Applying Outcomes in Community-Based Social Care Practice in England

Q2 Health Professions Journal of long-term care Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.31389/jltc.169
Stacey E Rand, Grace Collins, Wenjing Zhang, A. Milne, B. Silarova
{"title":"Applying Outcomes in Community-Based Social Care Practice in England","authors":"Stacey E Rand, Grace Collins, Wenjing Zhang, A. Milne, B. Silarova","doi":"10.31389/jltc.169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Social care outcomes (the effect of services on the quality of life of people with support needs and unpaid carers) have been proposed as a way of improving the quality and effectiveness of care. Outcomes have also been proposed as a way of reconceptualising ‘needs’ that have applications in needs assessment, care planning, evaluation and care practice. Objectives: The study aimed to provide insights into social care professionals’ experiences and views on the collection and application of outcomes data in practice and what they believe are the benefits, challenges and barriers to implementation. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 25 social care professionals in England and analysed using a framework approach. Findings: Participants reported perceived benefits of using outcomes data, especially to focus effort on improving the well-being of people with support needs and carers. Perceived challenges include requirements for data collection set by funders/ commissioners, the volume of data collected, difficulties in separating non-service-related influences on outcomes and the format of collection. Participants felt a more flexible approach might facilitate more meaningful conversations, rather than a ‘tick-box’ exercise. Limitations: The study sample was purposive, based on established connections. It only included professionals from London and South East and Central England. Implications: Although outcomes are perceived as important in helping to improve people’s lives, social care professionals identified a number of challenges. Further","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Social care outcomes (the effect of services on the quality of life of people with support needs and unpaid carers) have been proposed as a way of improving the quality and effectiveness of care. Outcomes have also been proposed as a way of reconceptualising ‘needs’ that have applications in needs assessment, care planning, evaluation and care practice. Objectives: The study aimed to provide insights into social care professionals’ experiences and views on the collection and application of outcomes data in practice and what they believe are the benefits, challenges and barriers to implementation. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 25 social care professionals in England and analysed using a framework approach. Findings: Participants reported perceived benefits of using outcomes data, especially to focus effort on improving the well-being of people with support needs and carers. Perceived challenges include requirements for data collection set by funders/ commissioners, the volume of data collected, difficulties in separating non-service-related influences on outcomes and the format of collection. Participants felt a more flexible approach might facilitate more meaningful conversations, rather than a ‘tick-box’ exercise. Limitations: The study sample was purposive, based on established connections. It only included professionals from London and South East and Central England. Implications: Although outcomes are perceived as important in helping to improve people’s lives, social care professionals identified a number of challenges. Further
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用结果在基于社区的社会护理实践在英格兰
背景:社会护理结果(服务对有支持需求的人和无报酬照顾者的生活质量的影响)已被提议作为提高护理质量和有效性的一种方式。结果也被提议作为重新定义“需求”的一种方式,在需求评估、护理计划、评估和护理实践中有应用。目的:本研究旨在了解社会护理专业人员在实践中收集和应用结果数据的经验和观点,以及他们认为实施结果数据的好处、挑战和障碍。方法:对英国25名社会护理专业人员进行访谈,并使用框架方法进行分析。研究结果:参与者报告了使用结果数据的好处,特别是将精力集中在改善有支持需求的人和照顾者的福祉上。感知到的挑战包括供资人/专员制定的数据收集要求、收集的数据量、在区分与服务无关的影响对结果的影响方面的困难以及收集的格式。参与者认为,更灵活的方法可能会促进更有意义的对话,而不是“打勾”式的练习。局限性:研究样本是有目的的,基于已建立的联系。它只包括来自伦敦、英格兰东南部和中部的专业人士。启示:尽管结果被认为对帮助改善人们的生活很重要,但社会护理专业人员发现了一些挑战。进一步
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊最新文献
Music in Care Home Settings: Guidelines for Implementation and Evaluation Based on the Music Interventions for Depression and Dementia in ELderly Care (MIDDEL) Study in the UK Staff-Family Communication Methods in Long-Term Care Homes: An Integrative Review Care Relationships Between Support Staff and Adults With a Learning Disability in Long-Term Social Care Residential Settings in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Literature Review Nursing Home Characteristics and Resident Quality of Care Outcomes: A Scoping Review Developing the Principles of Falls Management in Care Homes: An expert Consensus Process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1