Social Care Delivery Research Articles

The consequences of micro-discretions and boundaries in the social prescribing link worker role in England: a realist evaluation.

Social prescribing addresses non-medical factors affecting health and well-being. Link workers are key to its delivery by connecting people to relevant support, often in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Funding from the National Health Service means that link workers are becoming a common part of primary care in England. To explore and understand the implementation of link workers in primary care in England. A realist evaluation addressed the question - When implementing link workers in primary care to sustain outcomes - what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances? Link workers and staff associated with seven primary care sites across England. Researchers spent 3 weeks with each link worker, going to meetings with them, watching them interact with patients, with healthcare staff and with voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. In addition, interviews were conducted with 61 patients and 93 professionals (voluntary, community and social enterprise representatives and healthcare staff, including link workers). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 41 patients and with link workers 9-12 months later. Data were coded and developed into statements to identify how context around the link worker triggers mechanisms that lead to intended and unintended outcomes. We found that link workers exercise micro-discretions in their role - actions and advice-giving based on personal judgement of a situation, which may not always reflect explicit guidance or protocols. Our analysis highlighted that micro-discretions engender positive connections (with patients, healthcare staff, the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector) and promote buy-in to the link worker role in primary care. Micro-discretions supported delivery of person-centred care and enhanced job satisfaction. Data also highlighted that lack of boundaries could place link workers at risk of overstepping their remit. Our research focused on link workers attached to primary care; findings may not be applicable to those working in other settings. Data were collected around seven link worker cases, who were selected purposively for variation in terms of geographical spread and how/by whom link workers were employed. However, these link workers were predominately white females. Enabling link workers to exercise micro-discretions allows for responsiveness to individual patient needs but can result in uncertainty and to link workers feeling overstretched. Poor link worker retention may, in part, be associated with a lack of clarity around their role. Research to explore how this shapes intention to leave their job is being conducted by authors of this paper. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR130247.

Current experience and future potential of facilitating access to digital NHS primary care services in England: the Di-Facto mixed-methods study.

Current National Health Service policy in England encourages enhanced digital access in primary care service provision. In this study, we investigate 'digital facilitation' - that range of processes, procedures and personnel which seeks to support National Health Service primary care patients in their uptake and use of online services. Identify, characterise and explore the potential benefits and challenges associated with different models of digital facilitation currently in use in general practice which are aimed at improving patient access to online services in general practice in England. Use the resulting intelligence to design a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such interventions. Explore how patients with mental health conditions experience digital facilitation and gauge their need for this support. Observational mixed-methods study (literature review, surveys, ethnographic observation and interviews); formal synthesis of findings. General practice in four regions of England. Practice survey: 156 staff. Patient survey: 3051 patients. Mental health survey: 756 patients. General practitioner patient survey: 3 million responders. Ethnographic case-studies: 8 practices; interviews with 36 staff, 33 patients and 10 patients with a mental health condition. Stakeholder interviews: 19 participants. Digital facilitation as undertaken in general practice. Patient and practice staff reported use of, and views of, digital facilitation. Surveys, qualitative research; national General Practitioner Patient Survey (2019-22). Scoping-review methodology applied to academic and grey literature published 2015-20. While we did find examples of digital facilitation in routine practice, these often involved using passive or reactive modes of support. The context of COVID, and the necessary acceleration (at that time) of the move to a digital-first model of primary care, shaped the way digital facilitation was delivered. There was lack of clarity over where the responsibility for facilitation efforts lay; it was viewed as the responsibility of 'others'. Patients living with mental health conditions had similar needs and experiences regarding digital facilitation to other patients. The context of the COVID pandemic placed limitations on the project. Fewer practices responded to the practice survey than anticipated; reconfiguration of general practices to support COVID measures was a key consideration during non-participant observation with social distancing and other measures still in place during fieldwork. Digital facilitation, while not a widely recognised concept, is important in supporting the move to a National Health Service with enhanced digital opportunities and enhanced digital access. General practice staff are allocating resources to provide such efforts in general practices in England. The establishment of clear lines of responsibility, the development of digital tools and platforms that work for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are needed if digital facilitation is to support the intended digital revolution. We did not find one single dominant or preferred model of digital facilitation which might reasonably be considered to form the basis of an intervention to be tested. Rather, there is a need to co-develop such an intervention with patients, general practice staff and relevant policy experts. We outline a framework for a future evaluation of such an intervention. This study is registered as ResearchRegistry6523 (www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/?view_2_search=Di-Facto&view_2_page=1) and PROSPERO CRD42020189019 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128268) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.

Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule. To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide. Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods. The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly. The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain. Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences. This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Improving the integration of care for trans adults: ICTA a mixed-methods study.

