Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Adapting the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) for use in care home quality monitoring: conceptual development and testing

Authors: Ann-Marie Towers, Jacquetta Holder, Nick Smith, Tanya Crowther, Ann Netten, Elizabeth Welch, Grace Collins

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Alongside an increased policy and practice emphasis on outcomes in social care, English local authorities are now obliged to review quality at a service level to help in their new role of ensuring the development of diverse and high-quality care markets to meet the needs of all local people, including self-funders. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) has been developed to measure the outcomes of social care for individuals in a variety of care settings. Local authorities have expressed an interest in exploring how the toolkit might be used for their own purposes, including quality monitoring. This study aimed to explore how the care homes version of the ASCOT toolkit might be adapted for use as a care home quality indicator and carry out some preliminary testing in two care homes for older adults.

Methods

Consultations were carried out with professional and lay stakeholders, with an interest in using the tool or the ratings it would produce. These explored demand and potential uses for the measure and fed into the conceptual development. A draft toolkit and method for collecting the data was developed and the feasibility of using it for quality monitoring was tested with one local authority quality monitoring team in two homes for older adults.

Results

Stakeholders expressed an interest in care home quality ratings based on residents’ outcomes but there were tensions around who might collect the data and how it might be shared. Feasibility testing suggested the measure had potential for use in quality monitoring but highlighted the importance of training in observational techniques and interviewing skills. The quality monitoring officers involved in the piloting recommended that relatives’ views be collected in advance of visits, through surveys not interviews.

