RESUMO

Background: Social welfare legal needs (matters of daily life, such as finances, housing and employment with legal rights, entitlements or protections) are prevalent towards end of life, creating significant difficulties for both patients and carers. Most people do not know where to go, although a range of services provide advice and support for addressing social welfare legal problems. Navigating this complex and fragmented system across health, social care and social welfare legal support is very challenging. Healthcare professionals are often the first contact for social welfare legal needs, although these are often overlooked and their impact on health and well-being unrecognised. Interprofessional learning can increase awareness of social welfare legal needs and build connections between service providers, offering a more holistic and cohesive multiagency response to the complex needs around end of life. The aim of the research was to co-create a robust foundation for cross-agency research investigating the impact of interprofessional learning on social welfare legal needs towards end of life in the North East England region. Objectives: Convene a research partnership group across academics, multiagency service providers and members of the public with lived experience. Consider and agree key issues for successful place-based multiagency research in this area. Co-create a complexity-appropriate research proposal with interprofessional learning as an intervention. Methods: A series of research activities was implemented to convene a multiagency partnership group and consider the key issues for successful place-based multiagency research. Data were collected from two online workshops, an optional reflective workbook, and a modified Delphi technique. Initial participants were selectively recruited from our established stakeholder and patient and public involvement groups. Increasing diversity of the partnership continued throughout the project, using contacts provided by group members. Representation of services supporting underserved groups was a priority. Results: All invited participants were recruited to the partnership, although contribution to research activities was variable. The partnership bridged knowledge gaps between services and united diverse perspectives, expertise and experience. A greater understanding of the barriers and opportunities for place-based multiagency working was generated, such as considering the importance of language in facilitating collaboration and responding to concerns around capacity. A non-hierarchical partnership was meaningful, with both personal and professional insights viewed as equally important. Facilitators to engagement with interprofessional learning were identified including the need for leadership endorsement. A non-traditional, mixed-method approach to interprofessional learning evaluation was favoured, with both qualitative and quantitative measures at three levels: patient and carer, professional learners and organisations. Important outcomes included raising awareness, connectedness and space to reflect. Limitations: The partnership group expanded throughout the course of the project. While this extended diversity, variable participation hindered depth of discussion, with participants engaging at different points and with different understanding levels of the project. Supplementary materials provided some mitigation. Capacity and funding constraints limited engagement for some participants. Conclusions: Convening a multiagency partnership generated insights into the benefits, barriers and facilitators to research co-design and potential measures of success of interprofessional learning. Future work: Learning from this project has informed a complexity-appropriate research proposal to evaluate the impact of interprofessional learning as an intervention across different stakeholders. Funding: 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 NIHR135276.

Social welfare legal issues, such as unsuitable housing, job difficulties and money concerns, are common in the last 12 months of a person's life and they affect carers too. Getting the right help can be difficult as it is hard to know where to go. Organisations and services often work separately from each other. Healthcare professionals are often the first contact for social welfare legal needs, but they may not be able to provide the required support. Interprofessional learning brings professionals together to learn from each other and connect services better. We think this will make it easier for people to get the help they need when the same is required. We set up a group of professionals and four people with personal experience. This partnership group started with people and organisations we knew already but more joined during the project. By the end, 37 different services, representing a range of health, advice and community services, had joined the research group. All services had experience of social welfare legal issues in the last 12 months of life. The group discussed running research together and how interprofessional learning could be tested in our next research project. Research activities were: two online meetings to discuss key questions a workbook which gave time to think about the questions we were asking a survey which asked participants their views about measuring success of interprofessional learning. Group members brought a variety of experiences and opinions. Some had difficulty taking part, mainly because of time. We learnt that professional and personal experiences are as important as each other and that it is important to avoid jargon. Testing if interprofessional learning makes a difference needs to look at people using services, professionals and organisations. We have written a funding application, based on what we have learnt in this project.