This research concerns improving the National Health Service health services trans adults need. These include the national specialist Gender Identity Clinics that support people making a medical transition. Not all trans people need to make a medical transition, and transition can take many different paths. Waits to be seen by Gender Identity Clinics are, however, several years long, and there may be significant problems of co-ordination between different aspects of transition-related care, and between transition-related care and general health care. The main objectives were to understand: Which factors make services more or less accessible and acceptable to the variety of trans adults? How initiatives for providing more person-centred and integrated care can be successfully implemented and further improved? An online and paper screening survey was used to gather data on demographics and service use of trans people across the United Kingdom, with 2056 responses. Researchers used survey data to construct five purposive subsamples for individual qualitative interviews, identifying groups of people more likely to experience social exclusion or stigma. There were 65 online interviews. In addition, 23 trans Black people and people of colour attended focus groups. Six case studies were completed: four on initiatives to improve care and two on experiences of particular trans populations. Fifty-five service provider staff and 45 service users were interviewed. The following undermine person-centred co-ordinated care and can lead to experiences of harm: lack of respectful treatment of trans people by general practitioner practices; inadequate funding of services; lack of support during waiting; the extended and challenging nature of Gender Identity Clinic diagnostic assessments, sometimes experienced as adversarial; breakdowns in collaboration between Gender Identity Clinics and general practitioner practices over hormone therapy; lack of National Health Service psychological support for trans people. Case studies indicated ways to improve care, although each has significant unresolved issues: training in trans health care for general practitioners; third-sector peer-support workers for trans people who come to National Health Services; gender services taking a collaborative approach to assessing what people need, clarifying treatment options, benefits and risks; regional general practitioner-led hormone therapy clinics, bringing trans health care into the mainstream; psychology services that support trans people rather than assess them. Some contexts of care and experiences of particular groups of trans people were not addressed sufficiently within the scope of the project. While efforts were made to recruit people subject to multiple forms of stigma, there remained gaps in representation. The findings have significant implications for commissioners and providers of existing National Health Services gender services, including recently established pilot services in primary care. In particular they point to the need for assessments for access to transition care to be more collaborative and culturally aware, implying the value of exploring informed consent models for accessing transition-related care. Further research is needed to investigate how far the findings apply with particular subpopulations. This study is registered as Research Registry, no. 5235. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/51/08) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 28. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Health screening clinic to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism among NHS Staff: eTHOS a pilot RCT.

Staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attending work while unwell) incur high costs to the NHS, are associated with adverse patient outcomes and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes are mental and musculoskeletal ill health with cardiovascular risk factors common. To undertake a feasibility study to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a health screening clinic in reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst the National Health Service staff. Individually randomised controlled pilot trial of the staff health screening clinic compared with usual care, including qualitative process evaluation. Four United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals from two urban and one rural Trust. Hospital employees who had not previously attended a pilot health screening clinic at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. Nurse-led staff health screening clinic with assessment for musculoskeletal health (STarT musculoskeletal; STarT Back), mental health (patient health questionnaire-9; generalised anxiety disorder questionnaire-7) and cardiovascular health (NHS health check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years). Screen positives were given advice and/or referral to services according to UK guidelines. The three coprimary outcomes were recruitment, referrals and attendance at referred services. These formed stop/go criteria when considered together. If any of these values fell into the 'amber' zone, then the trial would require modifications to proceed to full trial. If all were 'red', then the trial would be considered unfeasible. Secondary outcomes collected to inform the design of the definitive randomised controlled trial included: generalisability, screening results, individual referrals required/attended, health behaviours, acceptability/feasibility of processes, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial included self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation included interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers. Descriptive statistics were presented and framework analysis conducted for qualitative data. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, outcomes were captured up to 6 months only. Three hundred and fourteen participants were consented (236 randomised), the majority within 4 months. The recruitment rate of 314/3788 (8.3%) invited was lower than anticipated (meeting red for this criteria), but screening identified that 57/118 (48.3%) randomised were eligible for referral to either general practitioner (81%), mental health (18%) and/or physiotherapy services (30%) (green). Early trial closure precluded determination of attendance at referrals, but 31.6% of those eligible reported intending to attend (amber). Fifty-one of the 80 (63.75%) planned qualitative interviews were conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data from the process evaluation indicated that the electronic database-driven screening intervention and data collection were efficient, promoting good fidelity, although needing more personalisation at times. Recruitment and delivery of the full trial would benefit from a longer development period to better understand local context, develop effective strategies for engaging with underserved groups, provide longer training and better integration with referral services. Delivery of the pilot was limited by the impact of COVID-19 with staff redeployment, COVID-research prioritisation and reduced availability of community and in-house referral services. While recruitment was rapid, it did not fully represent ethnic minority groups and truncated follow-up due to funding limitations prevented full assessment of attendance at recommended services and secondary outcomes. There is both a clinical need (evidenced by 48% screened eligible for a referral) and perceived benefit (data from the qualitative interviews) for this National Health Service staff health screening clinic. The three stop/go criteria were red, green and amber; therefore, the Trial Oversight Committee recommended that a full-scale trial should proceed, but with modifications to adapt to local context and adopt processes to engage better with underserved communities. This trial is registered as ISRCTN10237475. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/42) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Understanding and using experiences of social care to guide service improvements: translating a co-design approach from health to social care.

