Introduction: People with experience of homelessness (PEH) often have multiple inter-related needs and for support rely on various services working together. To improve Out-of-Hospital Care (OOHC), it is crucial to understand their preferences. This study used a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to identify what matters most to them, ensuring services align with real-life experiences. Methods: A mixed methods approach combined interviews, group discussions, and DCE data. Service users, providers, and planners participated in workshops. Researchers with lived experience of homelessness co-designed a user-friendly questionnaire and supported data collection, fostering trust. Preferences were analysed using logistic regression, with findings presented in clear, interactive dashboards. Results: A total of 112 PEH participated from 10 sites, with 108 valid responses (35% response rate). Participants preferred care delivered at home, delivered by trusted housing workers, with minimal behavioural restrictions. Accommodation type and behavioural rules significantly influenced service uptake. DCE outputs were shared with PEH, who confirmed that the findings accurately reflected their priorities and real-life experiences. In one locality, insights were used to reshape service modelling. Discussion & conclusion: This study highlights the importance of co-designing OOHC services with PEH. Stability, trust, and fewer restrictions encourage service engagement. These insights can guide policymakers and service providers in developing more effective, person-centred care models, ultimately improving access and outcomes for PEH.

This paper explores the economic implications of different support scenarios for individuals who self-neglect whilst experiencing multiple exclusion homelessness (MEH) or hoarding behaviour (HB). It draws on analysis of six Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) of self-neglect-related deaths from across English localities. Focused on the last one or 2 years of an individual's life, the SARs provide a detailed examination of resource utilisation across various sectors. The study employs economic modelling to compare the costs associated with 'unmet needs', the scenario that ended in death, and the potential costs and benefits derived from meeting these needs more effectively. Sensitivity analyses test the robustness of the model, exploring various budgetary adjustments. For MEH cases, the analysis suggests that shifting from uncoordinated use of urgent and emergency services to planned multidisciplinary support for individuals could free up public resources, enabling reinvestment and better outcomes. The study indicates potential cost savings, emphasising the importance of timely and coordinated interventions to improve the well-being of individuals experiencing MEH. In HB cases, addressing gaps in responses to self-neglect among older individuals requires increased resource investment mainly for housing and adult social care but also demonstrates a release of resources for health and a significant reduction in costs for criminal justice and fire and rescue services. The study highlights the role of local voluntary sector groups in providing support and guidance. The study evidences the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, early interventions, and ongoing collaboration among diverse professionals to ensure a holistic response to the complex needs of vulnerable populations. It emphasises the need for continuous collection of quality data, to enable service evaluation and facilitate efficient resource allocation for integrated care systems, and ultimately to contribute to better outcomes for individuals experiencing self-neglect.

Recognising the diverse healthcare needs of the population, there is a growing emphasis on tailoring hospital discharge processes to address the unique challenges faced by individuals who are homeless, aiming to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of post-hospitalisation care for this vulnerable demographic. This study aimed to evaluate the costs and consequences of specialist hospital discharge and intermediate care (support after discharge) services for people who are homeless in England. We estimated the comparative costs and consequences of different types of specialist care provided by 17 homeless hospital discharge and intermediate care services. We compared ‘clinically-led’ (multidisciplinary) services with those that were ‘housing-led’ (uniprofessional). A retrospective observational study was conducted to estimate effectiveness and costs for two'intervention groups'(clinically-led and housing-led) and a previously published RCT for'standard care'. Use of resources data for specialist care was sourced through linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics. The measure of effectiveness was the number of bed days avoided (in terms of hospital stays for all readmissions in the follow-up period) per homeless user. Additional secondary analysis of three services looked at quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and service delivery costs. The perspective adopted was NHS in England. Data from the comparative analysis showed that specialist homeless hospital discharge (HHD) care is likely to be cost-effective compared with standard care. Patients accessing specialist care use fewer bed days per year (including both planned and unplanned readmissions). Patients using specialist care have more planned readmissions to hospital and, overall, use more NHS resources than those who use standard care. We interpret this as a positive outcome indicating that specialist care is likely to work more effectively than standard care to improve access to healthcare for this marginalised group. Specialist care remained cost-effective over a range of sensitivity analyses. Secondary analyses of three specific schemes found better QALY outcomes, but results are not generalisable to all 17 schemes. Specialist HHD services are likely to be cost-effective for the NHS compared with standard care, although further research is needed to access patient level data for both costs and outcomes to conduct a rigorous statistical analysis between groups and address possible underlying biases due to data coming from non-randomised study design.

