Official websites use .gov
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews: views of commissioners and clinicians
Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews: views of commissioners and clinicians
- Collection:
- Health Policy and Services Research
- Author(s):
- Bottery, Simon, author
Lamming, Laura, author
Blythe, Nicola, author
Downes, Nick, author
Lennon, Emily, author - Contributor(s):
- King's Fund (London, England), issuing body.
- Publication:
- London : The King's Fund, September 2023
- Language(s):
- English
- Format:
- Text
- Subject(s):
- Advisory Committees
Disability Evaluation
Physicians
State Medicine
United Kingdom - Genre(s):
- Technical Report
- Abstract:
- In November 2019, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that all people with a learning disability or autistic people in long-term segregation in inpatient settings were to have their care independently reviewed. This led to the creation of Independent Care (Education) and Treatment Reviews (IC(E)TRs), meetings that were intended to provide independent scrutiny and review of the current situation of the person in long-term segregation. This report looks into what commissioners and clinicians involved in IC(E)TRs think about how these meetings are planned, how they are run on the day, and if the recommendations to improve people’s care are put into practice. The King’s Fund spoke to 10 commissioners and 7 clinicians and found that, while not all participants were clear about the purpose of IC(E)TRs, many felt the meetings did have potential to improve a patient’s situation. The King’s Fund found that while meetings may not have been well planned at first, this had improved and meetings were generally thought to have been well run. The written recommendations from an IC(E)TR were generally viewed as being good, there were concerns about whether or not they could be implemented. However, some participants also thought that the establishment of IC(E)TRs was an implied criticism of their performance. The report concludes by considering what changes could be made to the IC(E)TR process to improve engagement and buy-in from the commissioners and clinicians who will ultimately be responsible for implementing any recommendations made.
- Copyright:
- Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further use of the material is subject to CC BY license. (More information)
- Extent:
- 1 online resource (1 PDF file (i, 50 pages, 1 unnumbered page))
- NLM Unique ID:
- 9918734082906676 (See catalog record)
- ISBN:
- 9781915303134
- Permanent Link:
- http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/9918734082906676