Search results

Housing First (HF) is an evidence-based practice effective in reducing homelessness among those who experience chronic homelessness. However, a strong synthesis evaluating the effectiveness of this intervention is lacking for people who use drugs. The purpose of this study is to explore international literature databases to identify the effectiveness of the HF programme among people who use drugs.

A modified framework from Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was used, namely: identifying the research question; developing inclusion and exclusion criteria; identifying relevant studies for study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarising and reporting the results.

Three main themes were identified: substance use related outcomes, housing-related outcomes and social outcomes. There is strong evidence that HF increases housing retention and reduces homelessness among chronically homeless people who use drugs. However, literature relating to substance use and social outcomes for this population report mixed and inconclusive findings.

This scoping review concludes that additional research is required to conclusively determine whether HF is an effective intervention for homeless substance users. Future researchers must use formal assessments of substance use and ensure clear reporting of the HF intervention is accomplished. It is recommended for researchers and policymakers to consider the specific needs of the people who use drugs before implementation of HF for this population.

Differential effectiveness of HF through diagnostic subgroups such as alcohol use and drug use is varied with alcohol use being found to decrease due to the HF programme, but findings relating to other drug use outcomes are varied. As most previous studies used the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) to measure substance use among participants, however, the ASI, a self-reporting measure has unstable criterion validity and can cause under or over reporting of substance use. Structured toxicology or diagnostic assessments of substance use must be used for research instead to assist researchers in making firm conclusions about the reported rates.

The slightly poorer housing outcomes among people who use substances indicate that this group may need more intensive approaches to finding and maintaining housing. Additional services for the group that address comorbid problems and consequences relating to substance use are required. It is suggested that housing should be provided within an integrated model that offers additional support services such as case management as when well matched to clients, case management appears to be an effective intervention among homeless sub-populations, as it reduces substance use, improves quality of life and health outcomes, improves social connectedness and increases housing tenure and satisfaction.

This scoping review concludes that additional research is required to conclusively determine whether HF is an effective intervention for homeless substance users. Future researchers must use formal assessments of substance use and ensure clear reporting of the HF intervention is accomplished. It is recommended for researchers and policymakers to consider the specific needs of the people who use drugs before HF implementation for this population.

This paper seeks to discuss the collaborative development and piloting of joint user outcome measures for older adults with mental health problems (OAMH) and their carers. Outcome measures are crucial to measuring the impact of services on people's lives and are central to the new NHS and Adult Social Care (ASC) Outcome Frameworks.

The paper describes the development of a joint user outcome measure based on ASC User Experience Surveys (UES) and User Outcome Measures, and NHS Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) and Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMS).

The aim was to supplement existing clinical outcome measures (HONOS65+) with holistic measures of the impact of services on the lives of patients, easy to administer, covering a range of health and social care outcomes and meeting both health and social care outcome requirements.

As far as is known this is one of the first tests of a joint patient reported experience and outcome measure. Such measures may enable joint services to: measure wider outcomes as well as clinical outcomes; meet the new focus on outcomes; and enable more systematic collection of outcome and effectiveness/Value for Money (VFM) data. There are also lessons about collaborative working and development.

This article will examine the potential gap between the rhetoric of reducing bureaucracy to achieve better outcomes for individuals, and the reality for community care in the framework of the introduction of a single reporting system focused on a Single Outcome Agreement (SOA), developed between local and central government in Scotland. The article will provide a description of current arrangements in Scotland and draw on a major analysis of all 32 08/09 SOAs conducted by Community Care Providers Scotland to examine whether or not this framework could be a driver or barrier to better outcomes.

Discusses measuring outcomes in the context of disease management and provides a single framework in the form of a key question checklist. Identifies key stakeholders. Outlines levels of outcome monitoring, measurement and date type and source. The development of an evaluative culture is essential to successful outcome measurements.

This paper aims to deal with place management, not as an additional function to traditional silo organisations, but as a core part of a government that has been restructured to achieve complex outcomes, such as place management. The work is based on the author's experience over the last couple of decades, both as a departmental head and a change management consultant.

