Steve Iliffe1, Susan L Davies2, Adam L Gordon3, Justine Schneider4, Tom Dening4, Clive Bowman5, Heather Gage6, Finbarr C Martin7, John R F Gladman8, Christina Victor9, Julienne Meyer5, Claire Goodman10. 1. 1Department of Primary Care & Population Health,University College London,London,UK. 2. 2Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care,University of Hertfordshire,Hertfordshire,UK. 3. 3Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing,University of Nottingham,Nottingham,UK. 4. 4Institute of Mental Health,University of Nottingham,Nottingham,UK. 5. 5School of Health Sciences,City University,London,UK. 6. 6School of Economics,University of Surrey,Guildford,UK. 7. 7Division of Health and Social Care Research,Kings College London,London,UK. 8. 8Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing,University of Nottingham,UK. 9. 9Department of Community Health Nursing and Health Studies,Brunel University,Middlesex,UK. 10. 10Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care,University of Hertfordshire,Hertfordshire,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of beds in care homes (with and without nurses) in the United Kingdom is three times greater than the number of beds in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Care homes are predominantly owned by a range of commercial, not-for-profit or charitable providers and their residents have high levels of disability, frailty and co-morbidity. NHS support for care home residents is very variable, and it is unclear what models of clinical support work and are cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate how the NHS works with care homes. METHODS: A review of surveys of NHS services provided to care homes that had been completed since 2008. It included published national surveys, local surveys commissioned by Primary Care organisations, studies from charities and academic centres, grey literature identified across the nine government regions, and information from care home, primary care and other research networks. Data extraction captured forms of NHS service provision for care homes in England in terms of frequency, location, focus and purpose. RESULTS: Five surveys focused primarily on general practitioner services, and 10 on specialist services to care home. Working relationships between the NHS and care homes lack structure and purpose and have generally evolved locally. There are wide variations in provision of both generalist and specialist healthcare services to care homes. Larger care home chains may take a systematic approach to both organising access to NHS generalist and specialist services, and to supplementing gaps with in-house provision. Access to dental care for care home residents appears to be particularly deficient. CONCLUSIONS: Historical differences in innovation and provision of NHS services, the complexities of collaborating across different sectors (private and public, health and social care, general and mental health), and variable levels of organisation of care homes, all lead to persistent and embedded inequity in the distribution of NHS resources to this population. Clinical commissioners seeking to improve the quality of care of care home residents need to consider how best to provide fair access to health care for older people living in a care home, and to establish a specification for service delivery to this vulnerable population.
BACKGROUND: The number of beds in care homes (with and without nurses) in the United Kingdom is three times greater than the number of beds in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Care homes are predominantly owned by a range of commercial, not-for-profit or charitable providers and their residents have high levels of disability, frailty and co-morbidity. NHS support for care home residents is very variable, and it is unclear what models of clinical support work and are cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate how the NHS works with care homes. METHODS: A review of surveys of NHS services provided to care homes that had been completed since 2008. It included published national surveys, local surveys commissioned by Primary Care organisations, studies from charities and academic centres, grey literature identified across the nine government regions, and information from care home, primary care and other research networks. Data extraction captured forms of NHS service provision for care homes in England in terms of frequency, location, focus and purpose. RESULTS: Five surveys focused primarily on general practitioner services, and 10 on specialist services to care home. Working relationships between the NHS and care homes lack structure and purpose and have generally evolved locally. There are wide variations in provision of both generalist and specialist healthcare services to care homes. Larger care home chains may take a systematic approach to both organising access to NHS generalist and specialist services, and to supplementing gaps with in-house provision. Access to dental care for care home residents appears to be particularly deficient. CONCLUSIONS: Historical differences in innovation and provision of NHS services, the complexities of collaborating across different sectors (private and public, health and social care, general and mental health), and variable levels of organisation of care homes, all lead to persistent and embedded inequity in the distribution of NHS resources to this population. Clinical commissioners seeking to improve the quality of care of care home residents need to consider how best to provide fair access to health care for older people living in a care home, and to establish a specification for service delivery to this vulnerable population.
Entities:
Keywords:
care homes; co-morbidity; community nursing; equity; general practice; inequalities; integrated health and social care; underserved communities
Authors: Reena Devi; Julienne Meyer; Jay Banerjee; Claire Goodman; John Raymond Fletcher Gladman; Tom Dening; Neil Chadborn; Kathryn Hinsliff-Smith; Annabelle Long; Adeela Usman; Gemma Housley; Clive Bowman; Finbarr Martin; Phillipa Logan; Sarah Lewis; Adam Lee Gordon Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adam L Gordon; Claire Goodman; Sue L Davies; Tom Dening; Heather Gage; Julienne Meyer; Justine Schneider; Brian Bell; Jake Jordan; Finbarr C Martin; Steve Iliffe; Clive Bowman; John R F Gladman; Christina Victor; Andrea Mayrhofer; Melanie Handley; Maria Zubair Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Claire Goodman; Tom Dening; Adam L Gordon; Susan L Davies; Julienne Meyer; Finbarr C Martin; John R F Gladman; Clive Bowman; Christina Victor; Melanie Handley; Heather Gage; Steve Iliffe; Maria Zubair Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Maria Zubair; Neil H Chadborn; John R F Gladman; Tom Dening; Adam L Gordon; Claire Goodman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adam L Gordon; Reena Devi; Christopher Williams; Claire Goodman; Kathleen Sartain; Neil H Chadborn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692