Local authorities need to find new ways of collecting and using data on social care users' experiences to improve service design and quality. Here we draw on and adapt an approach used in the healthcare improvement field, accelerated experience-based co-design, to see if it can be translated to social care. We use loneliness support as our exemplar. To understand how loneliness is understood and experienced by members of the public and characterised by social care and voluntary sector staff; to identify service improvements around loneliness support; to explore whether accelerated experience-based co-design is effective in social care; and to produce new resources for publication on Socialcaretalk.org. Discovery phase: in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of people in terms of demographic characteristics with experience of loneliness, and 20 social care and voluntary staff who provided loneliness support. Production of a catalyst film from the public interview data set. Co-design phase: exploring whether the accelerated experience-based co-design approach is effective in one local authority area via a series of three workshops to agree shared priorities for improving loneliness support (one workshop for staff, another for people with experience of local loneliness support, and a third, joint workshop), followed by 7-monthly meetings by two co-design groups to work on priority improvements. A process evaluation of the co-design phase was conducted using interviews, ethnographic observation, questionnaires and other written material. Accelerated experience-based co-design demonstrated strong potential for use in social care. Diverse experiences of participants and fuzzy boundaries around social care compared to health care widened the scope of what could be considered a service improvement priority. Co-design groups focused on supporting people to return to pre-pandemic activities and developing a vulnerable passenger 'gold standard' award for taxi drivers. This work generated short-term 'wins' and longer-term legacies. Participants felt empowered by the process and prospect of change, and local lead organisations committed to take the work forward. Using an exemplar, loneliness support, that does not correspond to a single pathway allowed us to comprehensively explore the use of accelerated experience-based co-design, and we found it can be adapted for use in social care. We produced recommendations for the future use of the approach in social care which include identifying people or organisations who could have responsibility for implementing improvements, and allowing time for coalition-building, developing trusted relationships and understanding different perspectives. COVID-19 temporarily affected the capacity of the local authority Project Lead to set up the intervention. Pandemic work pressures led to smaller numbers of participating staff and had a knock-on effect on recruitment. Staff turnover within Doncaster Council created further challenges. Exploring the approach using a single pathway, such as assessing eligibility for care and support, could add additional insights into its transferability to social care. This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98646409. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128616) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Developing feasible person-centred care alternatives to emergency department responses for adults with epilepsy: a discrete choice analysis mixed-methods study.

Calls have been made for paramedics to have some form of care pathway that they could use to safely divert adults with epilepsy away from emergency departments and instigate ambulatory care improvements. Different configurations are possible. To know which to prioritise for implementation/evaluation, there is a need to determine which are acceptable to service users and likely National Health Service-feasible. (1) Identify configurations being considered, (2) understand service users' views of them and current provision, (3) identify what sort of care service users want and (4) determine which configuration(s) is considered to achieve optimal balance in meeting users' preference and being National Health Service-feasible. Service providers were surveyed to address objective 1. Interviews with service users addressed objective 2. Objective 3 was addressed by completing discrete choice experiments. These determined users' care preferences for different seizure scenarios. Objective 4 was addressed by completing 'knowledge exchange' workshops. At these, stakeholders considered the findings on users' stated preferences and judged different pathway configurations against Michie's 'acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, side-effects and equity' feasibility criteria. This project took place in England. The survey recruited representatives from neurology and neuroscience centres and from urgent and emergency care providers. For the interviews, recruitment occurred via third-sector support groups. Recruitment for discrete choice experiments occurred via the North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust and public advert. Workshop participants were recruited from neurology and neuroscience centres, urgent and emergency care providers, support groups and commissioning networks. Seventy-two services completed the survey. Interviews were conducted with 25 adults with epilepsy (and 5 relatives) who had emergency service contact in the prior 12 months. Discrete choice experiments were completed by 427 adults with epilepsy (and 167 relatives) who had ambulance service contact in the prior 12 months. Workshops were completed with 27 stakeholders. The survey identified a range of pathway configurations. They differed in where they would take the patient and their potential to instigate ambulatory care improvements. Users had been rarely consulted in designing them. The discrete choice experiments found that users want a configuration of care markedly different to that offered. Across the seizure scenarios, users wanted their paramedic to have access to their medical records; for an epilepsy specialist (e.g. an epilepsy nurse, neurologist) to be available to advise; for their general practitioner to receive a report; for the incident to generate an appointment with an epilepsy specialist; for the care episode to last < 6 hours; and there was a pattern of preference to avoid conveyance to emergency departments and stay where they were. Stakeholders judged this configuration to be National Health Service-feasible within 5-10 years, with some elements being immediately deployable. The discrete choice experiment sample was broadly representative, but those reporting recent contact with an epilepsy specialist were over-represented. Users state they want a configuration of care that is markedly different to current provision. The configuration they prefer was, with support and investment, judged to likely be National Health Service-feasible. The preferred configuration should now be developed and evaluated to determine its actual deliverability and efficacy. The study is registered as researchregistry4723. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/62) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.