PurposePeople experiencing homelessness often have multiple health and other support needs, requiring complex, coordinated support. Admission to hospital is potentially an opportunity to address these needs and begin integrating care, but so often it is a missed one. Our purpose in this research was to evaluate an ongoing, roll-out programme that offered government funding to 17 “test sites” across England to develop integrated care as part of post-discharge “step-down” support. In this paper, we examine senior stakeholder experiences of seeking to implement integrated care as part of specialist step-down care.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, we focus on data collected in interviews with key stakeholders (N = 10) who managed the mobilisation of local out of hospital care models for people experiencing homelessness. Interviews were conducted and analysed from a relational perspective, that is focusing on relationships between interactants, through which, for example, identities, understanding and integrating practice emerge.FindingsA relational perspective on the data provides insights to better understand the complexity of integrating care at the point of hospital discharge for people experiencing homelessness.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough in depth, the data were limited to certain perspectives on the issues. Other perspectives and data collection from in-depth study of case sites would be invaluable in developing the empirical evidence base for a relational understanding of integrating care.Practical implicationsA relational perspective highlights the emergent and ongoing nature of integrating care in this context of support for people experiencing homelessness. The need for different system agents to work to be constantly enacting the desired support is crucial to understanding future system changes for integrating care.Originality/valueThis is the first paper developing a relational analysis of integrating care. It highlights a different theoretical perspective on the issues and important insights.

Successful implementation of evidence-based services in health and social care depends largely on the fit of the services with the values and priorities of users who are shaping and participating in their delivery and use. When looking at the implementation of innovative specialist hospital discharge schemes for people who are homeless, there is a lack of knowledge on homeless people’s preferences and perspectives on receiving out-of-hospital care. In England, the Department of Health and Social Care, Ministry for Housing and Local Government and Ministry of Justice allocated £16 million to further develop and test out hospital care for people experiencing homelessness. The out-of-hospital care model programme is seeking to scale successful hospital discharge models that were shown to be effective and cost-effective in an earlier pilot programme adapting these for new contexts and circumstances post Covid-19. Evaluation of the implementation of the out-of-hospital care model programme is currently underway in 17 local authority test sites across England. A specific component of the larger evaluation is aimed at capturing service users’ preferences for different types of specialist hospital discharge schemes. This is done using a flexible health economics tool for measuring choices in health and social care-related settings named discrete choice experiments (DCE). It measures preferences from individual decision-makers over alternative scenarios (or service provisions). Each alternative is described by several attributes (or characteristics) and the choices made between two or more competing scenarios subsequently determine how preferences are influenced by each attribute (eg, which attributes are valued as well as their relative importance). It can also provide a measure of the overall value attached to different alternatives (and identify optimal service provision that meets stakeholder requirements and have the best chance of sustainability in the long term). Hence a DCE survey has been developed to measure people’s preferences for what out-of-hospital care provides in terms of types of location of care, the professional who delivers most of their care, how often they receive care, how long they receive care after hospital discharge and rules about behaviour where they live. The attributes (characteristics) and their various levels were informed by our previous research. Webinar discussions regarding what stakeholders value about specialist services were used to validate and refine the attributes and levels. PPI stakeholders were also consulted on the development of the presentation, wording and format of the survey. Efficient experimental design techniques were applied to create the DCE questions. Due to the cognitive load involved in completing the survey, respondents are assisted in the completion of the questionnaire by members of the research team to secure responses from more than 250 people who are homeless. Data will be modelled using logit techniques and results will be ready for presentation in May 2023. Information on how service users value specialist hospital discharge schemes for people who are homeless is needed to better inform the implementation and development of the innovative out-of-hospital care model programme currently proposed in England at a national level. Identified learning will be shared at the conference.

