Supporting the case for “progressive universalism” in health visiting: Scottish mothers and health visitors’ perspectives on targeting and rationing health visiting services, with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model.

Aims. To explore parents and professionals’ experience of family assessment in health visiting (public health nursing), with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model (LCCM). Background. Health visitors (HVs) currently assess families as requiring core, additional or intensive support, and offer support at a corresponding level. The majority of families are assessed as core and receive no pro-active support beyond the early days. Previous assessment tools, consisting of checklists, have been criticised as being ineffective in identifying a range of health needs and unacceptable to parents and HVs. The LCCM model was developed and introduced in the study area to promote a partnership approach with parents and assess strengths as well as difficulties in parents’ capacity to care for their child. Methods. Qualitative methods were used. Ten mothers and twelve HVs took part in individual semi-structured interviews. Results. Most mothers were aware of the assessment process but some felt that they were not involved in the decision making process. Explaining the assessment process to parents is problematic and not all HVs do so. The assessment process was stressful for some mothers. HVs find the model useful for structuring and documenting the assessment process. Many believe that most families benefit from some support, using public health approaches. Families are often assessed as core because there are insufficient resources to support all those who meet the criteria of the additional category, and managers assess caseloads in terms of families with child protection concerns. Conclusions. The study findings support the concept of “progressive universalism” which provides a continuum of intensity of support to families, depending on need. Mothers would like better partnership working with HVs. Relevance to clinical practice. The study endorses proposed policy changes to re-establish the public health role of HVs and to lower the threshold for families to qualify for support.

A longitudinal qualitative exploration of healthcare and informal support needs among survivors of critical illness: the RELINQUISH protocol.

Introduction and background: Survival following critical illness is associated with a significant burden of physical, emotional and psychosocial morbidity. Recovery can be protracted and incomplete, with important and sustained effects upon everyday life, including family life, social participation and return to work. In stark contrast with other critically ill patient groups (eg, those following cardiothoracic surgery), there are comparatively few interventional studies of rehabilitation among the general intensive care unit patient population. This paper outlines the protocol for a sub study of the RECOVER study: a randomised controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention of enhanced ward-based rehabilitation for patients following discharge from intensive care. Methods and analysis: The RELINQUISH study is a nested longitudinal, qualitative study of family support and perceived healthcare needs among RECOVER participants at key stages of the recovery process and at up to 1 year following hospital discharge. Its central premise is that recovery is a dynamic process wherein patients’ needs evolve over time. RELINQUISH is novel in that we will incorporate two parallel strategies into our data analysis: (1) a pragmatic health services-oriented approach, using an a priori analytical construct, the ‘Timing it Right’ framework and (2) a constructivist grounded theory approach which allows the emergence of new themes and theoretical understandings from the data. We will subsequently use Qualitative Health Needs Assessment methodology to inform the development of timely and responsive healthcare interventions throughout the recovery process. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol has been approved by the Lothian Research Ethics Committee (protocol number HSRU011). The study has been added to the UK Clinical Research Network Database (study ID. 9986). The authors will disseminate the findings in peer reviewed publications and to relevant critical care stakeholder groups.