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.

Don’t expect me to vote for you just because I like you, even if you do make me feel warm inside: a comparison of the validity of non-ipsative measures of party support

The inclusion of non-ipsative measures of party preference (in essence ratings for each of the parties of a political system) has become established practice in mass surveys conducted for election studies. They exist in different forms, known as thermometer ratings or feeling scores, likes and dislikes scores, or support propensities. Usually only one of these is included in a single survey, which makes it difficult to assess the relative merits of each. The questionnaire of the Irish National Election Study 2002 (INES2002) contained three different batteries of non-ipsative party preferences. This paper investigates some of the properties of these different indicators. We focus in particular on two phenomena. First, the relationship between non-ipsative preferences and the choices actually made on the ballot. In Ireland this relationship is more revealing than in most other countries owing to the electoral system (STV) which allows voters to cast multiple ordered votes for candidates from different parties. Second, we investigate the latent structure of each of the batteries of party preferences and the relationships between them. We conclude that the three instruments are not interchangeable, that they measure different orientations, and that one –the propensity to vote for a party– is by far preferable if the purpose of the study is the explanation of voters’ actual choice behaviour. This finding has important ramifications for the design of election study questionnaires.