Context: Engaging with and involving the public in research has become a widespread consideration in many research fields, including long-term (social) and health care. Perspective: Citizen science (CS) is an umbrella concept that has grown rapidly in many scientific areas and has been noted as increasing in health research. Its root is the need to work at the science-society interface and its place in societal development. This interface is understood to operate in several ways, and the overarching CS goal is to strengthen it through a variety of practices. We seek to encourage a dialogue across long-term care research and CS to the benefit of both sides. Implications: We argue that using CS as an overarching concept for engaging with the public in long-term care research would provide a variety of benefits to that scientific field. These would include opportunities to examine the state of citizen involvement across the field, employing the most appropriate modes of involvement and engagement in specific contexts. It would also open opportunities to develop the methodological imagination by examining examples of CS in other research areas. CS could also benefit from the experience of public involvement in long-term care research, including its extensive consideration of power, payments, and including people with additional support needs. There is a need generally for greater dialogue about being more inclusive and addressing inequalities.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of specialist hospital discharge and intermediate care (support after discharge) services for people who are homeless in England. Methods We estimated the comparative cost and consequences of different types of specialist care provided by 17 homeless hospital discharge and intermediate care services. We compared ‘clinically-led’ (multidisciplinary) services with those that were ‘housing-led’ (uniprofessional). We also compared schemes that provided access to ‘step-down’ intermediate care with those that did not. We examined the variation in the effect of different types of schemes compared with a standard care control. Use of resource data for specialist care were sourced through linkage with HES. A control group from a published trial was used as a proxy for standard care. The measure of effectiveness was the number of bed days avoided (in terms of hospital stays for all readmissions in the follow-up period) per homeless user. Additional in-depth analysis of three configurations looked at quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and service delivery costs. The perspective adopted was NHS in England. Results Specialist homeless hospital discharge (HHD) care is more cost-effective than standard care. Patients accessing specialist care use fewer bed days per year (including both planned and unplanned readmissions) and presented better QALY outcome. Patients using specialist care have more planned readmissions to hospital and, overall, use more NHS resources than those who use standard care. We interpret this as a positive outcome indicating that specialist care is working more effectively than standard care to improve access to healthcare for this marginalised group. The model remained cost-effective over a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Specialist HHD services are likely to be cost-effective for the NHS compared with standard care.

This article reports social workers' attitudes and approaches to working with people experiencing multiple exclusion homelessness (MEH) who self-neglect, and whether these people receive services, including safeguarding, differently from other populations. It draws on telephone interviews in 2020 with twenty-two social workers working with adults in a range of statutory local authority and National Health Service hospital roles in England. Interviews used two almost identical vignettes featuring self-neglect to prompt discussion and solicit experiences; one included homelessness and drug use to draw out any differences. Following transcription, interview data were analysed thematically. What emerged is a rich understanding of practice responses to self-neglect, but also uncertainties within contemporary social work: whether people who are homeless fall under the 'umbrella' of Adult Social Care and safeguarding; and whether self-neglect 'fits' under safeguarding. Additionally, participants described barriers to successful multi-agency support for people experiencing MEH, including stigma and exclusion from some statutory services. There was evidence that recent learning from Safeguarding Adults Reviews and local deaths has led to some examples of stronger multi-agency working in this context. The findings suggest more clarity is needed within the profession to ensure that people experiencing MEH benefit from strengthened social work input and safeguarding expertise. Do people who are experiencing homelessness and who have mental health problems, a traumatic personal history or use drugs or alcohol, receive the same statutory social care and safeguarding support as other people? Prompted by the deaths of people experiencing homelessness, which have highlighted the failure of local services, we interviewed twenty-two social workers working with adults in England to find out their attitudes and approaches to working with this group. Social workers raised issues that were unclear, such as whether social work sufficiently supports people who are homeless, and whether self-neglect-not keeping yourself safe and well-should ever be addressed as a part of safeguarding practice. Some described barriers to working with this population, such as when services don't work well together, when professionals stigmatise people using drink or drugs, and when services don't adapt to meet people's needs. Some described positive new developments bringing together local services to better support people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that we need greater agreement within the social work profession to ensure that people who are homeless receive the social care and safeguarding support that other people receive.

High rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths amongst people who are homeless in London, UK were feared. Rates however stayed much lower than expected throughout 2020; an experience that compares to other settings globally. This study sought a community level perspective to explore this rate of infections, and through this explore relationships between COVID-19 and existing health inequalities. Analyses are reported from ongoing qualitative studies on COVID-19 and homeless health service evaluation in London, UK. Repeated in-depth telephone interviews were implemented with people experiencing homelessness in London (n=17; 32 interviews in total) as well as street outreach workers, nurses and hostel staff (n=10) from September 2020 to early 2021. Thematic analysis generated three themes to explore peoples' experiences of, and perspectives on, low infections: people experiencing homelessness following, creating and breaking social distancing and hygiene measures; social distancing in the form of social exclusion as a long-running feature of life; and a narrative of 'street immunity' resulting from harsh living conditions. Further study is needed to understand how these factors combine to prevent COVID-19 and how they relate to different experiences of homelessness. This community perspective can ensure that emerging narratives of COVID-19 prevention success don't ignore longer running causes of homelessness and reinforce stigmatising notions of people who are homeless as lacking agency. Our findings aid theorisation of how health inequalities shape pandemic progression: severe exclusion may substantially delay epidemics in some communities, although with considerable other non-COVID-19 impacts.

