Health and Social Care Delivery Research (Aug 2024)
Signposting services for people with health and care needs: a rapid realist review
Abstract
Background Signposting typically refers to an informal process that involves giving information to patients to enable them to access external services and support. It is perceived to reduce demand on primary care and other urgent care services. Methods This focused realist review was conducted rapidly within time constraints. Searches to identify theory were undertaken on MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Social Sciences Citation Index in June 2022 for research published in English from 2016. We selected 22 publications and extracted programme theories from these to develop three priority questions: Question 1: What do people with health and social care needs require from a signposting service to believe it is valuable? Question 2: What resources do providers require to confidently deliver an effective signposting service? Question 3: Under what circumstances should commissioners commission generic or specialist signposting services? Purposive searching was conducted to find a rich sample of studies. UK studies were prioritised to optimise the applicability of synthesis findings. Results The review included 27 items, 4 reviews and 23 studies, a mix of qualitative, evaluations and case studies. Service users value a joined-up response that helps them to navigate the available resources. Key features include an understanding of their needs, suggestion of different options and a summary of recommended actions. Only a small number of service user needs are met by signposting services alone; people with complex health and social care needs often require extended input and time. Front-line providers of signposting services require appropriate training, ongoing support and supervision, good knowledge of relevant and available activities and an ability to match service users to appropriate resources. Front-line providers need to offer a flexible response targeted at user needs. Commissioned signposting services in England (no studies from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are highly diverse in terms of client groups, staff delivering the service, referral routes and role descriptions. A lack of service evaluation poses a potential barrier to effective commissioning. A shortage of available services in the voluntary and community sector may limit the effectiveness of signposting services. Commissioners should ensure that referrals target intensive support at patients most likely to benefit in the longer term. Conclusions Signposting services need greater clarity of roles and service expectations to facilitate evaluation. Users with complex health and social care needs require intensive, repeat support from specialist services equipped with specific knowledge and situational understanding. A tension persists between efficient (transactional) service provision with brief referral and effective (relational) service provision, underpinned by competing narratives. Do signposting services represent ‘diversion of unwanted demand from primary care/urgent care services’ or ‘improved quality of care through a joined-up response by health, social care and community/voluntary services’? Limitations This realist review was conducted within a tight time frame with a potential impact on methodology; for example, the use of purposive searching may have resulted in omission of relevant evidence. Future work Signposting services require service evaluation and consideration of the issue of diversity. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022348200. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130588) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Signposting points people to information, help or advice that they should find useful. Signposting can be delivered face to face, by phone, or virtually, by technology. This review of research brings together what is already known. We have not collected any data ourselves. The review uses realist synthesis. This method tries to understand the whys and ways (the mechanisms and theories) of how things work (or do not work!). It goes beyond whether something works (is effective). It tries to explain why something might work for some people but not others. For example, why an approach may not be helpful for people with disabilities, why it might work in some places but not others and exactly what leads to what effects (what are the ‘key ingredients’). The report answers the following three questions: What do people with health and social care needs require from a signposting service to enable them to believe it is a valuable and useful service? What resources do people providing signposting services require to ensure that they can confidently provide effective signposting services? How can commissioners/funders specify, monitor and evaluate signposting services (generic or specific) to optimise value for money and outcomes for service users? Specifically, do any factors favour funding general over specialist services and vice versa? The diversity of signposting services within health or across social and community services, including voluntary services, makes them difficult to evaluate and compare. Within each service, different people undertake signposting roles: from general practitioners, practice nurses or receptionist to a standalone signposting role, each for a different purpose and intensity. Only a small number of service users potentially benefit from signposting-only services. Many service users have complex health and social care needs and, therefore, need different support extended over a longer time. Scientific summary Introduction Signposting is an informal process that involves giving information to patients to enable them to access external, usually non-clinical, services and support (Harris E, Barker C, Burton K, Lucock M, Astin F. Self-management support activities in primary care: a qualitative study to compare provision across common health problems. Patient Educ Couns 2020;103:2532–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.07.003). Signposting also includes self-referral, which often requires patients to contact health and support services by telephone or the internet. Signposting may also take place within clinical interactions or within more extensive social prescribing. Methods A protocol was developed that received input from commissioning and patient and public involvement representatives. This study used realist synthesis to answer three key questions. Information about each is provided below. Initial searches to identify theory were conducted on MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Social Sciences Citation Index for research published in English from 2016 to current in June 2022. The broad search retrieved 716 unique references and the focused search retrieved 31 