No abstract

Personal health budgets (PHBs) in England have been viewed as a vehicle for developing a personalised patient‐based strategy within the substance misuse care pathway. In 2009, the Department of Health announced a 3‐year pilot programme of PHBs to explore opportunities offered by this new initiative across a number of long‐term health conditions, and commissioned an independent evaluation to run alongside as well as a separate study involving two pilot sites that were implementing PHBs within the substance misuse service. The study included a quantitative and qualitative strand. The qualitative strand involved 20 semi‐structured interviews among organisational representatives at two time points (10 at each time point) between 2011 and 2012 which are the focus for this current paper. Overall, organisational representatives believed that PHBs had a positive impact on budget‐holders with a drug and/or alcohol misuse problem, their families and the health and social care system. However, a number of concerns were discussed, many of which seemed to stem from the initial change management process during the early implementation stage of the pilot programme. This study provides guidance on how to implement and offer PHBs within the substance misuse care pathway: individuals potentially would benefit from receiving their PHB post‐detox rather than at a crisis point; PHBs have the potential to improve the link to after‐care services, and direct payments can provide greater choice and control, but sufficient protocols are required.

Good integration of services that aim to reduce avoidable acute hospital bed use by older people requires frontline staff to be aware of service options and access them in a timely manner. In three localities where closer inter-organisational integration was taking place, this research sought patients' perceptions of the care received across and within organisational boundaries. Between February and July 2008, qualitative methods were used to map the care journeys of 18 patients (six from each site). Patient interviews (46) covered care received before, at the time of and following a health crisis. Additional interviews (66) were undertaken with carers and frontline staff. Grounded theory-based approaches showed examples of well-integrated care against a background of underuse of services for preventing health crises and a reliance on 'traditional' referral patterns and services at the time of a health crisis. There was scope to raise both practitioner and patient awareness of alternative care options and to expand the availability and visibility of care 'closer to home' services such as rapid response teams. Concerns voiced by patients centred on the adequacy of arrangements for organising ongoing care, while family members reported being excluded from discussions about care arrangements and the roles they were expected to play. The coordination of care was also affected by communication difficulties between practitioners (particularly across organisational boundaries) and a lack of compatible technologies to facilitate information sharing. Finally, closer organisational integration seemed to have limited impact on care at the patient/practitioner interface. To improve care experienced by patients, organisational integration needs to be coupled with vertical integration within organisations to ensure that strategic goals influence the actions of frontline staff. As they experience the complete care journey, feedback from patients can play an important role in the service redesign agenda.

The evaluation provides support for the planned wider roll-out of personal health budgets in the English NHS after 2014 in so far as the localities in the pilot sample are representative of the whole country.

In 2007, the UK government set performance targets and public service agreements to control the escalation of emergency bed-days. Some years earlier, nine English local authorities had each created local networks with their health and third sector partners to tackle this increase. These networks formed the 'Improving the Future for Older People' initiative (IFOP), one strand of the national 'Innovation Forum' programme, set up in 2003. The nine sites set themselves one headline target to be achieved jointly over three years; a 20 per cent reduction in the number of emergency bed-days used by people aged 75 and over. Three ancillary targets were also monitored: emergency admissions, delayed discharges and project sustainability. Collectively the sites exceeded their headline target. Using a realistic evaluation approach, we explored which aspects of network governance appeared to have contributed to these emergency bed-day reductions. We found no simple link between network governance type and outcomes. The governance features associated with an effective IFOP network appeared to suggest that the selection and implementation of a small number of evidence-based services was central to networks' effectiveness. Each service needed to be coordinated by a network-based strategic group and hierarchically implemented at operational level by the responsible network member. Having a network-based implementation group with a 'joined-at-the-top' governance structure also appeared to promote network effectiveness. External factors, including NHS incentives, health reorganisations and financial targets similarly contributed to differences in performance. Targets and financial incentives could focus action but undermine horizontal networking. Local networks should specify which interventions network structures are intended to deliver. Effective projects are those likely to be evidence based, unique to the network and difficult to implement through vertical structures alone.