RESUMO

This article traces the development and growth of health justice partnerships (HJPs) in three countries: the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: Welfare legal problems and inadequate access to support services follow both the socioeconomic and the health inequalities gradients. Health Justice Partnership (HJP) is an international practitioner-led movement which brings together legal and healthcare professionals to address the root causes of ill health from negative social determinants. The aim of this paper was to identify the current evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of HJP or comparable welfare advice services. Methods: A rapid review format was used, with a literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, ASSIA, PsycINFO, Medline, Cochrane Library, Global Health and Web of Science identifying 496 articles. After removal of duplicates, 176 papers were screened on titles and abstracts, and 20 papers met the eligibility criteria. Following a full-text screening, a further 14 papers were excluded due to lack of economic evaluations. Excluded papers' reference lists were scanned, with a further 3 further papers identified which met the inclusion criteria. A final pool of nine studies were included in this review. Results: Studies focused on the financial benefit to service users, with only three studies reporting on cost effectiveness of the interventions. Only one study reported on the economic impact of change of health in service users and one study reported on changes in health service use. Conclusion: This review highlights the current evidence gap in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of adequate access to free legal welfare advice and representation. We propose that an interdisciplinary research agenda between health economics and legal-health services is required to address this research gap.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: Health-justice partnerships (HJPs) are collaborations between healthcare and legal services which support patients with social welfare issues such as welfare benefits, debt, housing, education and employment. HJPs exist across the world in a variety of forms and with diverse objectives. This review synthesizes the international evidence on the impacts of HJPs. Methods: A systematic scoping review of international literature was undertaken. A wide-ranging search was conducted across academic databases and grey literature sources, covering OECD countries from January 1995 to December 2018. Data from included publications were extracted and research quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze and present the results. Results: Reported objectives of HJPs related to: prevention of health and legal problems; access to legal assistance; health improvement; resolution of legal problems; improvement of patient care; support for healthcare services; addressing inequalities; and catalyzing systemic change. There is strong evidence that HJPs: improve access to legal assistance for people at risk of social and health disadvantage; positively influence material and social circumstances through resolution of legal problems; and improve mental wellbeing. A wide range of other positive impacts were identified for individuals, services and communities; the strength of evidence for each is summarized and discussed. Conclusion: HJPs are effective in tackling social welfare issues that affect the health of disadvantaged groups in society and can therefore form a key part of public health strategies to address inequalities.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Legal issues are common in chronic illness. These include matters of daily life, such as problems with employment, finances and housing, where rights or entitlements are prescribed by law. They also include planning ahead, for example, making a Lasting Power of Attorney. However, the nature, impact and management of legal needs in the context of end of life care are not known. This study investigated these from the perspectives of patients and carers. METHODS: Patients, with estimated prognosis 12 months or less, and carers were recruited from two sites: day services within an urban hospice and primary care in an area of deprivation in North-East England. Semi-structured interviews explored the nature and impact of legal issues, access to appropriate support and unmet needs. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with 14 patients (10/14 hospice) and 13 carers (7/13 hospice). Five were patient-carer dyads. All participants had experienced problems raising legal issues, which generated significant practical and psychological challenges. All had struggled to access support for social welfare legal issues, describing not knowing what, who, or when to ask for help. All participants accessed some support, however routes, timing and issues addressed were variable. Facilitators included serendipitous triggers and informed healthcare professionals who offered support directly, or signposted elsewhere. A range of professionals and organisations provided support; resolution of issues conferred substantial benefit. The majority of participants identified unresolved legal issues, predominantly related to planning ahead. The challenge of facing increased dependency and death proved a key barrier to this; informed and compassionate healthcare professionals were important enablers. CONCLUSION: Everyday legal needs are a common and distressing consequence of life-limiting illness, affecting patients and carers alike. This study identified inconsistent approaches but practical and psychological benefit when needs were met. Healthcare professionals were central to meeting social welfare legal needs and facilitating effective planning, with important roles as 'critical noticers', trusted intermediaries and compassionate communicators. Increased awareness, clearer pathways to support and closer service integration are needed to meet legal needs as a component of holistic care.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Objective: Little is known about legal needs in the context of life-limiting illness, particularly the need for advice concerning legal arrangements, rights and entitlements. This UK-based multiagency stakeholder engagement exercise scoped legal needs associated with life-limiting illness and identified support structures, gaps and opportunities for practice improvement. Method and analysis: Snowball sampling generated a stakeholder group from a wide range of regional and national organisations involved in care of people with life-limiting illness, spanning health, social care, legal support, advice, charities, prison services as well as patient and carer representatives. A coproduced survey of three open questions generated qualitative data, interpreted by thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholders reported a broad spectrum of problems and needs raising legal issues, with no consistency of definition. A classification is proposed, identifying matters concerning rights and entitlements of patients/carers in day-to-day life and decisions around care, both immediate and in the future, as well as professional responsibilities in delivering personalised care. The support structures identified were predominantly online literature, although there was some availability of remote and face-to-face services. Limited awareness of the issues, variable service configuration, fragmentation of care and inequitable access were identified as barriers to support. Stakeholders recognised the need for education and closer multiagency working. Conclusions: 'Legal needs' incorporate wide-ranging issues, but there is inconsistency in perceptions among stakeholders. Practice is variable, risking unmet need. Opportunities for improvement include more formal integration of social welfare legal services in the health context, generating clearer pathways for assessment and management.