There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved. To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement. A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases. National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2). We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families. The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced. Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups. We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Opportunities and Challenges in the Use of Technology to Support Aging in the Right Place.

This paper explores the rapidly growing integration of technology in the delivery of health and social care specifically focused on enabling "Ageing in the Right Place" (AIRP) (Iciaszczyk et al. 2022: 1). While exploring emerging opportunities and challenges, it specifically highlights growing disparities that are creating digital divides, as well as ethical concerns that will need to be addressed and supported by comprehensive evaluation frameworks and policies. Ultimately, the development of inclusive and ethical technologies for enabling AIRP in collaboration with all relevant stakeholders - including policy makers, researchers, caregivers and older adults - is needed to ensure that new technologies can both empower and ultimately improve the lives of older adults.

COVID-19 Disruptions to Social Care Delivery: A Qualitative Study in Two Large, Safety-Net Primary Care Clinics

BackgroundSocial care integration refers to the incorporation of activities into health systems that assist patients with health-related social needs (HRSNs) that negatively impact the health outcomes of their patients, such as food insecurity or homelessness. Social care integration initiatives are becoming more common. The COVID-19 pandemic strained health systems while simultaneously increasing levels of unmet social needs.ObjectiveTo describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on established social care delivery in a primary care setting.DesignWe used qualitative semi-structured interviews of stakeholders to assess barriers and facilitators to social care delivery in the primary care setting during the COVID-19 health emergency. Data was analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive thematic analysis approach with both the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Screen-Navigate-Connect-Address-Evaluate model of social care integration.SettingTwo safety-net, hospital-based primary care clinics with established screening for food insecurity, homelessness, and legal needs.ParticipantsSix physicians, six nurses, six members of the social work team (clinical social workers and medical case workers), six community health workers, and six patients (total N = 30) completed interviews.ResultsFour major themes were identified. (1) A strained workforce experienced challenges confronting increased levels of HRSNs. (2) Vulnerable populations experienced a disproportionate negative impact in coping with effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on HRSNs. (3) COVID-19 protections compounded social isolation but did not extinguish the sense of community. (4) Fluctuations in the social service landscape led to variable experiences.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted established social care delivery in a primary care setting. Many of the lessons learned about challenges to social care delivery when health systems are strained are important considerations that can inform efforts to expand social care delivery.

Engaging with the public on their views on the collection, use and sharing of personal health information: Development of a scenario-based survey instrument

Background Members of the public differ regarding their views on the use and sharing of personal health information. Objective This paper describes the methodology employed to develop a telephone-based survey tool to capture views of the public on the collection, use and sharing of personal health information. Method A rigorous methodology comprising multiple stages was undertaken to develop a vignette/scenario-based survey instrument. These steps included a review of instruments used in other jurisdictions, focus groups, engagement meetings with healthcare professionals, cognitive testing and piloting the final instrument. Informed by the findings of each survey development phase, draft scenarios and accompanying questions were developed. Results The following scenarios were developed: ‘Circle of care,’ ‘Use of information beyond your direct care’ and ‘Digital records.’ Conclusion The findings from this survey will inform national policy in relation to health information and will inform the development and implementation of eHealth initiatives. In turn, this should support the delivery of high-quality, effective health and social care. The learnings from the development of this survey will contribute to future health information policy and governance in countries or jurisdictions considering the development of a national electronic health record system. Moreover, this research will support public and population health management by encouraging public engagement to support successful implementation of new health information systems.

Digital First Primary Care for those with multiple long-term conditions: a rapid review of the views of stakeholders.

