Review of Legislation and Policy Guidance relating to Adult Social Care in Northern Ireland

Introduction and Background

This research was undertaken by an international team of academics from Queen’s University, Belfast, Leeds University and Penn State University (USA) who have examined models of adult social care provision across thirteen jurisdictions. The aim of this research is to present the Commissioner for Older People in Northern Ireland (COPNI) with possible options for legal reform to adult social care provision for older people in Northern Ireland.

Project Objectives

The agreed objectives of this research were to provide:
• Identification of gaps and issues surrounding the current legislative framework including policy provision for adult social care in Northern Ireland.
• Comparison of Northern Ireland with best practice in other jurisdictions to include (but not be limited to): England and Wales, Republic of Ireland, Scotland and at least two other international examples; Recommendations, based on the above, as to whether there is a need for legislative reform – provision of suggestions other than legislative change (if applicable).
• Recommendations or options based on the above, on how to best change the current framework in Northern Ireland to provide better support outcomes for older people.
• Stakeholder engagement via roundtable event to discuss outcomes/ recommendations.

Structure of Report

The findings from this research are based on an international review of adult social care in the local, national and international contexts. The report will, therefore, firstly present the key recommendations for Northern Ireland which have emerged from a systematic examination and review of adult social care in diverse jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction is then examined in the context of legislative and policy provision and examples of best practice are provided. The final section of the report then compares Northern Ireland to best practice from each of these aforementioned jurisdictions and the discussion entails the background to the report’s final Recommendations. The recommendations in this report are thus directly linked in with the evidence we have gathered across different countries with contrasting systems of welfare.

Health professionals' and service users' perspectives of shared care for monitoring wet age-related macular degeneration: a qualitative study alongside the ECHoES trial

Objectives: To explore the views of eye health professionals and service users on shared community and hospital care for wet or neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Method: Using maximum variation sampling, 5 focus groups and 10 interviews were conducted with 23 service users and 24 eye health professionals from across the UK (consisting of 8 optometrists, 6 ophthalmologists, 6 commissioners, 2 public health representatives and 2 clinical eye care advisors to local Clinical Commissioning Groups). Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques derived from grounded theory methodology.

Results: The needs and preferences of those with nAMD appear to be at odds with the current service being provided. There was enthusiasm among health professionals and service users about the possibility of shared care for nAMD as it was felt to have the potential to relieve hospital eye service burden and represent a more patient-centred option, but there were a number of perceived barriers to implementation. Some service users and ophthalmologists voiced concerns about optometrist competency and the potential for delays with referrals to secondary care if stable nAMD became active again. The health professionals were divided as to whether shared care was financially more efficient than the current model of care. Specialist training for optometrists, under the supervision of ophthalmologists, was deemed to be the most effective method of training and was perceived to have the potential to improve the communication and trust that shared care would require.

Conclusions: While shared care is perceived to represent a promising model of nAMD care, voiced concerns suggest that there would need to be greater collaboration between ophthalmology and optometry, in terms of interprofessional trust and communication.

Interpretation of Section 17 Employment Protection Act in the light of ECJ case law and under consideration of the cases pending before the Federal Labour Court

This article analyses the relevance of the ECJ ruling in Junk for German labour law.

European Union non-discrimination law and intersectionality:Investigating the triangle of racial, gender and disability discrimination

This book contributes to a critical reflection of current legislative and jurisprudential developments in Non-Discrimination Law, focusing on the European Union. The book is focused on intersectionality between gender, race and disability and the question of whether, and to what extent, this intersection can be adequately addressed in (EU) law. The discussion rests on two basic assumptions. First, the multiplication of 'discrimination grounds' in EU law and other legal regimes should not result in a dilution of the demands of equality law. Accordingly, the book focuses on the three key grounds - race, gender and disability. These constitute nodes around which other discrimination grounds can be grouped. Second, any multi-ground non-discrimination law framework needs to engage with the question of discrimination on several grounds. This book provides a critical evaluation of some of the problems presented by such intersectionality and an opportunity to explore the issues in depth. This collection offers some new proposals relating to the regrouping of identity categories and to the general approach to socio-legal research in the field. It also contains a comparative section, which expands on practical experiences with intersectionality and law, and a section dedicated to juridical responses to intersectionality.