptive and statistical analysis of the responses, we highlight in particular the relationship between provision of admission avoidance and supported discharge, the availability of 24-hour care, and the locations in which care is provided, and relate our findings to the emerging evidence base for intermediate care, guidance on implementation from central government, and debate in the literature. Whilst the expansion and integration of intermediate care appear to be continuing apace, much provision seems concentrated in supported discharge services rather than acute admission avoidance, and particularly in residential forms of post-acute intermediate care. Supported discharge services tend to be found in residential settings, while admission avoidance provision tends to be non-residential in nature. Twenty-four hour care in non-residential settings is not available in several responding PCTs. These findings raise questions about the relationship between the implementation of intermediate care and the evidence for and aims of the policy as part of NHS modernization, and the extent to which intermediate care represents a genuinely novel approach to the care and rehabilitation of older people.

Whose health, whose care, whose say? Some comments on public involvement in new NHS commissioning arrangements

Recent health policy in England has demanded greater involvement of patients and the public in the commissioning of health and social care services. Public involvement is seen as a means of driving up service quality, reducing health inequalities and achieving value in commissioning decisions. This paper presents a summary and analysis of the forms that public involvement in commissioning are to take, along with empirical analysis from a qualitative study of service-user involvement. It is argued that the diversity of constituencies covered by the notion of ‘public involvement’, and the breadth of aims that public involvement is expected to achieve, require careful disaggregation. Public involvement in commissioning may encompass a variety of interest groups, whose inputs may include population needs assessment, evaluation of service quality, advocacy of the interests of a particular patient group or service, or a combination of all of these. Each of these roles may be legitimate, but there are significant tensions between them. The extent to which the structures for public involvement proposed recognize these possible tensions is arguably limited. Notably, new Local Involvement Networks (LINks), which will feed into commissioning decisions, are set as the arbiters of these different interests, a demanding role which will require considerable skill, tenacity and robustness if it is to be fulfilled effectively.