Results for 'change management'
This report presents the findings from research and impact measurement of key projects undertaken by the North London Cares and South London Cares, demonstrating how the charities meet their core objectives of reducing isolation and loneliness amongst older people (and young professionals alike); improving the wellbeing, skills, resilience and connection of all participants; and bridging social and generational divides. The main projects comprise: Love Your Neighbour, supporting one-to-one friendships across social and generational divides; Social Clubs, aimed at older people who can still get out of the house, and want to interact with other older neighbours as well as local young people; Winter Wellbeing, a pro-active outreach effort that helps older neighbours to stay warm, active, healthy and connected during the most isolating time of year; and Community Fundraising, involving volunteers in major community fundraising effort through a ‘networked approach’. Drawing from the responses to a survey of new members (and follow up surveys), the report shows that there were little change for the scores for wellbeing for those who answered all surveys, except for an increase in anxiety. When looking at all responses, regardless of whether they stayed in contact for 12 months, the happiness score appears to be increasing, suggesting that some of those who were least happy dropped out of the survey. In the loneliness questions there was a decrease in the computed social loneliness score (questions about other people), but an increase in the emotional loneliness (questions about their sense of loneliness). The report also develops a new theory of change for the organisation, and sets out how to go about measuring impact against theory. The theory is based on five outcomes, which apply equally to both volunteers and older neighbours, and include: reducing isolation, improving wellbeing, increasing the feeling of belonging in the local community, living richer lives, and building bridges across social and generational divides.
COOTE Anna, BUA Adrian
Reports on the work of the Southwark and Lambeth Early Action Commission which was set up to explore ways of taking local early action and preventative measures to improve people’s quality of life and reduce pressure on public services. The Commission carried out a review of local strategy, policy and practice; explored more than 30 examples of good practice in the two boroughs and further afield; and engaged with local residents and community-based groups and with other experts, through workshops and interviews. The Commission found the underlying causes of most social problems could be traced to the same social and economic challenges. Although some of these challenges, such as poverty and inequality were linked to national policy, making it hard to tackle them locally areas were identified where local early action could be effective in prevent problems. The Commission identified four goals for early action in Southwark and Lambeth: developing resourceful communities, where residents and groups act as agents of change; preventative places, where the quality of neighbourhoods has a positive impact on how people feel and enables them to help themselves and each other; strong partnerships between organisations; and where local institutions support early action. Case studies of good practice to support the report’s recommendations for prevention and early action are included.
SMITH Ian R., SMITH Stephen K.
This paper explores the nature of the crisis affecting the health and social care systems, suggesting that they are badly misaligned with the needs of the society they serve, its ageing population, the prevalence of chronic ill health, rising demand and fall in funding. The paper diagnoses the reasons behind this misalignment and posits a solution: the introduction of integrated care organisations (ICOs) closely aligned to academic health and science centres (AHSCs). It argues that ICOs will remove the artificial and unhelpful boundaries between different parts of the healthcare service, and between health and social care. They will meet the needs of a population which is living longer and with more chronic conditions, move care away from hospitals, and promote prevention and parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Through alignment of these organisations with academic health and science centres, meanwhile, it will be possible to improve clinical outcomes and deliver precision medicine – and to sustain the UK’s position as one of the world leaders in genetic medicine. The paper also identifies the barriers to instituting such a change and explains how they can be overcome. It concludes with a step by step route map to a better care system, through ICOs and AHSCs.
MUIR Rick, QUILTER-PINNER Harry
This report argues that giving citizens greater control over their health and care can both promote the redesign of services, so that they are developed around citizens needs and aspirations, and also save money by supporting people to manage their conditions themselves. The report begins by looking at what empowerment in health and care means and the benefits it can bring in terms of autonomy, better health outcomes, patient satisfaction, and reductions in cost. It then describes previous programmes and initiatives which aimed to give citizens and communities greater power and why these approaches have not been entirely successful. It then describes five models of care which actively empower citizens and communities and address the deficiencies of previous initiatives. The models described are: social prescribing; brokerage and integration; peer support; asset-based community development; and technology-enabled care plans, which provide people with the tools to better manage their condition themselves. The final chapter identifies five enablers of systems change to help encourage the development and wider adoption of these new models of care: finance, devolving power and integration, recruitment and training workforce, the adoption new technology, empowering citizens to have greater control of their health and care.
NEEDHAM Catherine, et al
Outlines the findings of an evaluation of micro-enterprises in social care in England, which ran from 2013 to 2015. The report focuses on very small organisations, here defined as having five members of staff or fewer, which provide care and support to adults with an assessed social care need. The research design encompassed a local asset-based approach, working with co-researchers with experience of care in the three localities. Twenty seven organisations took part in the study overall, including 17 micro-providers, whose performance was compared to that of 4 small, 4 medium and 2 large providers. A total of 143 people were interviewed for the project. The study found that: micro-providers offer more personalised support than larger providers, particularly for home-based care; they deliver more valued outcomes than larger providers, in relation to helping people do more of the things they value and enjoy; they are better than larger providers at some kinds of innovation, being more flexible and able to provide support to marginalised communities; and they offer better value for money than larger providers. Factors that help micro-providers to emerge and become sustainable include: dedicated support for start-up and development, strong personal networks within a localities, and balancing good partnerships (including with local authorities) with maintaining an independent status. Inhibiting factors, on the other hand, include a reliance on self-funders and the financial fragility of the organisation. The report makes the following recommendations: commissioners should develop different approaches to enable micro-enterprises to join preferred provider lists; social care teams should promote flexible payment options for people wanting to use micro-enterprises, including direct payments; social workers and other care professionals need to be informed about micro-enterprises operating close-by so that they can refer people to them; regulators need to ensure that their processes are proportional and accessible for very small organisations; and micro-enterprises need access to dedicated start-up support, with care sector expertise, as well as ongoing support and peer networks.