Community care: the independent sector.

The independent sector, which consists of the voluntary and private sectors, is a vital element in supporting older people in the community. The voluntary sector, coordinated by the Council for Voluntary Service and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, provides a variety of services, including practical help, reassurance and companionship, and advice, information, campaigning, and advocacy. The private sector owns all of the nursing homes and most of the residential homes and is gradually becoming more involved with the provision of services to help support older people in their own homes. With this increase in size and importance of the independent sector over recent years, there is now a real need for greater communication between the private, voluntary, and statutory agencies in any one region. In some areas, forums made up of representatives of these various sectors meet to discuss relevant issues and construct local policies, thus allowing a more coordinated approach to the delivery of services.     

Community care in London: the prospects.

Elderly and disabled people have been led to expect great improvements in the quality of community care after April 1993. The choice to live safely at home is to be offered as an alternative to residential care. The financial and organisational relationships are all intended to support this in practice. The Tomlinson recommendations will create instability for providers, and much new and overdue investment in primary and community services is needed if the community care reforms are to work. There are, however, other obstacles looming which pose an even greater threat to the smooth transition after April 1993. The formula by which government money for implementation will be distributed discriminates against London. The sheer complexity of the organisational transformation has also been underestimated; the machinery of government both locally and centrally is ill equipped to maintain the precedence of the consumer. There are examples of good practice in London boroughs, but the dangers of Londoners ending up with the worst of all worlds are great.     

Community care for the elderly 1976-84.

The aging of the elderly population is of crucial importance as people who are over 80 make far greater use of health and social services than any other age group. Government guidelines on the provision of services, which are generally related to the whole population aged 65 and over, fail to take account of this change in the age structure of the elderly population and are no longer appropriate. Recent trends in the provision of domiciliary services, day care, specialist housing for the elderly, and residential care have been related to changes in the number of potential consumers. Ironically, despite the government''s stated commitment to "community care," the chief growth area has been private institutional care. The number of day care places and sheltered housing units has also increased in real terms, but the provision of domiciliary services, such as home help and health visitor visits to the elderly, has either fallen behind or barely matched the increase in the number of very old people. If community care is to be made a reality and if the present inadequate levels of service are to be maintained, let alone improved, then additional resources, greater cooperation among agencies, and a more imaginative approach to the development and delivery of services are urgently needed.     

Community participation in primary health care.

A two and a half year''s experience of a community participation group has shown that this can have a valuable role in suggesting practicable improvements in a group practice. Topics discussed by the group (which is composed of one representative from every known organization in the area) have included problems of receptionists; the role of the individual ancillary worker; and teaching in general practice. The high attendance rate at the group''s meetings testifies to the community''s interest in primary health care services.     

Community care compared with hospital outpatient care for hypertensive patients.

Three hundred and seventy-six patients with treated diastolic blood pressures of less than 105 mm Hg and no history of accelerated hypertension or renal failure were selected from among those attending the Hammersmith Hospital hypertension clinic. Their average lying treated blood pressure was 146 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic and average age 56 years; 18% were black, 6% Asian, and 76% white. The patients were mostly having multiple treatment, 90% receiving a diuretic, 35% methyldopa, 33% propranolol, 18% atenolol, 9% hydrallazine, and 7% bethanidine. They were randomly allocated to either two years of further hospital outpatient care or referred back to their general practitioners. During the two years 19 (10%) of the 187 patients followed up in hospital defaulted and three had their treatment discontinued. Twelve (6%) of the 189 followed up by their general practitioners defaulted from follow-up and nine had their treatment discontinued. At the end of the trial the average lying blood pressure was 148 mm Hg systolic and 88 mm Hg diastolic in the hospital group and 149 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic in the general practice group. The change in blood pressure was calculated for each individual and showed an average fall of 1.6 mm Hg in standing diastolic pressure in the hospital group and a rise of 1.4 mm Hg in the general practice group (p less than 0.05). The 90% confidence limits for a difference in standing diastolic pressure between the groups were 1 and 5 mm Hg with the pressure lower in the hospital group. General practice care was not quite as effective in controlling blood pressure as continued specialist supervision over two years in this selected group of treated outpatients with mild or moderate hypertension, but these results show that the discharge back to general practitioners of patients who are well controlled after hospital treatment is a sensible policy.