As the overwhelming majority of older people prefer to remain in their own homes and communities, innovative service provision aims to promote independence of older people despite incremental age associated frailty. Reablement is one such service intervention that is rapidly being adopted across high-income countries and projected to result in significant cost-savings in public health expenditure by decreasing premature admission to acute care settings and long-term institutionalisation. It is an intensive, time-limited intervention provided in people's homes or in community settings, often multi-disciplinary in nature, focussing on supporting people to regain skills around daily activities. It is goal-orientated, holistic and person-centred irrespective of diagnosis, age and individual capacities. Reablement is an inclusive approach that seeks to work with all kinds of frail people but requires skilled professionals who are willing to adapt their practise, as well as receptive older people, families and care staff. Although reablement may just seem the right thing to do, studies on the outcomes of this knowledge-based practice are inconsistent-yet there is an emerging evidence and practice base that suggests that reablement improves performance in daily activities. This innovative service however may lead to hidden side effects such as social isolation and a paradoxical increase in hospital admissions. Some of the necessary evaluative research is already underway, the results of which will help fill some of the evidence gaps outlined here.

Aim: To identify facilitators and barriers to implementing outcome measures. Methods: An action-research approach within a hospice and nursing home was used. Staff took part in semistructured interviews pre- and post-implementation of the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), completed diaries and participated in monthly meetings. Findings: Qualitative content analysis identified barriers to implementation including: a top-down decision-making approach; outcome measures perceived as time-consuming to use; limited resources for data analysis; and a lack of knowledge of the importance of outcome measures. Facilitators to successful implementation include: involving all staff in decisions about implementation; and using a measure that can be adapted to organization needs and clinical practice. The benefits of using the measure are rapidly noticeable. Conclusions: Given the need to evaluate services and the role outcome measures can have within clinical governance, this article indicates methods by which measures may be more successfully implemented.

Background: Reablement is an intensive, time-limited intervention for people at risk of needing social care or an increased intensity of care. Differing from home care, it seeks to restore functioning and self-care skills. In England, it is a core element of intermediate care. The existing evidence base is limited. Objectives: To describe reablement services in England and develop a service model typology; to conduct a mixed-methods comparative evaluation of service models investigating outcomes, factors that have an impact on outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness, and user and practitioner experiences; and to investigate specialist reablement services/practices for people with dementia. Methods: Work package (WP) 1, which took place in 2015, surveyed reablement services in England. Data were collected on organisational characteristics, service delivery and practice, and service costs and caseload. WP2 was an observational study of three reablement services, each representing a different service model. Data were collected on health (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) and social care related (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit – self-completed) quality of life, practitioner (Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living) and self-reported (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale) functioning, individual and service characteristics, and resource use. They were collected on entry into reablement (n = 186), at discharge (n = 128) and, for those reaching the point on the study timeline, at 6 months post discharge (n = 64). Interviews with staff and service users explored experiences of delivering or receiving reablement and its perceived impacts. In WP3, staff in eight reablement services were interviewed to investigate their experiences of reabling people with dementia. Results: A total of 201 services in 139 local authorities took part in the survey. Services varied in their organisational base, their relationship with other intermediate care services, their use of outsourced providers, their skill mix and the scope of their reablement input. These characteristics influenced aspects of service delivery and practice. The average cost per case was £1728. Lower than expected sample sizes meant that a comparison of service models in WP2 was not possible. The findings are preliminary. At discharge (T1), significant improvements in mean score on outcome measures, except self-reported functioning, were observed. Further improvements were observed at 6 months post discharge (T2), but these were significant for self-reported functioning only. There was some evidence that individual (e.g. engagement, mental health) and service (e.g. service structure) characteristics were associated with outcomes and resource use at T1. Staff’s views on factors affecting outcomes typically aligned with, or offered possible explanations for, these associations. However, it was not possible to establish the significance of these findings in terms of practice or commissioning decisions. Service users expressed satisfaction with reablement and identified two core impacts: regained independence and, during reablement, companionship. Staff participating in WP3 believed that people with dementia can benefit from reablement, but objectives may differ and expectations for regained independence may be inappropriate. Furthermore, staff believed that flexibility in practice (e.g. duration of home visits) should be incorporated into delivery models and adequate provision made for specialist training of staff. Conclusions: The study contributes to our understanding of reablement, and what the impacts are on outcomes and costs. Staff believe that reablement can be appropriate for people with dementia. Findings will be of interest to commissioners and service managers. Future research should further investigate the factors that have an impact on outcomes, and reabling people with dementia. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.