Instead of government consisting essentially of functional departments, each one consisting of a different group of professionals pursuing specialist inputs and outputs, an outcomes focused government is structured around the three core aspects of governance – effectiveness (outcomes), efficiency (services) and transparency (standards). The three parts have different ways of operating and different types of performance measure.

Place management along with systems management are the essential responsibilities of the outcomes organisation.

Rather than advocate traditional inputs and outputs, outcome managers are free to pursue a wide range of solutions from a number of different providers. Being highly visible to the community place managers especially provide a clear point of contact for all those with an interest in the place, whilst buck passing opportunities are limited. Budgeting can be shifted to the funding of outcomes rather than inputs or outputs, with increased power for elected officials to review a wider range of expenditure. Outcomes management provides opportunities for bottom‐up solutions, rather than reliance on top‐down coordinating committees of silo organisations.

The paper should provide those struggling with the limitations of place management in traditional structures with a model for the more effective governance of places.

This paper explores how a research‐based understanding of outcomes in social care can be incorporated into practice. Drawing on research by the Social Policy Research Unit and the practical experience of North Lincolnshire Social Services Department, this paper highlights how culture change and the involvement of stakeholders are key to using outcomes ideas as a motivational framework for service improvement.

The paper explores the literature concerning outcome measures used in health services. The need to measure outcomes subsequent to encounters with health services has been identified and occurs as a result of the current “value for money” approaches being used within the NHS. Provider units are required to establish the effects which interventions have had on the health of each individual using their services, despite the fact that definitions of health outcomes used by both professionals and managers are problematic. It is suggested here, however, that outcome measures which answer all requirements will remain elusive, and their effectiveness will vary according to the circumstances of their generation and use. Moreover, the very use of outcome measures as management tools can lead to a subversion of the meaning which led to their selection in the first place. Managing by (outcome measure) numbers is not a realistic way forward.

There is currently much policy emphasis on both partnership working between health and social services in the UK and on the outcomes delivered by services. This article provides an account of two consecutive projects centred on these two themes. The first project, at the University of Glasgow, sought to address the lack of evidence about the outcomes delivered to service users by partnerships. Following from this project, the Joint Improvement Team of the Scottish Government commissioned the researchers to develop a toolkit to involve users and unpaid carers in performance management in community care in Scotland. The remit of this second project expanded during 2007 as it became linked with the development of the emerging National Outcomes Framework for community care in Scotland. This article outlines the outcomes‐based piloting work currently under way in Scotland.

Statements of outcomes have recently become part of the educational agendas in many countries as a means of ensuring greater school accountability. This article accounts for the emergence of outcomes as the predominant statements of educational intent in Australian schools, and synthesises the findings of two studies which investigated the extent to which teachers are incorporating outcomes into their teaching planning and practice in New South Wales. The findings indicate that outcomes are instrumental in teachers’ planning; that they are stated differentially according to subject; that they are stated more in relation to skills than knowledge or values; that they are stated for short‐term intent rather than long‐term intent, and that they have not significantly changed the nature of classroom pedagogy.

Reports on the first phase of an evaluation of the UK Clearing House on Health Outcomes (UKCHHO) undertaken by a sample survey of purchasers and providers on its mailing list and users of its enquiry service. Explores user satisfaction with the services and publications of the project, uses made of the information provided and perceptions of the future role of a UKCHHO. Reports overwhelming satisfaction with the enquiry service and agreement about the usefulness of Outcomes Briefing. States that the main areas of use for the information provided were within clinical audit, guidelines and the exploration of outcomes within routine clinical practice. Also that the findings provide evidence of the need for an expanded brief for a UKCHHO, to include the provision of an enquiry service on study design and demonstrations of the value of the collection of outcomes data. Notes there is an urgent need to show that the systematic collection and use of outcomes data makes a difference to the quality of care provided to patients and to the purchase of services.