references. One reviewer (AB) reviewed the results of the focused and then the broader search and selected 22 studies to use for theory identification. The three reviewers divided these studies between them and extracted initial programme theories in the form of context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations: IF (context) – THEN (mechanism) – LEADING TO (outcome) statements. Extracted data related to IF (WHO? DO WHAT? FOR WHOM?) THEN (THE RESPONSE IS) LEADING TO (WHAT OUTCOMES? FOR WHOM?) followed by the reference source. The team prioritised complete (i.e. three-element) CMO configurations, whenever possible. A limited number of two-element CMO configurations were included when they provided unique insights, for completeness. The signposting programme theories identified are provided in the report. All CMO configurations were checked by a single reviewer experienced in realist synthesis to ensure that they were complete, in a common format, and that the agency (i.e. who was the agent for action) could be identified. The review team then met to discuss the initial programme theories and identified a need to address three complementary perspectives: those of the service user, service provider and commissioner. Identification of programme theory led to the development of a priority question constructed to match each perspective. Question 1 (value and usefulness of signposting) considers the service user perspective: What do people with health and social care needs require from a signposting service to believe it is a valuable and useful service? Question 2 (required resources) considers the perspective of the front-line provider of the signposting service: What resources (training, directories/databases, credible and high-quality services for referral) do providers of front-line signposting services require to confidently deliver effective signposting services? Question 3 (specification, monitoring and evaluation) considers the viewpoint of the commissioner/funder: Under what circumstances should commissioners commission generic or specialist signposting services? Purposive searching was undertaken for each question to find a sample of rich relevant studies. The searching included forward and backward citation searching of relevant studies from the theories searches, focused searches and searching for UK initiatives. Where possible, we predominantly included UK studies to optimise the usefulness of the synthesis findings with a UK context and included studies based on richness, rigour and relevance. All documents with signposting in the title were included along with any qualitative studies of social prescribing and care navigation with multiple occurrences of ‘signposting’ in the full text. Studies from other comparable countries were included where relevant. Several studies supplied data to address more than one question and were therefore included in multiple sections. Formal quality appraisal was not undertaken. An online meeting of the Health Service and Delivery Research Sheffield Evidence Synthesis Centre Public Advisory Group met to provide input into the review. The group were asked about their understanding of the term signposting and their experiences of accessing signposting services. Question 1: What do people with health and social care needs require from a signposting service to believe it is a valuable and useful service? (Service user perspective) Findings for Question 1 are organised under the four identified subquestions. A total of 19 items of evidence were reviewed including 4 reviews and 15 individual items reporting UK studies or service evaluations. The nature of the question meant that studies were mainly qualitative or mixed-methods studies with one quantitative study in the included evidence. Summary of findings for Question 1 (value and usefulness: service user perspective) Service users value a ‘linking’ or ‘joined-up’ response that helps them to navigate resources offered by different organisations and/or by different sectors and helps them to reach an appropriate destination. Key features from a service user viewpoint are an understanding of their needs, presentation of options (together with alternatives if required) and a summary of the recommended action to be taken. This needs to be supported by appropriate matching of opportunities to their needs and resourced provision and capacity so that they can pursue these opportunities. Above all, a signposting service must reduce the ‘patient burden’ encountered in contacts with formal health services when trying to pursue options and alternatives. A key consideration is whether signposting services are conceived to operate in isolation or whether they form the front end of an integrated pathway of care with multiple routes and outcomes. The needs of only a small proportion of those targeted by signposting services are met by signposting services alone. Where people with complex needs interact with signposting services, interaction may require extended time or multiple episodes. Alternatively, they may perceive that their needs were imperfectly or incompletely met by a brief intervention. Effective use of signposting, which requires a clear, and often detailed, understanding of service user needs, may operate against a programme theory that conceives them as an efficient brief intervention to divert service users away from formal health services towards wider resources in the community. Question 2: What resources (training, directories/databases, credible and high-quality services for referral) do providers of front-line signposting services require to confidently deliver effective signposting services? (Service provider perspective) For Question 2, a total of 14 items of evidence were reviewed including 1 review and 13 individual items reporting UK, USA or Canadian studies or service evaluations. The findings from the included studies are discussed within themes. Summary of findings for Question 2 (required resources: service provider perspective) Front-line providers of signposting services require appropriate training, ongoing support and supervision. Front-line providers of signposting services require good knowledge of relevant health, social care, community, voluntary or other agency activities and opportunities to which they feel empowered to refer. Front-line providers of signposting services need be able to match appropriate services or resources to the needs of a service user – this may take time, extensive interaction and the creation of trust over time. Front-line providers of signposting services need to provide a flexible response in order to meet very diverse levels and types of individual needs. Requirements may also differ according to differing levels of availability of complementary services (e.g. where separate health and social care signposting services coexist or not). For a signposting service to be considered