Signposting services for people with health and care needs: a rapid realist review.

Anna Cantrell, Andrew Booth, Duncan Chambers
{"title":"Signposting services for people with health and care needs: a rapid realist review.","authors":"Anna Cantrell, Andrew Booth, Duncan Chambers","doi":"10.3310/GART5103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Signposting typically refers to an informal process that involves giving information to patients to enable them to access external services and support. It is perceived to reduce demand on primary care and other urgent care services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This focused realist review was conducted rapidly within time constraints. Searches to identify theory were undertaken on MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Social Sciences Citation Index in June 2022 for research published in English from 2016. We selected 22 publications and extracted programme theories from these to develop three priority questions: Question 1: What do people with health and social care needs require from a signposting service to believe it is valuable? Question 2: What resources do providers require to confidently deliver an effective signposting service? Question 3: Under what circumstances should commissioners commission generic or specialist signposting services? Purposive searching was conducted to find a rich sample of studies. UK studies were prioritised to optimise the applicability of synthesis findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 27 items, 4 reviews and 23 studies, a mix of qualitative, evaluations and case studies. Service users value a joined-up response that helps them to navigate the available resources. Key features include an understanding of their needs, suggestion of different options and a summary of recommended actions. Only a small number of service user needs are met by signposting services alone; people with complex health and social care needs often require extended input and time. Front-line providers of signposting services require appropriate training, ongoing support and supervision, good knowledge of relevant and available activities and an ability to match service users to appropriate resources. Front-line providers need to offer a flexible response targeted at user needs. Commissioned signposting services in England (no studies from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are highly diverse in terms of client groups, staff delivering the service, referral routes and role descriptions. A lack of service evaluation poses a potential barrier to effective commissioning. A shortage of available services in the voluntary and community sector may limit the effectiveness of signposting services. Commissioners should ensure that referrals target intensive support at patients most likely to benefit in the longer term.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Signposting services need greater clarity of roles and service expectations to facilitate evaluation. Users with complex health and social care needs require intensive, repeat support from specialist services equipped with specific knowledge and situational understanding. A tension persists between efficient (transactional) service provision with brief referral and effective (relational) service provision, underpinned by competing narratives. Do signposting services represent 'diversion of unwanted demand from primary care/urgent care services' or 'improved quality of care through a joined-up response by health, social care and community/voluntary services'?</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This realist review was conducted within a tight time frame with a potential impact on methodology; for example, the use of purposive searching may have resulted in omission of relevant evidence.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Signposting services require service evaluation and consideration of the issue of diversity.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022348200.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130588) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 26","pages":"1-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GART5103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Signposting typically refers to an informal process that involves giving information to patients to enable them to access external services and support. It is perceived to reduce demand on primary care and other urgent care services.

Methods: This focused realist review was conducted rapidly within time constraints. Searches to identify theory were undertaken on MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Social Sciences Citation Index in June 2022 for research published in English from 2016. We selected 22 publications and extracted programme theories from these to develop three priority questions: Question 1: What do people with health and social care needs require from a signposting service to believe it is valuable? Question 2: What resources do providers require to confidently deliver an effective signposting service? Question 3: Under what circumstances should commissioners commission generic or specialist signposting services? Purposive searching was conducted to find a rich sample of studies. UK studies were prioritised to optimise the applicability of synthesis findings.

Results: The review included 27 items, 4 reviews and 23 studies, a mix of qualitative, evaluations and case studies. Service users value a joined-up response that helps them to navigate the available resources. Key features include an understanding of their needs, suggestion of different options and a summary of recommended actions. Only a small number of service user needs are met by signposting services alone; people with complex health and social care needs often require extended input and time. Front-line providers of signposting services require appropriate training, ongoing support and supervision, good knowledge of relevant and available activities and an ability to match service users to appropriate resources. Front-line providers need to offer a flexible response targeted at user needs. Commissioned signposting services in England (no studies from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are highly diverse in terms of client groups, staff delivering the service, referral routes and role descriptions. A lack of service evaluation poses a potential barrier to effective commissioning. A shortage of available services in the voluntary and community sector may limit the effectiveness of signposting services. Commissioners should ensure that referrals target intensive support at patients most likely to benefit in the longer term.

Conclusions: Signposting services need greater clarity of roles and service expectations to facilitate evaluation. Users with complex health and social care needs require intensive, repeat support from specialist services equipped with specific knowledge and situational understanding. A tension persists between efficient (transactional) service provision with brief referral and effective (relational) service provision, underpinned by competing narratives. Do signposting services represent 'diversion of unwanted demand from primary care/urgent care services' or 'improved quality of care through a joined-up response by health, social care and community/voluntary services'?

Limitations: This realist review was conducted within a tight time frame with a potential impact on methodology; for example, the use of purposive searching may have resulted in omission of relevant evidence.

Future work: Signposting services require service evaluation and consideration of the issue of diversity.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022348200.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130588) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

为有健康和护理需求的人提供转介服务:快速现实主义审查。
背景:指路通常是指一种非正式的过程,包括向患者提供信息,使他们能够获得外部服务和支持。它被认为可以减少对初级保健和其他紧急护理服务的需求:在时间有限的情况下,我们迅速开展了这项重点突出的现实主义研究。我们于 2022 年 6 月在 MEDLINE、《护理与相关健康文献累积索引》和《社会科学引文索引》中对 2016 年以来发表的英文研究进行了检索,以确定理论。我们选择了 22 篇出版物,并从中提取了计划理论,以提出三个优先问题:问题 1:有健康和社会护理需求的人需要从指路服务中获得什么才能相信它是有价值的?问题 2:提供者需要哪些资源才能自信地提供有效的指路服务?问题 3:在什么情况下,委托人应该委托普通或专业的转介服务?为了找到丰富的研究样本,我们进行了有目的的搜索。优先考虑英国的研究,以优化综合结果的适用性:综述包括 27 个项目、4 篇综述和 23 项研究,混合了定性、评估和案例研究。服务使用者重视的是能够帮助他们利用现有资源的联合应对措施。主要特点包括了解他们的需求、建议不同的选择方案和总结建议采取的行动。只有少数服务使用者的需求可以仅靠转介服务来满足;有复杂健康和社会护理需求的人往往需要更多的投入和时间。转介服务的前线提供者需要适当的培训、持续的支持和监督、对相关和可用活动的充分了解,以及为服务使用者匹配适当资源的能力。一线服务提供者需要针对用户需求提供灵活的应对措施。英格兰的委托指路服务(苏格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰没有相关研究)在服务对象、服务人员、转介途径和角色描述等方面都非常多样化。缺乏对服务的评估可能会阻碍有效的委托。志愿和社区部门现有服务的短缺可能会限制转介服务的有效性。委托人应确保转介服务针对最有可能长期受益的患者提供强化支持:结论:需要进一步明确转介服务的作用和服务期望,以促进评估。具有复杂的健康和社会护理需求的用户需要具备特定知识和情况理解能力的专业服务机构提供密集、重复的支持。在通过简短转介提供高效(交易型)服务与提供有效(关系型)服务之间,始终存在着矛盾,并以相互竞争的说法为基础。转介服务是 "转移初级保健/急诊服务的不必要需求",还是 "通过医疗、社会保健和社区/志愿服务的联合响应提高护理质量"?这项现实主义审查是在紧迫的时间框架内进行的,可能会对方法论产生影响;例如,使用目的性搜索可能会导致遗漏相关证据:研究注册:研究注册:本研究注册为 PROSPERO CRD42022348200:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR130588)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第26期。更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信