Social prescribing is the topic of the moment. Many national organisations and individuals from policy, practice, and academia (such as NHS England, the RCGP, the Mayor of London, and National Institute for Health Research) are rightly advocating social prescriptions as an important way to expand the options available for GPs and other community-based practitioners to provide individualised care for people’s physical and mental health through social interventions. No robust figures exist but it is thought that around 20% of patients consult their GP for primarily social issues, given this and the driving forces of an ageing population, increased complex health and social needs, and increasing demand on services, social prescribing is rapidly gaining popularity. As a concept and a model for delivering health and social interventions, social prescribing has proliferated without a concomitant evidence base.1 This is partly due to resource limitations on evaluators and partly due to difficulties in conceptualising what social prescribing is and what good evidence for a complex service might look like. Here, we briefly outline different models of social prescribing, the current evidence base and its limitations, explore problems relating to what constitutes good evidence, and discuss some potential ways forward. An immediate difficulty is the range of activity that the term ‘social prescribing’ embraces. Such heterogeneity is a function of social prescribing being the demand-driven formalisation of referrals to existing community services and organisations, which is necessarily locally different. More generally, at one extreme there are narrow interventions that focus on one clinical area and aim to prevent or reduce progression to chronic disease. Such interventions tend to include targeted life-style interventions (for example physical activity, healthy eating or cooking), medicines management or group mentoring, and are typically accessed through the healthcare system. At the other extreme, a large number of schemes are …

Background: Having a tax-funded and supposedly ‘National’ Health Service (NHS), one might assume that the UK is well-positioned to roll out eHealth innovations at scale. Yet, despite a strong policy push, the English NHS has been limited in the extent to which it has exploited the potential of eHealth. Main body: This paper considers a range of macro, meso and micro factors influencing eHealth innovation in the English NHS. Conclusions: While barriers to eHealth innovation exist at all scales, the fragmentation of the NHS is the most significant factor limiting adoption and diffusion. Rather than addressing problems of fragmentation, national policy seems to have intensified the digital divide. As the recently published NHS Long Term Plan places great emphasis on the role of digital transformation in helping health and care professionals communicate better and enabling people to access the care they need quickly and easily, the implications for the digital divide are likely to be significant for effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of ‘holistic’ link-workers on service users’ well-being, activation and frailty, and their use of health and social care services and the associated costs.Background: UK policy is encouraging social prescribing (SP) as a means to improve well-being, self-care and reduce demand on the NHS and social services. However, the evidence to support this policy is generally weak and poorly conceptualised, particularly in relation to frail, older people and patient activation. Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, an integrated care organisation, commissioned a Well-being Co-ordinator service to support older adults (≥50 years) with complex health needs (≥2 long-term conditions), as part of its service redesign.Methods: A before-and-after study measuring health and social well-being, activation and frailty at 12 weeks and primary, community and secondary care service use and cost at 12 months prior and after intervention.Findings: Most of the 86 participants achieved their goals (85%). On average health and well-being, patient activation and frailty showed a statistically significant improvement in mean score. Mean activity increased for all services (some changes were statistically significant). Forty-four per cent of participants saw a decrease in service use or no change. Thirteen high-cost users (>£5000 change in costs) accounted for 59% of the overall cost increase. This was largely due to significant, rapid escalation in morbidity and frailty. Co-ordinators played a valuable key-worker role, improving the continuity of care, reducing isolation and supporting carers. No entry-level participant characteristic was associated with change in well-being or service use. Larger, better conceptualised, controlled studies are needed to strengthen claims of causality and develop national policy in this area.