Showing posts with label October 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label October 2012. Show all posts

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Social care in the last year of life


With an increasingly elderly, frail and co-morbid population, the need to coordinate health and social care is becoming more and more apparent. One could argue that integrating health and social care is the big issue facing the NHS and our care services.

The Atlas of Variation in social care published earlier this year, examined the quality of social care services in England. Like our Atlas of Kidney Care and the other health care atlases, it showed high variation in access, uptake, costs and quality – a postcode lottery. The social care atlas mapped its data to the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework:
-         Enhancing  the quality of life of people with care and support needs;
-         Delaying and reducing the need for care and support;
-         Ensuring people have a positive experience of care and support;
-         Safeguarding adults whose circumstances make them vulnerable and protecting from avoidable harms.
A large read across to the NHS Outcomes Framework don’t you think? Any reasonably minded person can see the link between the various outcome frameworks from Public Health, NHS Outcomes, by which the Secretary of State for Health will hold the NHS Commissioning Board to account, the Commissioning Outcomes Framework to help deliver on those health aspirations and the Social Care Outcomes Framework. If they were all playing in concert, it would sound more like Schönberg than Mozart would. The staff in the various sectors are not working together yet, and we do not routinely join up information. Good health care leads to recovery and return to normal living. Poor health outcomes have their consequences in the lives of families of those affected, in the metrics of the Department of Work and Pensions, along with the social care needs of the individuals.
When it comes to the last years of life, social care needs are clearly as relevant as health care intervention. In conservative kidney care it really is not about the kidney, it is about the individual their experience, their family, carers and friends.
An atlas of variations in social care: an analysis of the quality of social care services in England, June 2012. MNP Health Mandate


What role should social care play to support someone at the end of life to die in his or her own home? In addition, how can health and social care services work together to make this choice a reality?

A thoughtful and groundbreaking study published by the Nuffield Trust adds significant weight to the argument that with the right support people could die at home, as they wish.

The report vastly improves our understanding of the costs of caring for people at the end of life and encourages a debate on what role integrated, coordinated care can play in keeping people at home in their last days.

“Our ageing population and over stretched health service means that the NHS will not be able to meet the rising costs of people being admitted to hospital unnecessarily at the end of life.”    Ciaran Devine CEO at Macmillan Cancer Support and Non-executive member of the NHS Commissioning Board

You will not be surprised to learn that understanding patterns of health and social care at the end of life also, reveals the large variations in access, uptake and costs.

 Understanding Patterns of Health and Social Care at the end of life, October 2012. Nuffield Trust 

The Nuffield Trust work shows that the cost of caring for someone in hospital increases sharply in the final few months of life- especially for emergency care. The costs can be as much as £90,000 per person. Social care costs, however, are more predictable and constant and home care is on average considerably cheaper than hospital care. Note the different scales on the vertical axis comparing the hospital and social care costs in figure 4.4 from the report above.

Care for people at the end of life needs to improve as a matter of urgency. This Nuffield  report chimes with what I have heard from kidney, primary care and social care professionals, about how it is often help with small things, can make a big difference fro patients and families, and is crucial to keeping people out of hospital at the very end of life. We should seize the opportunity of the current flux, we find ourselves in health, the financial challenges our Local Authority, and Health and Wellbeing boards are under to make step change  improvements in end of life care and deliver on the NICE QualityStandards.

Monday, 22 October 2012

Transplant sharing Gurus win Nobel



I rarely read the finance pages. They always seem rather dull reporting what the Roman Emperor Augustus is supposed to have coined “festina lente” which means, “making haste slowly”. The alternative phrase given the progress made with the global economy over the last few years might be “getting nowhere fast”.

However, this headline caught my eye the other day. “The Nobel Prize for economics has been awarded to Americans Alvin Roth and Lloyd Stapley for their independent work on how best to bring different parties together for mutual benefit

It is not really a Nobel Prize, the economics Nobel Prize committee award is a more recent introduction than the inaugural Nobel Prizes and it has a lengthy name. You can look it up on Google. Professor Shapley did the underpinning maths way back in the 1990s and Professor Roth applied them to develop algorithms for all manners of situations. He used dating as an example, I think to get attention rather than to set-up a dating agency, as my paper implied. The algorithms were not actually designed to arrange marriages. They were to analyse ways to match things up. Roth and Stapley discovered a rule that allowed the best matches to be made for schools and schoolchildren, medical students and their first hospital jobs, and most importantly  as the newspaper said setting up life-saving kidney transplant operations. 

They got the Nobel Prize for that – well done Roth and Shapley. They developed something that actually works rather than trying to perfect an abstract model. In recognising the ethnical and cultural constraints in the real world and working with them, they provided the basis for an allocation system that works in our imperfect world. A lot of theoretical economics deals in perfection; Roth and Shapley were interested in answering the question “how do we get this to work for the benefit of everyone?” not how do we achieve perfection. Congratulations to Professors Roth and Shapley