了解弱龄老人社会照护的资源分配过程:来自全国调查的经验教训

Q2 Health Professions Journal of long-term care Pub Date : 2021-02-08 DOI:10.31389/JLTC.21
K. Stewart, J. Hughes, D. Challis, A. Worden, S. Davies, Chengqiu Xie, S. Asthana, Alex Gibson
{"title":"了解弱龄老人社会照护的资源分配过程:来自全国调查的经验教训","authors":"K. Stewart, J. Hughes, D. Challis, A. Worden, S. Davies, Chengqiu Xie, S. Asthana, Alex Gibson","doi":"10.31389/JLTC.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Traditionally local authorities in England allocated resources in social care following a professional assessment of need and a costed care plan. With the introduction of personal budgets, resource allocation tools have been used to provide service users with an initial indicative budget for their care. This is promoted as being more transparent, equitable and giving people greater control over decisions about their care. Objective: This study examined the different approaches to resource allocation and the content of resource allocation tools used for social care in England. Methods: Information was obtained from local authorities about their resource allocation systems. An analytic framework was developed and applied to the tools to explore: who identified needs; whether informal and formal support were recorded; and whether 17 need indicators covering functional status, mental health, and health and wellbeing were present and in what detail. Findings: Ninety-one per cent of 152 authorities responded and 61 per cent of authorities’ tools were analysed. Three approaches were identified: points-based self-assessment tools; standardised assessment data (FACE); and non-points-based/ready reckoner tools. Most authorities used a points-based self-assessment tool. All tools included the service user’s views and a high proportion included a professional’s view, while fewer covered the carer’s view on need. Coverage and presence of detail for the 17 need indicators showed high variation and was least on points-based self-assessment tools. Limitations: The study is the first to examine a large sample of resource allocation tools and provides a valuable baseline for future work. However, non-points-based/ready reckoner tools were under-represented in the sample. Implications: Further research could build upon this study to examine key properties of the tools used such as reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity; and explore their impact upon service users and staff in terms of time use, cost, utility and equity.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Resource Allocation Processes in Social Care for Frail Older People: Lessons from a National Survey\",\"authors\":\"K. Stewart, J. Hughes, D. Challis, A. Worden, S. Davies, Chengqiu Xie, S. Asthana, Alex Gibson\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/JLTC.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: Traditionally local authorities in England allocated resources in social care following a professional assessment of need and a costed care plan. With the introduction of personal budgets, resource allocation tools have been used to provide service users with an initial indicative budget for their care. This is promoted as being more transparent, equitable and giving people greater control over decisions about their care. Objective: This study examined the different approaches to resource allocation and the content of resource allocation tools used for social care in England. Methods: Information was obtained from local authorities about their resource allocation systems. An analytic framework was developed and applied to the tools to explore: who identified needs; whether informal and formal support were recorded; and whether 17 need indicators covering functional status, mental health, and health and wellbeing were present and in what detail. Findings: Ninety-one per cent of 152 authorities responded and 61 per cent of authorities’ tools were analysed. Three approaches were identified: points-based self-assessment tools; standardised assessment data (FACE); and non-points-based/ready reckoner tools. Most authorities used a points-based self-assessment tool. All tools included the service user’s views and a high proportion included a professional’s view, while fewer covered the carer’s view on need. Coverage and presence of detail for the 17 need indicators showed high variation and was least on points-based self-assessment tools. Limitations: The study is the first to examine a large sample of resource allocation tools and provides a valuable baseline for future work. However, non-points-based/ready reckoner tools were under-represented in the sample. Implications: Further research could build upon this study to examine key properties of the tools used such as reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity; and explore their impact upon service users and staff in terms of time use, cost, utility and equity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-08\",\"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.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/JLTC.21","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

摘要

背景:传统上,英格兰地方当局根据专业的需求评估和成本计算的护理计划来分配社会护理资源。随着个人预算的引入,资源分配工具已被用于向服务使用者提供其护理的初步指示性预算。这被宣传为更加透明、公平,并使人们对自己的护理决定有更大的控制权。目的:本研究考察了英国社会护理中资源分配的不同方法和资源分配工具的内容。方法:从当地有关部门获取资源分配制度信息。开发了一个分析框架,并将其应用于探索的工具:谁确定了需求;是否记录了非正式和正式的支持;是否有17项需要指标涵盖功能状态、心理健康、健康和福祉,以及具体细节。调查结果:152家机构中有91%做出了回应,61%的机构工具得到了分析。确定了三种方法:基于点数的自我评估工具;标准化评估数据(FACE);和非基于点/现成的计算工具。大多数权威机构使用基于分数的自我评估工具。所有工具都包括服务用户的观点,而且有很大比例的工具包括专业人员的观点,而较少的工具包括护理人员对需求的看法。17个需求指标的覆盖范围和细节显示出很大的差异,而基于点的自我评估工具的差异最小。局限性:该研究首次检查了大量的资源分配工具样本,并为未来的工作提供了有价值的基线。然而,非基于点/现成的计算工具在样本中代表性不足。启示:进一步的研究可以建立在本研究的基础上,以检查所使用的工具的关键属性,如可靠性,有效性,敏感性和特异性;并探讨它们在时间使用、成本、效用和公平性方面对服务使用者和员工的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Understanding Resource Allocation Processes in Social Care for Frail Older People: Lessons from a National Survey
Context: Traditionally local authorities in England allocated resources in social care following a professional assessment of need and a costed care plan. With the introduction of personal budgets, resource allocation tools have been used to provide service users with an initial indicative budget for their care. This is promoted as being more transparent, equitable and giving people greater control over decisions about their care. Objective: This study examined the different approaches to resource allocation and the content of resource allocation tools used for social care in England. Methods: Information was obtained from local authorities about their resource allocation systems. An analytic framework was developed and applied to the tools to explore: who identified needs; whether informal and formal support were recorded; and whether 17 need indicators covering functional status, mental health, and health and wellbeing were present and in what detail. Findings: Ninety-one per cent of 152 authorities responded and 61 per cent of authorities’ tools were analysed. Three approaches were identified: points-based self-assessment tools; standardised assessment data (FACE); and non-points-based/ready reckoner tools. Most authorities used a points-based self-assessment tool. All tools included the service user’s views and a high proportion included a professional’s view, while fewer covered the carer’s view on need. Coverage and presence of detail for the 17 need indicators showed high variation and was least on points-based self-assessment tools. Limitations: The study is the first to examine a large sample of resource allocation tools and provides a valuable baseline for future work. However, non-points-based/ready reckoner tools were under-represented in the sample. Implications: Further research could build upon this study to examine key properties of the tools used such as reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity; and explore their impact upon service users and staff in terms of time use, cost, utility and equity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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