useful, those providing signposting services must be confident that, even in times of resource constraint, sufficient appropriate, high-quality resources exist to which they can refer. Question 3: How can commissioners/funders specify, monitor and evaluate signposting services (generic or specific) to optimise value for money and outcomes for service users? Specifically, are there factors that favour funding of generic versus specialist services or vice versa? (Service commissioner/funder perspective) For Question 3, a total of four items of evidence were reviewed; data were extracted from a survey of Clinical Commissioning Groups in England; evaluations of a social prescribing service and a primary care diabetes care navigation service; and a qualitative study of a new care model in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Commissioned signposting services in England (no studies from Wales and Northern Ireland) are highly diverse in terms of client groups, staff delivering the service, referral routes and how the role is described. Evaluation of services is uncommon and is a potential barrier to effective commissioning. Lack of availability of services in the voluntary and community sector may limit the effectiveness of signposting/care navigation in both primary and secondary care and their potential to reduce urgent care use and improve well-being in service users. Brief signposting interventions are sufficient for some service users. Others require intensive support to overcome barriers to engagement with either the care signposting/care navigation process or, subsequently, services to which they are referred. From the commissioner perspective, it is important that referral processes provide intensive support to those most likely to benefit in the longer term. Summary of integrated findings across the three perspectives (service user, service provider and service commissioner/funder) Clarity of roles and expectations is required within signposting services. Signposting services may operate within health or across social and community services including voluntary service provision. Those signposting may include this role within wider clinical [general practitioner (GP) or practice nurse] or administrative roles (receptionists), as one of many functions within tailored social prescribing or care navigation roles, or as a standalone signposting role. This makes evaluation and comparison challenging. Only a small number of service users potentially benefit from signposting-only services. Many users have complex health and social care needs that require intensive and repeated support. Specialist services demand greater empathy, knowledge and situational understanding and so are likely to extend beyond signposting. Service users and service providers need to develop a shared confidence in the signposting role. This requires good communication skills and training, backed up with resources, to firstly identify activities and opportunities and then for adequate levels of resource provision to enable them to be accessed and used. The tension between (1) efficient (transactional) service provision with brief referral and (2) effective (relational) service provision, requiring detailed understanding of individual service user needs, remains unreconciled. This tension is underpinned by competing narratives of ‘diversion of unwanted demand from primary care and other urgent care services’ and of ‘improved quality of care through a joined-up response that encompasses health, social care and community/voluntary services’. Conclusion Signposting services need to achieve greater clarity around roles and the expectations of the service to enable thorough evaluation. Evaluation and comparisons are challenging; signposting services which operate within health or across social and community services, including voluntary service provision, are diverse. The diversity of signposting roles and services makes evaluation and comparisons challenging. Within each service, roles may vary in function and intensity from a recognisable signposting function within a wider clinical (GP or practice nurse) or administrative role (receptionists) through one of many components within tailored social prescribing or care navigation roles to a standalone signposting role. Commissioners of services need to recognise that the complex health and social care needs of many service users require intensive and repeated support. Specialist services demand greater empathy, knowledge and situational understanding, and thus contact is likely to extend in time and scope beyond straightforward signposting. Service users and service providers need to develop a shared confidence in the signposting role. This requires good communication skills and training together with resources; first, to identify relevant activities and opportunities and then to enable service users to access them. The tension between efficient (transactional) service provision with brief referral and effective (relational) service provision, which requires a detailed understanding of individual service user needs, remains unreconciled. This tension is underpinned by competing narratives of whether signposting represents ‘diversion of unwanted demand from primary care and other urgent care services’ or ‘improved quality of care through a joined-up response that encompasses health, social care and community/voluntary services’. Research gaps and priorities The review identified the following research gaps and priorities: There is a need to evaluate different levels of intensity of service provision and their differential benefits and value for money. Productive comparison and evaluation (through benchmarking and audit) of similar services is required (i.e. signposting services to be compared with similar brief services and services providing more intensive and sustained to be compared with similar). Further comparison and evaluation of signposting services could explore levels of service provided by different staff roles. Specialist services may particularly benefit from evaluation tailored to the needs and objectives of each specific service. Issues of cultural diversity are absent from the literature particularly, as they relate to setting up a service; thus, we have identified a need for research around setting up and providing services for diverse populations. Research examining the impact of economic constraints on informal social provision would be potentially informative. Further consideration of the extent to which each service developed should prioritise and manage brief interactions with large numbers of generic users or sustained, and even prolonged, support to a targeted user group with complex health and social needs. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022348200. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130588) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Keywords