Hospital discharge for people experiencing homelessness is a perennial challenge. The Homeless Reduction Act 2017 (HRA) places new responsibilities on hospitals, but it remains unknown whether this has affected discharge practices. This qualitative study explores stakeholders' views on the challenges around hospital discharge for people experiencing homelessness, in the context of a deprived English city. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 stakeholders. Participants were purposively recruited from local authority, third sector and the National Health Service. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis conducted. Analysis generated three main themes. First, a need for better planning and communication with the third sector, particularly around medication, prescriptions and information sharing. Second, the need to improve awareness and 'upskill' hospital staff to work more effectively with people experiencing homelessness, including understanding their needs, the wider support available and HRA requirements. Third, there were calls for (re)investment in a different approach to better support this population, based on outreach and flexibility. The need for improved partnership working and investment was emphasised. Whilst recognising the challenges faced by hospitals, especially within the context of funding cuts, this study highlights the need to recognise the third sector's contribution in supporting people experiencing homelessness in the community. Developing site-specific checklists for practice before discharge (and as early as possible) may help to ensure appropriate measures are in place. Improving legal literacy in the context of what an appropriate discharge is for people experiencing homelessness may help develop staff confidence to challenge the focus on 'quick' discharges.

There are long-standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost-effectiveness of three different 'in patient care coordination and discharge planning' configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in-reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no 'step-down' care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in-reach, discharge coordination and 'step-down' intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in-reach and discharge coordination as well as step-down care. These three configurations were each compared with 'standard care' (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi-outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on-costs, capital, overheads and 'hotel' costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality-adjusted-life-years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed-based intermediate care, step-down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost-effectiveness recommendations.

Background : Symptom recognition and timely referral in primary care are crucial for the early diagnosis of cancer. Physician assistants or associates (PAs) have been introduced in 15 healthcare systems across the world, with numbers increasing to address primary care physician shortages. Little is known about their impact on suspected cancer recognition and referral. This review sought to summarise findings from international observational studies on PAs’ competence and performance on processes concerned with the quality of recognition and referral of suspected cancer in primary care. Method : A rapid systematic review of international peer-reviewed literature was performed (PROSPERO reference: CRD42019154114). Searches were undertaken on OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases (2009-2019). Studies were eligible if they reported on PA skills, processes and outcomes relevant to suspected cancer recognition and referral. Title and abstract screening was followed by full paper review and data extraction. synthesis of qualitative and quantitative findings was undertaken on three themes: deployment, competence, and performance. Preliminary findings were discussed with an expert advisory group to inform interpretation. Results : From 876 references, 15 eligible papers were identified, of which 13 were from the USA. Seven studies reported on general clinical processes in primary care that would support cancer diagnosis, most commonly ordering of diagnostic tests (n=6) and referrals to specialists (n=4). Fewer papers reported on consultation processes, such as examinations or history taking (n=3) Six papers considered PAs’ competence and performance on cancer screening. PAs performed similarly to primary care physicians on rates of diagnostic tests ordered, referrals and patient outcomes (satisfaction, malpractice, emergency visits). No studies reported on the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Conclusion : This review of peer-reviewed literature combined with advisory group interpretation suggests the introduction of PAs into primary care may maintain the quality of referrals and diagnostic tests needed to support cancer diagnosis. It also highlights the lack of research on several aspects of PAs’ roles, including outcomes of the diagnostic process.