General practices are facing challenges such as rising patient demand and difficulties recruiting and retaining general practitioners. Greater use of digital technology has been advocated as a way of mitigating some of these challenges and improving patient access. This includes Digital First Primary Care, when a patient's first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The use of Digital First Primary Care has been expedited since COVID-19. There is little evidence of staff experiences of using Digital First Primary Care with more complex patients, such as those with multiple long-term conditions. To understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and stakeholders. This was a qualitative evaluation, comprised of four distinct work packages: Work package 1: Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, and co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients. Work package 2: Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders, including academics and policy-makers. Work package 3: Analysis of data and generation of themes, and testing findings with patients. Work package 4: Synthesis, reporting and dissemination. The study commenced in January 2021 and in total 28 interviews were conducted with 14 health professionals and 15 stakeholders between January and August 2022. From the perspective of health professionals, Digital First Primary Care approaches could enable patients to speak with a clinician more quickly than traditional approaches. Those with multiple long-term conditions could submit healthcare readings from home, though health professionals felt patients may struggle navigating digital systems not designed to capture the nuances associated with living with multiple conditions. Clinicians expressed preferences for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, to identify non-verbal cues about a patient's health. Digital First Primary Care approaches provided an opportunity for clinicians to engage with the carers of patients living with multiple long-term conditions, yet there were concerns around obtaining consent and confidentiality. There remain debates among stakeholders about the nature and extent to which Digital First Primary Care impacts on staff workload. At the time of data collection, general practices were facing considerable pressure to deliver care and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it was originally intended that the study would include interviews with patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers, none of the general practices that took part in the study were willing and/or able to recruit patients and carers in the time available. The rapid implementation of Digital First Primary Care, at a time of immense pressures, meant there has been little time for considering the impact on patients, including those with multiple long-term conditions. The impacts on care continuity depended largely on how surgeries implemented their approaches. Staff and stakeholders felt that Digital First Primary Care, as an additional route for accessing primary care, could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions but not at the expense of face-to-face consultations. Future research obtaining patient and carer views of digital-first approaches, understanding the impacts on carers and how approaches are designed with patients with more complex conditions in mind, is essential. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Understanding how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience living with pain, pain management and services: a meta-ethnography.

Childhood chronic pain is a widespread public health issue. We need to understand how children with chronic pain and their families experience chronic pain and its management. To conduct a meta-ethnography on the experiences and perceptions of children with chronic pain and their families of chronic pain, treatments and services. We investigated how children and their families conceptualise and live with chronic pain; what they think of and want from health and social care services; and what they conceptualise as 'good' pain management. Meta-ethnography with stakeholder and patient and public involvement in the design, search and sampling strategies, analysis and dissemination. Review strategy: comprehensive searches of 12 bibliographic databases and supplementary searches in September 2022, to identify qualitative studies with children aged 3 months to 18 years with chronic non-cancer pain and their families. We included studies with rich explanatory data; appraised methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool; and extracted, analysed and synthesised studies' findings. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research to assess confidence in review findings. We integrated findings with 14 Cochrane treatment effectiveness reviews on children's chronic non-cancer pain. We synthesised 43 studies sampled from 170 eligible studies reported in 182 publications. Studies had minor (n = 24) or moderate (n = 19) methodological limitations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research assessments of review findings were high (n = 22), moderate (n = 13) or very low confidence (n = 1). Moderate and severe chronic pain had profound adverse impacts on family members' well-being, autonomy and self-identity; family dynamics; parenting approaches; friendships and socialising; children's education and parental paid employment. Most children and families sought a biomedical cure for pain. They experienced difficulties seeking and receiving support from health services to manage pain and its impacts. Consequently, some families repeatedly visited health services. Cochrane reviews of intervention effects and trials did not measure some outcomes important to children and families, for example effects of pain on the family and resolution of pain. Reviews have mainly neglected a biopsychosocial approach when considering how interventions work. There were limited data on common pain conditions like migraine/headache, abdominal pain; some rarer conditions; children with learning disabilities and under-fives; siblings; fathers and experiences of treatments/services. We excluded studies on cancer, end-of-life pain and experiences of healthcare professionals. We developed the family-centred theory of children's chronic pain management, integrating health and social care with community support. Future research should explore families' experiences of services and treatments, including opioids, and social care services; experiences of children with autism and learning disabilities, under 5 years old and with certain common pain conditions. We need development and testing of family-centred interventions and services. This study is registered as PROSPERO (CRD42019161455) and Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care (623). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128671) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Lessons for the UK on implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support: evidence syntheses and stakeholder engagement.

