Personalised social care for adults with disabilities: A problematic concept for frontline practice

This paper explores the complexities and contradictions of frontline practice that pose problems for personalised social care through enhanced choice. It draws on semi-structured interviews with community care workers, social workers, occupational therapists and care managers in a social service department. Practitioners interviewed were asked about their current assessment and documentation system, including the assessment documents currently used; how they approached information gathering and the topics they explored with service users; and their experience of documenting assessment and care management. The paper argues that the validity and sustainability of personalised social care in frontline practice relies on developing a thorough understanding of the complex and implicit assessment processes operating at the service user/practitioner interface and the inevitable tensions that arise for practitioners associated with the organisational context and broader service environment. The findings demonstrate the variability among practitioners in how they collect information and more importantly, the critical role practitioners occupy in determining the kinds of topics to be explored during the assessment process. In so doing, it shows how practitioners can exert control over the decision-making process. More importantly, it provides some insight into how such processes are shaped by the constraints of the organisational context and broader service environment. Complexities and contradictions may be an inherent part of frontline practice. The issues discussed in this paper, however, highlight potential areas that might be targeted in conjunction with implementing personalised social care through enhanced choice for people with disabilities.

Effectiveness of screening for risk of medical emergencies in the elderly

Study objective: UK government policy mandates the introduction of 'intermediate care services' to reduce emergency admissions to hospital from the population aged 75 years or more. We evaluated one of these initiatives-the Keep Well At Home (KWAH) Project-in a West London Primary Care Trust. Design: KWAH involves a two-phase screening process, including a home visit by a community nurse. We employed cohort methods to determine whether KWAH resulted in fewer emergency attendances and admissions to hospital in the target population, from October 1999 to December 2002. Results: estimated levels of coverage in the two phases of screening were 61 and 32%, respectively. The project had not maintained records of which additional health and social care services had been delivered following screening. The rates of emergency admissions to hospital in the 9 months before screening were similar in practices that did and did not join the project (rate ratio (RR) = 1.05; 95% CI 0.95-1.17), suggesting absence of volunteer bias. Over the first 37 months of the project, there was no significant impact on either attendances at Accident & Emergency departments (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.97-1.06) or emergency admissions of elderly patients (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.05). Conclusion: the KWAH Project has been ineffective in reducing emergency admissions among the elderly. Significant questions arise in relation to selection of the screening instruments, practicality of achieving higher coverage of the eligible population, and creation of a new postcode lottery.