Background: In 2013, 70% of people who were homeless on admission to hospital were discharged back to the street without having their care and support needs addressed. In response, the UK government provided funding for 52 new specialist homeless hospital discharge schemes. This study employed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) guidelines between September 2015 and 2019 to undertake a realist evaluation to establish what worked, for whom, under what circumstances and why. It was hypothesised that delivering outcomes linked to consistently safe, timely care transfers for homeless patients would depend on hospital discharge schemes implementing a series of high-impact changes (resource mechanisms). These changes encompassed multidisciplinary discharge co-ordination (delivered through clinically led homeless teams) and ‘step-down’ intermediate care. These facilitated time-limited care and support and alternative pathways out of hospital for people who could not go straight home. Methods: The realist hypothesis was tested empirically and refined through three work packages. Work package 1 generated seven qualitative case studies, comparing sites with different types of specialist homeless hospital discharge schemes (n = 5) and those with no specialist discharge scheme (standard care) (n = 2). Methods of data collection included interviews with 77 practitioners and stakeholders and 70 people who were homeless on admission to hospital. A ‘data linkage’ process (work package 2) and an economic evaluation (work package 3) were also undertaken. The data linkage process resulted in data being collected on > 3882 patients from 17 discharge schemes across England. The study involved people with lived experience of homelessness in all stages. Results: There was strong evidence to support our realist hypothesis. Specialist homeless hospital discharge schemes employing multidisciplinary discharge co-ordination and ‘step-down’ intermediate care were more effective and cost-effective than standard care. Specialist care was shown to reduce delayed transfers of care. Accident and emergency visits were also 18% lower among homeless patients discharged at a site with a step-down service than at those without. However, there was an impact on the effectiveness of the schemes when they were underfunded or when there was a shortage of permanent supportive housing and longer-term care and support. In these contexts, it remained (tacitly) accepted practice (across both standard and specialist care sites) to discharge homeless patients to the streets, rather than delay their transfer. We found little evidence that discharge schemes fired a change in reasoning with regard to the cultural distance that positions ‘homeless patients’ as somehow less vulnerable than other groups of patients. We refined our hypothesis to reflect that high-impact changes need to be underpinned by robust adult safeguarding. Strengths and limitations: To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the outcomes of homeless patients discharged from hospital in the UK. Owing to issues with the comparator group, the effectiveness analysis undertaken for the data linkage was limited to comparisons of different types of specialist discharge scheme (rather than specialist vs. standard care). Future work: There is a need to consider approaches that align with those for value or alliance-based commissioning where the evaluative gaze is shifted from discrete interventions to understanding how the system is working as a whole to deliver outcomes for a defined patient population. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Inpatients experiencing homelessness are often discharged to unstable accommodation or the street, which may increase the risk of readmission. Methods We conducted a cohort study of 2772 homeless patients discharged after an emergency admission at 78 hospitals across England between November 2013 and November 2016. For each individual, we selected a housed patient who lived in a socioeconomically deprived area, matched on age, sex, hospital, and year of discharge. Counts of emergency readmissions, planned readmissions, and Accident and Emergency (A&E) visits post-discharge were derived from national hospital databases, with a median of 2.8 years of follow-up. We estimated the cumulative incidence of readmission over 12 months, and used negative binomial regression to estimate rate ratios. Results After adjusting for health measured at the index admission, homeless patients had 2.49 (95% CI 2.29 to 2.70) times the rate of emergency readmission, 0.60 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.68) times the rate of planned readmission and 2.57 (95% CI 2.41 to 2.73) times the rate of A&E visits compared with housed patients. The 12-month risk of emergency readmission was higher for homeless patients (61%, 95% CI 59% to 64%) than housed patients (33%, 95% CI 30% to 36%); and the risk of planned readmission was lower for homeless patients (17%, 95% CI 14% to 19%) than for housed patients (30%, 95% CI 28% to 32%). While the risk of emergency readmission varied with the reason for admission for housed patients, for example being higher for admissions due to cancers than for those due to accidents, the risk was high across all causes for homeless patients. Conclusions Hospital patients experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency readmission that are not explained by health. This highlights the need for discharge arrangements that address their health, housing and social care needs.

Abstract Background Symptom recognition and timely referral in primary care are crucial for the early diagnosis of cancer. Physician assistants or associates (PAs) have been introduced in 18 healthcare systems across the world, with numbers increasing in some cases to address primary care physician shortages. Little is known about their impact on suspected cancer recognition and referral. This review sought to summarise findings from observational studies conducted in high income countries on PAs’ competence and performance on processes concerned with the quality of recognition and referral of suspected cancer in primary care. Method A rapid systematic review of international peer-reviewed literature was performed. Searches were undertaken on OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases (2009–2019). Studies were eligible if they reported on PA skills, processes and outcomes relevant to suspected cancer recognition and referral. Title and abstract screening was followed by full paper review and data extraction. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative findings was undertaken on three themes: deployment, competence, and performance. Preliminary findings were discussed with an expert advisory group to inform interpretation. Results From 883 references, 15 eligible papers were identified, of which 13 were from the USA. Seven studies reported on general clinical processes in primary care that would support cancer diagnosis, most commonly ordering of diagnostic tests (n = 6) and referrals to specialists (n = 4). Fewer papers reported on consultation processes, such as examinations or history taking (n = 3) Six papers considered PAs’ competence and performance on cancer screening. PAs performed similarly to primary care physicians on rates of diagnostic tests ordered, referrals and patient outcomes (satisfaction, malpractice, emergency visits). No studies reported on the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Conclusion This review of peer-reviewed literature combined with advisory group interpretation suggests the introduction of PAs into primary care may maintain the quality of referrals and diagnostic tests needed to support cancer diagnosis. It also highlights the lack of research on several aspects of PAs’ roles, including outcomes of the diagnostic process.