Breastfeeding impacts positively on multiple health outcomes, but < 50% of UK women breastfeed at 8 weeks. Women with long-term conditions face additional challenges in breastfeeding. To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS. Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement. Systematic reviews examined effectiveness of breastfeeding support for (1) healthy women and (2) women with long-term conditions using Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group methods. Mixed-methods systematic reviews synthesised process evaluations of effective breastfeeding support interventions for healthy women and experiences of receiving/providing support for breastfeeding women with long-term conditions. Cross-study synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Systematic reviews synthesised evidence on the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. All searches were conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. Stakeholder engagement and toolkit development comprised online discussions, a modified Delphi study, focus groups and four workshops. Participants were 23 stakeholders, 16 parents in the parents' panels, 15 women in the focus groups and 87 stakeholders who attended the workshops. We found considerably more interventions designed for healthy women (review 1) than aimed at women with long-term conditions (reviews 1 and 4); approximately half of the studies were targeted at groups at higher risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes, and the impact of support may be different in these populations. Despite this, studies from review 2 found that women perceived the provision of support as positive, important and needed. Studies from review 5 echoed a range of suggestions from participants regarding potential strategies to improve breastfeeding support, with the most widely reported being the need to acknowledge the role and influence of other sources of support (e.g. partners, family, friends, peers, external professionals, web-based resources) and involving these sources in the provision of breastfeeding support for women with long-term conditions. In reviews 3 and 6, there was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support interventions due to the limited number of studies and lack of good-quality evidence. There was a lack of evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions in the UK. There was often insufficient information reported about intervention characteristics. 'Breastfeeding only' support probably reduces the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' interventions is less consistent, but these may reduce the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and at 6 months. We found no evidence of differential intervention effects regarding mode of provision or provider. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain due to the lack of good-quality evidence. Key enablers of successful implementation were responsiveness and tailoring of interventions to both women's and supporters' needs. Breastfeeding support as delivered in the included studies probably has little to no effect on breastfeeding outcomes for women with long-term conditions. The mixed-methods synthesis and stakeholder work identified that existing interventions may not address the complex needs of these women. The main study output is a co-produced toolkit to guide implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support services in the UK. Evaluation of breastfeeding support for all women, particularly those at risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes (e.g. long-term conditions, deprivation). This could involve tailoring the toolkit to local contexts via implementation and effectiveness studies or using quality improvement studies. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022337239, CRD42021229769 and CRD42022374509. The reviews of economic evidence were not registered; however, the review protocol can be accessed via the repository held by Queen's University Belfast Research Portal (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130995) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Community First Responders' role in the current and future rural health and care workforce: a mixed-methods study.

Community First Responders are trained volunteers dispatched by ambulance services to potentially life-threatening emergencies such as cardiac arrest in the first vital minutes to provide care until highly skilled ambulance staff arrive. Community First Responder schemes were first introduced to support ambulance services in rural communities, where access to prehospital emergency care is more likely to be delayed. Evidence is lacking on their contribution to rural healthcare provision, how care is provided and how this might be improved. We aimed to describe Community First Responder activities, organisation, costs of provision and outcomes of care together with perceptions and views of patients, public, Community First Responders, ambulance service staff and commissioners of their current and future role including innovations in the rural health and care workforce. We used a mixed-methods design, using a lens of pragmatism and the 'actor', 'behaviour change' and 'causal pathway' framework to integrate quantitative routine and qualitative (policy, guideline and protocol documents with stakeholder interview) data from 6 of 10 English ambulance services. We identified potential innovations in Community First Responder provision and prioritised these using a modified nominal group technique. Patients and public were involved throughout the study. In 4.5 million incidents from six English regional ambulance services during 2019, pre COVID-19 pandemic, Community First Responders attended first a higher proportion of calls in rural areas (almost 4% of calls) than in urban areas (around 1.5%). They were significantly more likely to be called out to rural (vs. urban) areas and to attend older (vs. younger), white (vs. minority ethnic) people in more affluent (vs. deprived) areas with cardiorespiratory and neurological (vs. other emergency) conditions for higher-priority emergency or urgent (category 1 and 2 compared with category 3, 4 or 5) calls but did also attend lower-category calls for conditions such as falls. We examined 10 documents from seven ambulance services. Ambulance policies and protocols integrated Community First Responders into ambulance service structures to achieve the safe and effective operation of volunteers. Costs, mainly for training, equipment and support, varied widely but were not always clearly delineated. Community First Responders enabled a faster prehospital response time. There was no clear benefit in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. A specific Community First Responder falls response reduced ambulance attendances and was potentially cost saving. We conducted semistructured interviews with 47 different stakeholders engaged in Community First Responder functions. This showed the trajectory of becoming a Community First Responder, the Community First Responder role, governance and practice, and the positive views of Community First Responders from stakeholders despite public lack of understanding of their role. Community First Responders' scope of practice varied between ambulance services and had developed into new areas. Innovations prioritised at the consensus workshop were changes in processes and structures and an expanded scope of practice supported by training, which included counselling, peer support, better communication with the control room, navigation and communication technology, and specific mandatory and standardised training for Community First Responders. Missing data and small numbers of interviews in some stakeholder groups (patients, commissioners) are sources of bias. Future research should include a robust evaluation of innovations involving Community First Responders. This trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04279262. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127920) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study.

Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this. To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each. Phase 1: interviews (n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops (n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews (n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire (n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire (n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire (n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews (n = 11); fidelity assessment (n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings). (1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents' physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings. A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement. Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members. The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents' last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services' complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality. COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care. Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff. Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care. This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Adapting and testing measures of organizational context in primary care clinics in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

BackgroundImplementation science frameworks situate intervention implementation and sustainment within the context of the implementing organization and system. Aspects of organizational context such as leadership have been defined and measured largely within US health care settings characterized by decentralization and individual autonomy. The relevance of these constructs in other settings may be limited by differences like collectivist orientation, resource constraints, and hierarchical power structures. We aimed to adapt measures of organizational context in South African primary care clinics.MethodsWe convened a panel of South African experts in social science and HIV care delivery and presented implementation domains informed by existing frameworks and prior work in South Africa. Based on panel input, we selected contextual domains and adapted candidate items. We conducted cognitive interviews with 25 providers in KwaZulu-Natal Province to refine measures. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey of 16 clinics with 5–20 providers per clinic (N = 186). We assessed reliability using Cronbach’s alpha and calculated interrater agreement (awg) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at the clinic level. Within clinics with moderate agreement, we calculated correlation of clinic-level measures with each other and with hypothesized predictors – staff continuity and infrastructure – and a clinical outcome, patient retention on antiretroviral therapy.ResultsPanelists emphasized contextual factors; we therefore focused on elements of clinic leadership, stress, cohesion, and collective problem solving (critical consciousness). Cognitive interviews confirmed salience of the domains and improved item clarity. After excluding items related to leaders’ coordination abilities due to missingness and low agreement, all other scales demonstrated individual-level reliability and at least moderate interrater agreement in most facilities. ICC was low for most leadership measures and moderate for others. Measures tended to correlate within facility, and higher stress was significantly correlated with lower staff continuity. Organizational context was generally more positively rated in facilities that showed consistent agreement.ConclusionsAs theorized, organizational context is important in understanding program implementation within the South African health system. Most adapted measures show good reliability at individual and clinic levels. Additional revision of existing frameworks to suit this context and further testing in high and low performing clinics is warranted.

The palliative care experience in Irish nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of residents, family, and staff

BackgroundNursing homes and other long-term care services account for a disparate share of COVID-19 cases and casualties worldwide. During COVID-19 there is a distinct need to preserve a holistic view of the wellbeing of residents of nursing homes, be mindful of their rights as citizens, and to be aware of protecting residents from infection. The delivery of health and social care throughout a pandemic must remain person-centred and adhere to a human rights-based approach.MethodsThis study aimed to capture nursing home residents, their families and staff’s perspective of the nursing homes residents experience, approaches of staff and the nursing home environment. An online survey was distributed via stakeholder networks and online platforms across Ireland. This study was performed and reported in line with the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).Results25 residents, 42 family members and 51 staff completed the survey (n = 118). Across the domains measured all but one aspect scored above 50% (residents get up and go to bed when they want 41.5%) with the highest score of 89.1% scored for the nursing home is comfortable and well-kept. Results highlight evidence of positive experiences and endeavours to preserve social connections, residents were in a safe place cared for by staff who did their best in a difficult position and who went above and beyond their duty of care. However, some families reported poor communication, no internet connections, not enough phones or tablets, and that staff were busy and unable at times to assist residents who needed help using phones/tablets.ConclusionThis study highlights the importance of human rights and how they ought to inform and shape the advancement of public health advice and policy documents. Overall, nursing home residents, their families and staff reported favourably on the study measures. However, issues pertaining to communication are essential and there is a need to address issues such as the provision of accurate timely information, communication infrastructure and resources, and inconsistencies in communications. Of note is that while healthcare professionals have a duty to uphold the rights of nursing home residents, they themselves have human rights which must also be protected and supported.

Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study.

