From evidence to blueprints for action

Sally Witcher&

Judith Midgely

Why do we need evidence?- Understand, learn- Influence, persuade- Predict- Communicate - articulate, visualise- Reassure, build confidence- Drive improvements to practice

What is evidence?

Evidence to action to evidence

SDS Evidence Explorers- Purpose: explore issues and process of coproducing evidence

- Outcomes

– Evidence gaps and action to plug– Value of different types of evidence– Share learning, promote improvement– Participants’ learning

- Co-production partners

What we did & what we found- Evidence gaps- Work streams

– Mental health– Human Rights Implications– BME Communities

- SDS Insight

Evidence gaps- 2 stage process- Clusters- Framework

– To organise and steer collection– Analytical tool/s

Evidence (gaps) framework- Strategic issues- Designing delivery- What’s happening now- Outcomes

Mental health work stream- Barriers include:

– Stigma and self- stigma– Professional nervousness– Lack of stories and role models– Health route (not necessarily social work)

– Involuntary admission= disempowering– Certain mental health problems- feels like control isn’t possible

The map: what we did1.Initial meeting2. Really small

survey (n=4)3.Bring Your Own

Evidence (BYOE) session

4.NHS Lothian literature review

The evidence we talked about - Lived experience (user & carer)- Falkirk Mental Health Respite Vouchers Pilot

- NHS Lothian SDS Pilot- IBSEN study (mental health data only)- NHS Lothian Literature review- “Self- directed support A review of the barriers and facilitators” (2011)

- Scottish Government- Potential pieces of work (SRN, NHS Highland)

What we found…- Create accessible information, mental health and SDS.

- Don’t make stigma based assumptions about people’s ability to cope and thrive with their own budget.

- Develop strong stories, recovery and SDS, SDS possible.

- Need to know more about what happens long term.- Need the individual’s whole story from start to finish.

Human Rights work stream- Contact 4 LAs to consider some of the gateways to

SDS, including;

– Charging

– Eligibility criteria

– Resource Allocation Systems

– Assessment- ‘FAIR’ & ‘PANEL’ approaches to human rights analyses- Developed a set of recommendations

SDS: key ECHR Articles:

– Article 14 = the right to enjoy all rights in the Convention without discrimination

– Article 3 = the right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way

– Article 8 = the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence

– Article 2 = the right to life

SDS: key UNCRPD articlesArticle 19 = states must ensure that “disabled people have a right to live in the community, with the support they need and can make choices like other people do”

Other relevant UNCRPD articles = Article’s 18 & 20 on mobility, 27 on employment, 28 on an adequate standard of living & income, 29 & 30 on participation in cultural, political and civic life

What we found- Tension between adult protection/service regulations

& overly cautious approach to risks Vs HRs and empowerment, choice and control.

- Familiar balance between individual rights and risk

- Proportionate & consistent decision making in question

- Human rights are under threat in context of cuts NOT because of SDS

- Rights agenda is being eroded

What we recommend- Wide-ranging:

– Local authorities: leadership, policy & practices, guidance, clear & transparent decision-making, appeals process

– Charging: free at point of use, Commission on charging, Scottish Government to direct

Project Outputs- Final report – process and outcomes

– Learning points- Evidence framework

– Tools for collecting and analysing data- Work streams – various- Insight- Informing other developments

What next?- You?

– What evidence do you have?– What evidence could you collect?– How could you share it?

- IRISS

– Pilotlight project