1. An Evaluation of Intermediate Care for Older People – Final Report 2005
Institute of Health Sciences and Public Health Research, University of Leeds

2. Study considered structure, content outcomes and costs of Intermediate Care
What is it?
What are its effects and outcomes?

3. Findings What is Intermediate Care?
Diversity in how it was conceived and implemented locally
Reinforced importance of intermediate care as a “set of bridges at key points of transition in the person’s journey from hospital to home (and vice versa) and from illness/injury to recovery”

4. Effects and Outcomes of Intermediate Care
High level performance indicators – suggestion that new service configurations have changed way people move through services and across spectrum of care
Outcomes: (65% returned home, 15% hospital, 2% to residential care)
Referrals: all aged 75+ and 50% 85+)
Service delivery – observational data indicate development of IC has led to substantive changes in structure of service delivery and culture and behaviour of commissioners and providers

5. User experiences and outcomes
Qualitative data from service users suggest a significant difference to people’s lives
Most people made substantial progress along the path to recovery
Maintenance of independence depended on
Degree of frailty prior to admission
Illness trajectory
Access to formal and informal resources
Need for clarity over what constitutes ‘recovery’ and ‘rehabilitation’

6. A comprehensive intermediate care system should consider:
Service type, content and location
Bridging or integration mechanisms to route people approximately
Case finding and equitable access routes
Skills of multi-professional staff

7. Elements of good user-centred Intermediate Care
An enabling ethos built around activities and goals of value to individual user which boosted confidence and motivation of users to take control over their own recovery
Recognition of and partnership with informal support networks
Link into ongoing practical, clinical and social support from services

8. Concerns Baton tossing rather than baton passing
Lack of mainstream enabling home support services to continue work
Capacity problems and gaps (home care, equipment and adaptations, social activities/contacts)
Routine data poor – no commonly agreed set of data definitions and no minimum data set

9. Costs
£1.05 billion made available for Intermediate Care in England by March 2004
Problem of tracking where money had gone
Few pooled budgets emerging
Need for meaningful, consistent and comprehensive method of reporting activity and expenditure which reflects the partnership approach to service provision