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.

THE SAAF STUDY: evaluation of the Safeguarding Children Assessment and Analysis Framework (SAAF), compared with management as usual, for improving outcomes for children and young people who have experienced, or are at risk of, maltreatment: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Serious case reviews and research studies have indicated weaknesses in risk assessments conducted by child protection social workers. Social workers are adept at gathering information but struggle with analysis and assessment of risk. The Department for Education wants to know if the use of a structured decision-making tool can improve child protection assessments of risk.

Methods/design: This multi-site, cluster-randomised trial will assess the effectiveness of the Safeguarding Children Assessment and Analysis Framework (SAAF). This structured decision-making tool aims to improve social workers' assessments of harm, of future risk and parents' capacity to change. The comparison is management as usual.

Inclusion criteria: Children's Services Departments (CSDs) in England willing to make relevant teams available to be randomised, and willing to meet the trial's training and data collection requirements.

Exclusion criteria: CSDs where there were concerns about performance; where a major organisational restructuring was planned or under way; or where other risk assessment tools were in use.

Six CSDs are participating in this study. Social workers in the experimental arm will receive 2 days training in SAAF together with a range of support materials, and access to limited telephone consultation post-training. The primary outcome is child maltreatment. This will be assessed using data collected nationally on two key performance indicators: the first is the number of children in a year who have been subject to a second Child Protection Plan (CPP); the second is the number of re-referrals of children because of related concerns about maltreatment. Secondary outcomes are: i) the quality of assessments judged against a schedule of quality criteria and ii) the relationship between the three assessments required by the structured decision-making tool (level of harm, risk of (re) abuse and prospects for successful intervention).

Discussion: This is the first study to examine the effectiveness of SAAF. It will contribute to a very limited literature on the contribution that structured decision-making tools can make to improving risk assessment and case planning in child protection and on what is involved in their effective implementation.