Conclusions

Following interest from another local authority, a larger evaluation of the measure for use in routine quality monitoring is planned. As part of this, the ratings made using this measure will be validated against the outcomes of individual residents and compared with the quality ratings of the regulator, the Care Quality Commission.
Literature
1.
Department of Health. Improving health and care. The role of the outcomes frameworks. London: Department of Health; 2012.
2.
Department of Health. Caring for our future: reforming care and support. White Paper. Cm 8378. London: The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controlloe of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 2012.
3.
Department of Health. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services. Cm 6737. London: The Stationery Office; 2006.
4.
Department of Health. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England. Cm 7985. London: The Stationery Office; 2010.
5.
National Audit Office. Adult Social Care in England: Overview. Report by the Controller and Auditor General. London: National Audit Office; 2014.
6.
7.
Department of Health. Care and Support Statutory Guidance. Issued under the Care Act 2014. London: Department of Health; 2014.
8.
Department of Health. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework 2015/16. London: Department of Health; 2014.
9.
Department of Health. The Care Bill explained. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.
10.
Samual M. Care homes to be rated through survey of 50,000 residents. Community Care. 2012 6 September. 2012.
11.
Personal TLA. Quality assurance survey of Local Authorities. 2012.
12.
Malley J, Holder J, Dodgson R, Booth S. Regulating the quality and safety of long-term care in England. In: Mor V, Leone T, Maresso A, editors. Challenges in Regulating the Quality of Long-term Care: An International Comparison. Cambridge: University Press; 2014.
13.
Committee H. 2012 accountability hearing with the Care Quality Commission. London: House of Commons; 2012.
14.
Allan S, Forder J, Care Markets in England. Lessons from Research. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2815 Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit and the Economics of Social and Health Care Research Unit at the University of Kent. 2012.
15.
Commission for Social Care Inspection. Quality Ratings. Market Research Report. 2009.
16.
17.
18.
Owen T. National Care Homes Research and Development Forum, Help the Aged. My Home Life: Quality of Life in Care Homes. London: Help the Aged; 2006.
19.
Department of Health. Prime Minister’s Challenge on Dementia: Delivering major improvements in dementia care and research by 2015. London: Department of Health; 2012.
20.
21.
Office C. Open Data White Paper: Unleashing the Potential. Cm 8353. London: HM Government; 2012.
22.
Department of Health. Transforming care: a national response to Winterbourne View Hospital: Department of Health Review Final Report. London: Department of Health; 2012.
23.
Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.
24.
Trust N. Rating providers for quality: a policy worth pursuing? A report for the Secretary of State for Health. London: Nuffield Trust; 2013.
25.
Deloitte. Care Quality Commission. Third party review of CQC’s regulatory approach: Final report. Manchester: Deloitte LLP. 2013.
26.
Care Quality Commission. A new start. Responses to our consultation on changes to the way CQC regulates, inspects and monitors care services. London: Care Quality Commission; 2013.
27.
Care Quality Commission. A fresh start for the regulation and inspection of adult social care. Working together to change how we inspect and regulate adult social care services. London: Care Quality Commission; 2013.
28.
Department of Health. Transparency in outcomes: A framework for quality in adult social care. The 2011/12 Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework. London: Department of Health; 2011.
29.
Care Quality Commission. Residential adult social care. Appendices to provider handbook. Consultation. London: Care Quality Commission; 2014.
30.
Trigg L, Kumpunen S, Holder J. Results from the England Study, Annex A of Activity 3.1 User Choice: Using information to choose residential care for older people: a European study. European Union Cross-border Care Collaboration (2013), Measuring and Reporting Quality of Long-term Care; Work Package 6. Prepared for the European Commission. 2013
31.
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults:developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technology Assessment. 2012;16:1–166.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Society A’s. Dementia UK: a report to Alzheimer’s Society by King’s College London and the London School of Economics. London: Alzheimer’s Society; 2007.
33.
Prince M, Knapp M, Guerchet M, McCrone P, Prina M, Comas-Herrera A, et al. Dementia UK: Second Edition - Overview. London. 2014.
34.
Beadle-Brown J, Ryan S, Windle K, Holder J, Turnpenny A, Smith N, et al. Engagement of people with long term conditions in health and social care research: Barriers and facilitators to capturing the views of seldom-heard populations. Canterbury: Quality and Outcomes of Person-Centred Care Policy Research Unit, University of Kent; 2012.
35.
Luff R, Ferreira Z, Meyer J. Care Homes: Methods Review 8. London: NIHR School for Social Care Research; 2011.
36.
Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. 3rd Edition ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2009.
37.
Brown-wilson C, Davies S, Nolan M. Developing personal relationships in care homes: realising the contributions of staff, residents and family members. Ageing Soc. 2009;29(7):1041–63.CrossRef
38.
Malley J, Caiels J, Fox D, McCarthy M, Smith N, Beadle-Brown J, et al. A report on the development studies for the National Adult Social Care User Experience Survey. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2721. Canterbury: University of Kent; 2010.
39.
Clark P, Bowling A. Observational study of quality of life in NHS nursing homes and long-stay wards for the elderly. Ageing and Soc. 1989;9:123–48.CrossRef
40.
Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: Observational methods in health care settings. British Med J. 1995;311(6998):182–4.CrossRef
41.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Mental wellbeing of older people in care homes. NICE Quality standard 50. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2013.
42.
Matenda J, Maurice L. ASCOT and East Sussex Quality Monitoring Audits. London: Annual ASCOT Workshop; 2014.
43.
Ipsos MORI. Your Care Rating. London: Ipsos MORI; 2014.
44.
Sands LP, Ferreira P, Stewart AL, Brod M, Yaffe K. What Explains Differences Between Dementia Patients’ and Their Caregivers’ Ratings of Patients’ Quality of Life? Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2004;12(3):272–80. http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​00019442-200405000-00006.CrossRef
45.
Schölzel-Dorenbos CJM, Krabbe PFM, Olde Rikkert MGM. Quality of Life in Dementia Patients and Their Proxies: A Narrative Review of the Concept and Measurement Scales. In: Preedy V, Watson R, editors. Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 3671–89.CrossRef
46.
Care Quality Commission. Overview to the provider handbooks for adult social care. For consultation London: Care Quality Commission. 2014.
47.
Sen A. The possibility of social choice. Am Economic Rev. 1999;89(3):349–78.CrossRef
48.
Burke S. A personal service: residential care and personalisation. In: Philpot T, editor. Residential care: a positive future. London: Residential Forum; 2008.
49.
Carr S. SCIE report 20: Personalisation: A rough guide. London: SCIE; 2008.
50.
Owen T, Meyer J. My Home Life: Promoting Quality of life in care homes: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Age UK. 2012.
51.
Beadle-Brown J, Towers A, Netten A, Smith N, Trukeschitz B, Welch E. Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit: Additional Care Home Guidance v2.1. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2011.
52.
Healthwatch England. Annual Report 2013/14. London: Healthwatch England; 2014. 11/2/2015.
53.
Clarke J, Newman J, Smith N, Elizabeth V, Westmarland L. Creating Citizen-Consumers: Changing Publics and Changing Public Services. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2007.
54.
Glendinning C. The consumer in social care. In: Simmons R, Powell M, Greener I, editors. The consumer in public services: Choice, values and difference. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2009. p. 177–96.
55.
Laing W. Buisson. Care of older people: UK market report 26th Edition 2013/2014. London. 2014.
56.
Netten A, Darton R, Curtis L, Britain G. Self-funded admissions to care homes. Research Report No.159. Leeds: Department of Work and Pensions. 2001.
57.
Trigg L. Using online reviews in social care. Soc Policy Admin. 2013;48(3):361–78.CrossRef
58.
Warmington J, Afridi A, Foreman W. Is excessive paperwork in care homes undermining care for older people?: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2014.
Metadata
Title
Adapting the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) for use in care home quality monitoring: conceptual development and testing
Authors
Ann-Marie Towers
Jacquetta Holder
Nick Smith
Tanya Crowther
Ann Netten
Elizabeth Welch
Grace Collins
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0942-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Health Services Research 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Direct costs of radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a microcosting study

Research article

Accessing doctors at times of need–measuring the distance tolerance of rural residents for health-related travel

Research article

Perceptions of health care providers and patients on quality of care in maternal and neonatal health in fourteen Bangladesh government healthcare facilities: a mixed-method study

Research article

How should health service organizations respond to diversity? A content analysis of six approaches

Research article

Limited evidence to assess the impact of primary health care system or service level attributes on health outcomes of Indigenous people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Research article

Population-based geographic access to endocrinologists in the United States, 2012