Search

Adult social care continues to be a central policy concern in the UK. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) is a range of measures nationally available to drive forward improvement on outcomes and quality in local councils. While there is an emphasis on improving transparency, quality and outcomes, drawing on research evidence to achieve these aims is often difficult because the evidence is not easily identifiable, is disparate or of variable quality. We conducted a metareview to analyse and summarise systematic review-level evidence on the impact of interventions on the four outcomes set out in the ASCOF: quality of life, delaying and reducing the need for services, satisfaction with services and safeguarding of vulnerable adults. This paper focuses on the availability of review-level evidence and the presence of significant gaps in this evidence base. A range of health and social care databases were searched, including MEDLINE, ASSIA and The Cochrane Library in January and February 2012. All systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of social care interventions for improving ASCOF outcomes for older people, people with long-term conditions, mental health problems or physical and/or learning disabilities were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened systematic reviews for quality and relevance and extracted data; 43 systematic reviews were included, the majority of which examined the impact of interventions on quality of life (n = 34) and delaying and reducing the need for support (n = 25). Limited systematic review-level evidence was found regarding satisfaction with services and safeguarding. There were also significant gaps in relation to key social care interventions and population groups. Research priorities include addressing these gaps and the collation of data on interventions, outcomes and populations more closely related to social care. Overall, a more relevant, comprehensive and robust evidence base is required to support improvement of outcomes for recipients of adult social care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

sutcliffe k., caird j., kavanagh j., rees r., oliver k., dickson k., woodman j., barnett-paIge e. & thomas j. (2012) Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(11), 2376-2386. Abstract Aims. A report of a systematic review of reviews which examines the impact of having midwives-led maternity care for low-risk women, rather than physicians. Background. A rising birth rate, increasing complexity of births, and economic constraints pose difficulties for maternity services in the UK. Evidence about the most effective, cost-effective, and efficient ways to give maternity services is needed. Data sources. Searches were carried out in August-September 2009 of ten electronic databases, 16 key nursing and research websites, and reference lists of 56 relevant reviews. We also contacted 38 experts for information. No date restrictions were employed. Review methods. A narrative review of systematic reviews or 'meta review' was conducted using transparent and systematic procedures to limit bias at all stages. Systematic reviews that compared midwife-led care during pregnancy and birth with physician-led care were eligible for inclusion. Results. Three meta-analytic reviews were included. Midwife-led care for low-risk women was found to be better for a range of maternal outcomes, reduced the number of procedures in labour, and increased satisfaction with care. For some maternal, foetal, and neonatal outcomes reviews found no evidence that care led by midwives is different to that led by physicians. No adverse outcomes associated with midwife-led care were identified. Conclusions. For low-risk women, health and other benefits can result from having their maternity care led by midwives rather than physicians. Moreover, there appear to be no negative impacts on mothers and infants receiving midwife-led care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]