An integrated approach for individualised support: carers' views

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to capture carers’ views of a service in Bristol funded jointly by the Local Authority and the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group, which offers support to carers in the form of a one-off payment which they can use for anything they choose. Design/methodology/approach – A multi-method evaluation of this integrated service was conducted between August 2012 and October 2013 to explore its impact on carers’ health and well-being. This paper presents findings from 40 interviews conducted with carers as part of the evaluation. Findings – Many carers have little respite from very stressful situations; the break enabled them to focus on their own needs. Carers’ needs included actual short breaks away with or without those being cared for, as well as items like household equipment or exercise classes. Research limitations/implications – The study was centred on an innovation and integrated approach to support carers in one city and provides a snap-shot of the short-term effects. Longer lasting effects are not known. Social implications – Most carers found the support beneficial, and in some cases reported a positive effect on their own health and well-being. Effective inter-agency communication and collaboration is essential for the success of the integrated service. Originality/value – There is limited research available on the outcomes of integrated approaches to support carers.

Perceptions on technology for volunteer respite care for bedridden elders in Chile

“…The reasons that support this claim are related to the need to carry out other activities which they are unable to carry out while caring for an elder. This is also supported by evidence in the literature that explains that caregivers would devote their free time to carrying out household chores, medical assistance, rest, recreational activities and work (Greenwood, Habibi, & Mackenzie, 2012; Mastel-Smith & Stanley-Hermanns, 2012; Moule et al, 2014; Stirling, Dwan, & Mckenzie, 2014). …”

“…Although caregivers are willing to access respite care, they lay out obstacles similar to those stipulated in the literature, such as the need to constantly supervise the dependent person due to reasons such as concern for the elder’s safety and a heightened sense of responsibility and guilt that makes it difficult to leave the elder alone (Greenwood et al, 2012; Moule et al, 2014). The present study further examines these obstacles to a successful partnership, also relating the desirable traits of the volunteer, where the caregivers consider that the person providing the care, whether paid or voluntary, provide emotional support and have knowledge on caring for elders; at the same time, it is of the highest importance that the person have prior experience in this work (Greenwood et al, 2012; Neville et al, 2015; Stirling et al, 2014).…”

“…Another result shows that, in order for the caregivers to receive a volunteer in their home, they would require meeting the volunteer in person beforehand, and that the selected caregiver commit to regular visits. Moreover, various caregivers that participated in the Moule et al (2014) study had a positive experience when accessing the respite by means of a face-to-face interview, preferring personal contact over a telephone call. Along the same line, the informal caregivers of dependent people would enjoy the opportunity to speak and simply be heard by the respite care provider, whether paid or not (Greenwood et al, 2012; Neville et al, 2015).…”

“…This is part of the outcome of volunteer caregiving, or the respite attribute (Evans, 2013a), and clearly coincides with the findings of several studies with the aim of ensuring the dependent elder has a pleasant experience by means of social interaction with the volunteer (Greenwood et al, 2012; Neville et al, 2015; Stirling et al, 2014). Precisely, the stimulation resulting from socialization with the caregiver is the most notable benefit of the respite mentioned by caregivers (Evans, 2013a, 2013b; Greenwood et al, 2012; Laverty, Arber, & Faithfull, 2016; Moule et al, 2014; Neville et al, 2015). …”

Measuring quality in community nursing: a mixed-methods study

“…Caring responsibilities assumed by informal carers (family members and/or friends) are often extremely onerous, 81 precluding this group's ability to take part in processes that require expenditure of time and/or effort. Moreover, patients cannot be considered to be a homogenous group with a unified perspective on specific issues, 82 so it cannot be assumed that those who do engage with formal representation within organisations share views and concerns with patients receiving community nursing care.…”