The Family Nurse Partnership is an intensive home visiting programme for adolescent mothers. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership on outcomes up to age 7 using national administrative data. We created a linked cohort of all mothers aged 13-19 using data from health, educational and children's social care and defined mothers enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership or not using Family Nurse Partnership system data. Propensity scores were used to create matched groups for analysis. One hundred and thirty-six local authorities in England with active Family Nurse Partnership sites between 2010 and 2017. Mothers aged 13-19 at last menstrual period with live births between April 2010 and March 2019, living in a Family Nurse Partnership catchment area and their firstborn child(ren). The Family Nurse Partnership includes up to 64 home visits by a family nurse from early pregnancy until the child's second birthday and is combined with usual health and social care. Controls received usual health and social care. Indicators of child maltreatment (hospital admissions for injury/maltreatment, referral to social care services); child health and development (hospital utilisation and education) outcomes and maternal hospital utilisation and educational outcomes up to 7 years following birth. Family Nurse Partnership Information System, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Pupil Database. Of 110,520 eligible mothers, 25,680 (23.2%) were enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership. Enrolment rates varied across 122 sites (range: 11-68%). Areas with more eligible mothers had lower enrolment rates. Enrolment was higher among mothers aged 13-15 (52%), than 18-19 year-olds (21%). Indicators of child maltreatment: we found no evidence of an association between the Family Nurse Partnership and indicators of child maltreatment, except for an increased rate of unplanned admissions for maltreatment/injury-related diagnoses up to age 2 for children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers (6.6% vs. 5.7%, relative risk 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.24). Child health and developmental outcomes: there was weak evidence that children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers were more likely to achieve a Good Level of Development at age 5 (57.5% vs. 55.4%, relative risk 1.05; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.09). Maternal outcomes: There was some evidence that Family Nurse Partnership mothers were less likely to have a subsequent delivery within 18 months of the index birth (8.4% vs. 9.3%, relative risk 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.97). Younger and more vulnerable mothers received higher numbers of visits and were more likely to achieve fidelity targets. Meeting the fidelity targets was associated with some outcomes. Bias by indication and variation in the intervention and usual care over time and between areas may have limited our ability to detect effects. Multiple testing may have led to spurious, significant results. This study supports findings from evaluations of the Family Nurse Partnership showing no evidence of benefit for maltreatment outcomes measured in administrative data. Amongst all the outcomes measured, we found weak evidence that the Family Nurse Partnership was associated with improvements in child development at school entry, a reduction in rapid repeat pregnancies and evidence of increased healthcare-seeking in the mother and child. Future evaluations should capture better measures of Family Nurse Partnership interventions and usual care, more information on maternal risk factors and additional outcomes relating to maternal well-being. The study is registered as NIHR CRN Portfolio (42900). This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/19) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Service design for children and young people with common mental health problems: literature review, service mapping and collective case study.

The mental health of children/young people is a growing concern internationally. Numerous reports and reviews have consistently described United Kingdom children's mental health services as fragmented, variable, inaccessible and lacking an evidence base. Little is known about the effectiveness of, and implementation complexities associated with, service models for children/young people experiencing 'common' mental health problems like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and self-harm. To develop a model for high-quality service design for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems by identifying available services, barriers and enablers to access, and the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of such services. Evidence syntheses with primary research, using a sequential, mixed-methods design. Inter-related scoping and integrative reviews were conducted alongside a map of relevant services across England and Wales, followed by a collective case study of English and Welsh services. Global (systematic reviews); England and Wales (service map; case study). Literature reviews: relevant bibliographic databases and grey literature. Service map: online survey and offline desk research. Case study: 108 participants (41 children/young people, 26 parents, 41 staff) across nine case study sites. A single literature search informed both reviews. The service map was obtained from an online survey and internet searches. Case study sites were sampled from the service map; because of coronavirus disease 2019, case study data were collected remotely. 'Young co-researchers' assisted with case study data collection. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised using the 'weaving' approach of 'integration through narrative'. A service model typology was derived from the scoping review. The integrative review found effectiveness evidence for collaborative care, outreach approaches, brief intervention services and the 'availability, responsiveness and continuity' framework. There was cost-effectiveness evidence only for collaborative care. No service model appeared to be more acceptable than others. The service map identified 154 English and Welsh services. Three themes emerged from the case study data: 'pathways to support'; 'service engagement'; and 'learning and understanding'. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised into a coproduced model of high-quality service provision for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems. Defining 'service model' was a challenge. Some service initiatives were too new to have filtered through into the literature or service map. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought about a surge in remote/digital services which were under-represented in the literature. A dearth of relevant studies meant few cost-effectiveness conclusions could be drawn. There was no strong evidence to suggest any existing service model was better than another. Instead, we developed a coproduced, evidence-based model that incorporates the fundamental components necessary for high-quality children's mental health services and which has utility for policy, practice and research. Future work should focus on: the potential of our model to assist in designing, delivering and auditing children's mental health services; reasons for non-engagement in services; the cost effectiveness of different approaches in children's mental health; the advantages/disadvantages of digital/remote platforms in delivering services; understanding how and what the statutory sector might learn from the non-statutory sector regarding choice, personalisation and flexibility. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106219. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/09/08) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.