Background: Transitions of care are often risky, particularly for older people, and shorter hospital stays mean that patients can go home with ongoing care needs. Most previous research has focused on fundamental system flaws, however, care generally goes right far more often than it goes wrong. We explored staff perceptions of how high performing general practice and hospital specialty teams deliver safe transitional care to older people as they transition from hospital to home. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study in six general practices and four hospital specialties that demonstrated exceptionally low or reducing readmission rates over time. Data were also collected across four community teams that worked into or with these high-performing teams. In total, 157 multidisciplinary staff participated in semistructured focus groups or interviews and 9 meetings relating to discharge were observed. A pen portrait approach was used to explore how teams across a variety of different contexts support successful transitions and overcome challenges faced in their daily roles. Results: Across healthcare contexts, staff perceived three key themes to facilitate safe transitions of care: knowing the patient, knowing each other, and bridging gaps in the system. Transitions appeared to be safest when all three themes were in place. However, staff faced various challenges in doing these three things particularly when crossing boundaries between settings. Due to pressures and constraints, staff generally felt they were only able to attempt to overcome these challenges when delivering care to patients with particularly complex transitional care needs. Conclusions: It is hypothesised that exceptionally safe transitions of care may be delivered to patients who have particularly complex health and/or social care needs. In these situations, staff attempt to know the patient, they exploit existing relationships across care settings, and act to bridge gaps in the system. Systematically reinforcing such enablers may improve the delivery of safe transitional care to a wider range of patients. Trial registration: The study was registered on the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio (references 35272 and 36174).

Background Improving the care of people with dementia on acute hospital wards is a policy priority. Person-centred care is a marker of care quality; delivering such care is a goal of service improvement. Objectives The Person, Interactions and Environment (PIE) Programme comprises an observation tool and a systematic approach to implement and embed a person-centred approach in routine care for hospitalised patients with dementia. The study aims were to evaluate PIE as a method to improve the care of older people with dementia on acute hospital wards, and develop insight into what person-centred care might look like in practice in this setting. Methods We performed a longitudinal comparative case study design in 10 purposively selected wards in five trusts in three English regions, alongside an embedded process evaluation. Data were collected from multiple sources: staff, patients, relatives, organisational aggregate information and documents. Mixed methods were employed: ethnographic observation; interviews and questionnaires; patient case studies (patient observation and conversations ‘in the moment’, interviews with relatives and case records); and patient and ward aggregate data. Data were synthesised to create individual case studies of PIE implementation and outcomes in context of ward structure, organisation, patient profile and process of care delivery. A cross-case comparison facilitated a descriptive and explanatory account of PIE implementation in context, the pattern of variation, what shaped it and the consequences flowing from it. Quantitative data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. A qualitative data analysis employed grounded theory methods. Results The study furthered the understanding of the dimensions of care quality for older people with dementia on acute hospital wards and the environmental, organisational and cultural factors that shaped delivery. Only two wards fully implemented PIE, sustaining and embedding change over 18 months. The remaining wards either did not install PIE (‘non-implementers’) or were ‘partial implementers’. The interaction between micro-level contextual factors [aspects of leadership (drivers, facilitators, team, networks), fit with strategic initiatives and salience with valued goals] and meso- and macro-level organisational factors were the main barriers to PIE adoption. Evidence suggests that the programme, where implemented, directly affected improvements in ward practice, with a positive impact on the experiences of patients and caregivers, although the heterogeneity of need and severity of impairment meant that some of the more visible changes did not affect everyone equally. Limitations Although PIE has the potential to improve the care of people with dementia when implemented, findings are indicative only: data on clinical outcomes were not systematically collected, and PIE was not adopted on most study wards. Research implications Further research is required to identify more precisely the skill mix and resources necessary to provide person-focused care to hospitalised people with dementia, across the spectrum of need, including those with moderate and severe impairment. Implementing innovations to change practices in complex organisations requires a more in-depth understanding of the contextual factors that have an impact on the capacity of organisations to absorb and embed new practices. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Context: Being involved in one's care is prioritised within UK healthcare policy to improve care quality and safety. However, research suggests that many older people struggle with this.Design: We present focused ethnographic research exploring older peoples' involvement in healthcare from hospital to home. Results:We propose that being involved in care is a dynamic form of labour, which we call 'involvement work' (IW). In hospital, many patients 'entrust' IW to others; indeed, when desired, maintaining control, or being actively involved, was challenging. Patient and professionals' expectations, alongside hospital processes, promoted delegation; staff frequently did IW on patients' behalf. Many people wanted to resume IW postdischarge, but struggled because they were out of practice.Discussion: Preference and capacity for involvement was dynamic, fluctuating over time, according to context and resource accessibility. The challenges of resuming IW were frequently underestimated by patients and care providers, increasingThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Shannon R, Forster A, Hawkins R. "A qualitative exploration of self-reported unmet need one year after stroke" Disability and Rehabilitation. In press. which has been published in final form at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1107784 TITLE PAGEA qualitative exploration of self-reported unmet need one year after stroke. Authors:Rosie L Shannon, MSc ABSTRACT PurposeStroke survivors consistently report longer-term problems after stroke, suggesting their needs are not being met. We developed a questionnaire to identify stroke survivor unmet needs. Preliminary questionnaire testing showed that despite residual impairment, nearly one third of respondents reported no/low unmet need. This qualitative study aims to gain insight into why stroke survivors report low/no unmet needs. MethodPeople who self-reported zero or one unmet need were purposively sampled, and semistructured interviews conducted with ten participants. Identification and management of current problems wasdiscussed,and thematic analysis undertaken. ResultsParticipants did not report having unmet need. Despite this, all participants identified current issues or problems. Living with problems while reporting no/low unmet need is explained through: acceptance of changed circumstances; making comparisons with other people and circumstances; valuing pride, determination or independence; viewing issues in the context of their expectations and experiences of services. Additionally, all participants were receiving some support. ConclusionsSelf-identification of unmet needs is complex. Further investigation could explore the factors which enable stroke survivors to appropriately identify and experience no unmet needs, and whether these could be applied to reduce unmet needs of others. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Despite self-reporting no/low unmet need, survivors of stroke may still be experiencing difficulties in their daily lives. Stroke-survivor-identified low unmet need is influenced by complex factors including: acceptance; expectations of services; and comparisons with other people, which health and social care professionals have a role in understanding. Health professionals could assess unmet need by using tools as a guide, supported by individual conversation. Factors which enable some stroke survivors to appropriately identify and experience no/low unmet need could be further explored, and considered as strategies to reduce unmet needs of others. MAIN TEXT

Logic models feature prominently in intervention research yet there is increasing debate about their ability to express how interventions work in the real-world. ‘Real-world’ logic models are a new proposition which express complex interventions in context. They are designed to help researchers strike a balance between context-sensitivity and scalability. This article explores the utility of real-world logic models in a trial involving a complex intervention called ‘Your Care Needs You’, designed to improve hospital-home transitions for UK older patients. The approach is found to usefully capture, refine and express important learning about intervention-implementation-context dynamics. The findings imply the need for intervention researchers to think creatively about how to implement interventions in diverse and sometimes challenging environments and to develop understanding of how complex interventions adapt on implementation to produce outcomes. The possibility of assessing the wider social and policy context within intervention research is also posed.