Introduction Decisions about allocation of public funds to pay for care or treatment are reliant on a composite assessment process usually involving contributions from a number of professions (New Zealand Government, 2016; Australian Government, 2018; Department of Health and Social Care, 2018a). Communication is facilitated by appropriate tools and other mechanisms to coordinate multiple contributions to the process (Taylor, 2012). In England, one such example is decision-making relating to the provision of NHS Continuing Healthcare, a package of ongoing care that is arranged and funded solely by the health service for individuals outside a hospital setting who have complex ongoing healthcare needs. Guidance sets out a process for the NHS to work in partnership with its local authority partners to assess health needs and determine eligibility for NHS Continuing Healthcare (Department of Health and Social Care, 2018a). This provides the context for the study reported in this paper. Information sharing between professionals within the assessment process to improve outcomes for patients and service users is a longstanding policy objective (Department for Communities and Local Government,

Local and national attention is needed to prevent 'drift' into activities that both support workers and registered practitioners consider outside their remit. Barriers to training and further qualification need to be addressed.

BackgroundThe rising number of older people with mental health problems makes the effective use of mental health resources imperative. Little is known about the clinical effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of different service models.AimsThe programme aimed to (1) refine and apply an existing planning tool [‘balance of care’ (BoC)] to this client group; (2) identify whether, how and at what cost the mix of institutional and community services could be improved; (3) enable decision-makers to apply the BoC framework independently; (4) identify variation in the structure, organisation and processes of community mental health teams for older people (CMHTsOP); (5) examine whether or not different community mental health teams (CMHTs) models are associated with different costs/outcomes; (6) identify variation in mental health outreach services for older care home residents; (7) scope the evidence on the association between different outreach models and resident outcomes; and (8) disseminate the research findings to multiple stakeholder groups.MethodsThe programme employed a mixed-methods approach including three systematic literature reviews; a BoC study, which used a systematic framework for choosing between alternative patterns of support by identifying people whose needs could be met in more than one setting and comparing their costs/outcomes; a national survey of CMHTs’ organisation, structure and processes; a multiple case study of CMHTs exhibiting different levels of integration encompassing staff interviews, an observational study of user outcomes and a staff survey; national surveys of CMHTs’ outreach activities and care homes. A planned randomised trial of depression management in care homes was removed at the review stage by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) prior to funding award.ResultsBoC: Past studies exhibited several methodological limitations, and just two related to older people with mental health problems. The current study suggested that if enhanced community services were available, a substantial proportion of care home and inpatient admissions could be diverted, although only the latter would release significant monies. CMHTsOP: 60% of teams were considered multidisciplinary. Most were colocated, had a single point of access (SPA) and standardised assessment documentation. Evidence of the impact of particular CMHT features was limited. Although staff spoke positively about integration, no evidence was found that more integrated teams produced better user outcomes. Working in high-integration teams was associated with poor job outcomes, but other factors negated the statistical significance of this. Care home outreach: Typical services in the literature undertook some combination of screening (less common), assessment, medication review, behaviour management and training, and evidence suggested intervention can benefit depressed residents. Care home staff were perceived to lack necessary skills, but relatively few CMHTs provided formal training.LimitationsLimitations include a necessary reliance on observational rather than experimental methods, which were not feasible given the nature of the services explored.ConclusionsBoC: Shifting care towards the community would require the growth of support services; clarification of extra care housing’s (ECH) role; timely responses to people at risk of psychiatric admission; and improved hospital discharge planning. However, the promotion of care at home will not necessarily reduce public expenditure. CMHTsOP: Although practitioners favoured integration, its goals need clarification. Occupational therapists (OTs) and social workers faced difficulties identifying optimal roles, and support workers’ career structures needed delineating. Care home outreach: Further CMHT input to build care home staff skills and screen for depression may be beneficial. Priority areas for further study include the costs and benefits for older people of age inclusive mental health services and the relative cost-effectiveness of different models of mental health outreach for older care home residents.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

These findings demonstrate the importance of organisations providing care coordination for older people receiving long-term funding. Further research is required to investigate the influence of service setting on practitioner preferences. This study explored practitioner preferences about the relative value of attributes of care coordination services for older people. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) survey was used to identify the views of 120 practitioners from 17 services in England in 2015. The survey design was informed by an analysis of standards of care coordination, a postal survey and a consultation with carers of older people. Results of the DCE survey were supplemented by a content analysis of qualitative comments and fieldwork notes. Most respondents were over 30 years of age, female and almost half worked part-time. Continuity of care (care provided by the same care coordinator) and the ability to access the range of services outlined in the care plan were the most important service attributes. Service setting influenced practitioner preferences. Those in specialist services for people with dementia identified the length of time a service was provided as another important attribute. The DCE methodology has provided the opportunity to systematically canvas practitioner preferences.

Objective: To investigate progress in joint working within community mental health teams for older people (CMHTsOP) against a range of national standards, and to consider team characteristics that may hinder or facilitate integrated practice. Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to the managers of all CMHTsOP in England. A total of 376 teams responded representing a response rate of 87.7%. Hypothesis testing and regression analysis, using a composite score based on nine indicators of integration, were conducted to address the study's aims. Results: Whilst the study suggests that progress was being made against a number of key standards of joint working, the study finds that most teams could not access local authority service user records, nor were health staff within most teams able to commission social care services. After controlling for other characteristics, teams with the lowest levels of integration tended to work across multiple local authorities; were managed by a nurse; had high referral rates and were located in formally integrated Care Trusts. Conclusions: Improved integration could develop by NHS Trusts and local authorities encouraging more information sharing, and further delegating powers to arrange social care services to CMHTOP members. The paper highlights team and locality features that appear to cause obstacles to joint working, but there is a clear gap in the evidence relating team structures and characteristics to the quality of patient care.