Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A rapid review of what organisational level factors support or inhibit the scale and spread of innovations in children’s social care

View ORCID ProfileMala Mann, View ORCID ProfileKate Lifford, Susan O’Connell, Alison Weightman, Lydia Searchfield, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Adrian Edwards
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.03.23288061
Mala Mann
1Specialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mala Mann
  • For correspondence: mannmk{at}cardiff.ac.uk
Kate Lifford
1Specialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kate Lifford
Susan O’Connell
1Specialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
4Cedar Health Technology Research Centre, Public Health Wales
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Weightman
1Specialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lydia Searchfield
1Specialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruth Lewis
2Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, Bangor University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Cooper
3Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrian Edwards
3Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Innovation may provide a means for tackling challenges facing childrens social care, some of them deep-rooted and many exacerbated by COVID-19. Welsh Government has recently committed to a significant 3-year investment to support innovation in adults and childrens social care. The delivery of social care in Wales has a complex and multi-faceted approach, involving collaborative working between a range of organisations, which will likely affect decisions around implementation and scale-up of new and/or existing interventions. The aim of the review was to identify any factors (barriers and enablers) that affect the implementation and scale up of an innovation in childrens social care organisations.

Ten studies were identified, comprising three secondary studies (reviews) and seven primary studies. Factors potentially influencing scale and spread of innovation were extracted and categorised. The domains (and sub-domains) covered by included studies were; adopters (staff role/identity; carer input), organisation (capacity to innovate; readiness for change; nature of adoption/funding; extent of change needed; work needed to implement), and wider system (political/policy; regulatory/legal; professional; socio-cultural).

Enablers for which a clear consensus seems to be emerging across the literature included: specific training and support for professional staff, support and mutual respect within inter-professional and professional-carer relationships, senior management/leadership buy-in and support, multi-disciplinary communication and joint working, and developing compatible data systems to support joint working/collaboration. Barriers for which a clear consensus seems to be emerging across the literature were: short term or lack of funding (the need for funding was presented as an enabler in some studies), and implementation difficulties (e.g. multiple priorities and changing structures).

Policy Implications: This review highlights the complexity of the social care models but provides some clear pointers for policy and practice. The findings indicate the need for: senior management buy-in and support, short and longer term funding, multi-disciplinary communication and joint working, good professional (and professional-carer) relationships with support and mutual respect, and specific training and support for professional staff.

The confidence in the evidence is uncertain as the study designs included non-systematic reviews and service evaluations; most studies did not use a formal methodology and all had some quality limitations.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The Specialist Unit for Review Evidence was funded for this work by the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health and Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Funding statement: The Specialist Unit for Review Evidence was funded for this work by the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health and Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

  • Abbreviations

    CASA
    Cognitive and Affective Supervisory Approach
    CSCIP
    Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme
    FDAC
    Family Drug and Alcohol Courts
    ICF
    Integrated Care Fund
    LA
    Local authority
    LSE
    London School of Economics
    MFM
    Mockingbird Family Model
    NASSS
    Non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability framework
    NEST
    Nurturing, Empowering, Safe, Trusted
    RCT
    Randomised controlled trial
    RE-AIM
    Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance
    RPBs
    Regional partnership boards
    SASCI
    Supporting Adult Social Care Innovation Project
    SCW
    Social Care Wales
    SCIE
    Social Care Institute for Excellence
    SoS
    Signs of Safety
    PIP
    Partners in Practice
    VIPP-FC
    Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline, Foster Care
  • Copyright 
    The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
    Back to top
    PreviousNext
    Posted April 03, 2023.
    Download PDF
    Data/Code
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

    NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    A rapid review of what organisational level factors support or inhibit the scale and spread of innovations in children’s social care
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Share
    A rapid review of what organisational level factors support or inhibit the scale and spread of innovations in children’s social care
    Mala Mann, Kate Lifford, Susan O’Connell, Alison Weightman, Lydia Searchfield, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Adrian Edwards
    medRxiv 2023.04.03.23288061; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.03.23288061
    Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
    Citation Tools
    A rapid review of what organisational level factors support or inhibit the scale and spread of innovations in children’s social care
    Mala Mann, Kate Lifford, Susan O’Connell, Alison Weightman, Lydia Searchfield, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Adrian Edwards
    medRxiv 2023.04.03.23288061; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.03.23288061

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Subject Area

    • Health Policy
    Subject Areas
    All Articles
    • Addiction Medicine (349)
    • Allergy and Immunology (668)
    • Allergy and Immunology (668)
    • Anesthesia (181)
    • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
    • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
    • Dermatology (223)
    • Emergency Medicine (399)
    • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
    • Epidemiology (12228)
    • Forensic Medicine (10)
    • Gastroenterology (759)
    • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
    • Geriatric Medicine (387)
    • Health Economics (680)
    • Health Informatics (2657)
    • Health Policy (1005)
    • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
    • Hematology (363)
    • HIV/AIDS (851)
    • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
    • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
    • Medical Education (399)
    • Medical Ethics (109)
    • Nephrology (436)
    • Neurology (3882)
    • Nursing (209)
    • Nutrition (577)
    • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
    • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
    • Oncology (2030)
    • Ophthalmology (585)
    • Orthopedics (240)
    • Otolaryngology (306)
    • Pain Medicine (250)
    • Palliative Medicine (75)
    • Pathology (473)
    • Pediatrics (1115)
    • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
    • Primary Care Research (452)
    • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
    • Public and Global Health (6527)
    • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
    • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
    • Respiratory Medicine (871)
    • Rheumatology (409)
    • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
    • Sports Medicine (342)
    • Surgery (448)
    • Toxicology (53)
    • Transplantation (185)
    • Urology (165)