Dataset Information

Does sector matter for the quality of care services? A secondary analysis of social care services regulated by the Care Inspectorate in Scotland.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Social services are increasingly commissioned to third and for-profit sector providers, but little is known about whether and how these changes influence quality indicators. We assessed quality-related outcomes across for-profit, public and third sector organisations delivering social care services.

Design

A secondary analysis was conducted on publically available data collected by the independent regulator of social care organisations in Scotland. All outcomes are reported as predicted probabilities derived from multivariate logistic regression coefficients. Generalised ordered logit models are utilised for the quality domains and the risk assessment score and logistic regression for whether complaints or requirements were issued to organisations.

Setting

Organisations inspected by the Care Inspectorate in Scotland.

Population

13?310 social care organisations (eg, nursing homes and day care organisations).

Primary outcomes

The quality and risk domains collected by the Care Inspectorate and complaints and requirements issued to organisations within the last 3?years.

Results

Controlling for multiple factors, we find that public and third sector providers performed consistently and statistically significantly better than for-profit organisations on most outcomes. For example, for-profit services were the most likely to be rated as high and medium risk (6.9% and 13.2%, respectively), and the least likely to be classified as low risk (79.9%). Public providers had the highest probability of being categorised as low risk (91.1%), and the lowest probability of having their services classified as medium (6.9%) and high risk (2%), followed by third sector providers (86%, 8.5% and 4.5%, respectively). Public providers performed better than third sector providers in some outcomes, but differences were relatively low and inconsistent.

Conclusion

Public and third sector providers were rated considerably higher than their for-profit counterparts on most observed outcomes. Regulators might use this information to consider how social care providers across sector are incentivised to manage their resources.

SUBMITTER: Bach-Mortensen AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398786 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The context is highly relevant to the implementation of new health-related programs and is an implicit or explicit part of the major implementation models in the literature. The Resilience Curriculum (RESCUR) program was developed to foster the psychosocial development of children in early and primary education. RESCUR seeks specifically to decrease children's vulnerability. It aims to promote the emotional and social learning of children who may be at risk of leaving school pre-maturely, social exclusion and mental-health problems. The program is taught using a teachers' manual to support consistency of delivery, a parents' guide, and a resource package. This study aimed to examine the scaling-out of RESCUR to social services, and specifically to test if implementation differs between the school and social services sectors. Methods: RESCUR was implemented in schools and social services in Sweden 2017-2019. Data were collected via group leaders' self-reports and observation protocols for 3 months after implementation started. There were 34 self-reports from schools, and 12 from the social services sector; 30 observation protocols were collected from schools, and 10 from social services. We examined whether there were differences in implementation outcomes (in, for example, dosage, duration, fidelity, adaptation, quality of delivery) between the two delivery systems. Descriptive statistics were prepared and non-parametric tests of significance conducted to compare implementation-related factors across the two settings. Results: Analyses of both the observation protocols and group leaders' self-reports revealed that RESCUR was well-implemented in both schools and social services. The results showed a few significant differences in the outcomes of implementation between the sectors. First, regarding observations, school staff more often adapted the pace of RESCUR lessons to ensure that the children could understand than did social services staff (p < 0.01). Second, social services staff demonstrated greater interest in students and sensitivity to the needs of individual students than did school staff (p = 0.02). Regarding self-reports, social services staff reported having delivered more (p = 0.4) and longer (p < 0.01) lessons than did school staff. Second, school staff reported greater fidelity to (p = 0.02) and less adaptation of (p < 0.01) the intervention than did social services staff. Both observations and self-reports, however, indicated a high fidelity of implementation. Conclusions: Overall, the findings suggest that the resilience program, designed for delivery in schools, can be scaled-out to social services with its implementation outcomes retained. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the program regarding child health-related outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: National Institute of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03655418. Registered August 31, 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Socially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear. OBJECTIVE:This is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:Studies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials. RESULTS:Of the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS:Less than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42013005165.

Project description:Population health improvements can be achieved through work made possible by government spending on health care, public health, and social services. The extent to which spending allocations across these sectors is synergistic with or trade-off against one another is unknown. Achieving a balanced portfolio with multi-sector contributions is key to improving health outcomes. This study tested competing hypotheses regarding achievement of balanced multi-sector resources for health. County-level U.S. Census Bureau data on all local governmental spending measured each county's average per capita local government spending for public hospitals, public health, social services, and education. American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey data on hospital community health service provision were used to calculate an index of hospital community service provision aggregated to county level by year. County Health Rankings data measured each county's health outcomes and health factors. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression models (n = 1877 counties) predicted changes in spending for each government spending category based on two sets of predictors (government spending vs community health services and needs) from current and prior year. Models account for average spending in each category and county-, state-, and time-trends. Models showed that spending increases in each of the four spending categories examined (public hospitals, public health, social services, and education) were not associated with changes in spending across other categories in current or prior years. For all categories, an increase from baseline spending levels in Year 1 was always significantly associated with an increase from baseline spending level in that same category in Year 2 (ie, spending stayed above baseline in Year 2). Multi-sector initiatives to health outcomes require funding across sectors, yet there was little evidence to suggest that communities that invest in public hospitals, public health, or other social services see commensurate increases in other areas. Underlying funding decisions may reflect strategic decisions within a community to scale up single sectors, constrained resources for multi-sector scale up, or a host of additional factors not measured here.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.