Commissioning Home Care for Older People: Scoping the Evidence

Q2 Health Professions
Rowan Jasper, J. Hughes, A. Roberts, Helen Chester, S. Davies, D. Challis
{"title":"Commissioning Home Care for Older People: Scoping the Evidence","authors":"Rowan Jasper, J. Hughes, A. Roberts, Helen Chester, S. Davies, D. Challis","doi":"10.31389/JLTC.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Many people over the age of 65 receive support from home care providers to enable them to continue to live at home. In the UK, local authorities (England, Wales and Scotland) and Health and Social Care Trusts (Northern Ireland) commission these support services. However, little is known about these arrangements. Objectives: To address this knowledge gap through identifying the lessons from research for commissioners of home care for older people. Method: A scoping review was undertaken to extrapolate the lessons from research for future practice. Searches were conducted in 2016/17 and the analysis was completed 2017/18. Electronic and manual searches of UK literature were undertaken using distinct terms to investigate the people, organisations and processes intrinsic to commissioning home care for older people. Findings: From a total of 1,819 papers and government reports, 22 met the inclusion criteria, indicative of a limited body of knowledge. A variety of research methods and designs were included with mixed methods most frequently used. Four lessons were identified relating to: the marketisation of home care; the future of care at home; promoting integration with local partners in commissioning home care; and areas for future research. Limitations: The focus on research evidence may have meant that potentially interesting insights to inform future commissioning strategies from conceptual articles were omitted from the review. Implications: Understanding the complexities of market management in commissioning home care for older people is still at an early stage of development. This review provides evidence to inform its future development of value to policy makers and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/JLTC.9","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: 8

Abstract

Context: Many people over the age of 65 receive support from home care providers to enable them to continue to live at home. In the UK, local authorities (England, Wales and Scotland) and Health and Social Care Trusts (Northern Ireland) commission these support services. However, little is known about these arrangements. Objectives: To address this knowledge gap through identifying the lessons from research for commissioners of home care for older people. Method: A scoping review was undertaken to extrapolate the lessons from research for future practice. Searches were conducted in 2016/17 and the analysis was completed 2017/18. Electronic and manual searches of UK literature were undertaken using distinct terms to investigate the people, organisations and processes intrinsic to commissioning home care for older people. Findings: From a total of 1,819 papers and government reports, 22 met the inclusion criteria, indicative of a limited body of knowledge. A variety of research methods and designs were included with mixed methods most frequently used. Four lessons were identified relating to: the marketisation of home care; the future of care at home; promoting integration with local partners in commissioning home care; and areas for future research. Limitations: The focus on research evidence may have meant that potentially interesting insights to inform future commissioning strategies from conceptual articles were omitted from the review. Implications: Understanding the complexities of market management in commissioning home care for older people is still at an early stage of development. This review provides evidence to inform its future development of value to policy makers and practitioners.
委托老年人家庭护理:证据范围界定
背景:许多65岁以上的人得到家庭护理提供者的支持,使他们能够继续在家生活。在英国,地方当局(英格兰、威尔士和苏格兰)和健康和社会护理信托基金(北爱尔兰)委托提供这些支持服务。然而,人们对这些安排知之甚少。目标:通过确定老年人家庭护理专员的研究经验教训,解决这一知识差距。方法:进行范围界定审查,从研究中推断出未来实践的经验教训。搜索于2016/17年进行,分析于2017/18年完成。使用不同的术语对英国文献进行了电子和手动搜索,以调查委托老年人家庭护理的人员、组织和过程。调查结果:在总共1819篇论文和政府报告中,有22篇符合纳入标准,表明知识体系有限。包括各种研究方法和设计,其中最常用的是混合方法。确定了四个教训:家庭护理的市场化;家庭护理的未来;在委托家庭护理方面促进与当地合作伙伴的融合;以及未来研究的领域。局限性:对研究证据的关注可能意味着审查中省略了从概念文章中为未来委托策略提供信息的潜在有趣见解。影响:了解委托老年人家庭护理的市场管理复杂性仍处于发展的早期阶段。这项审查提供了证据,为其未来对政策制定者和从业者的价值发展提供了信息。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
×
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