dundee strategic social prescribing group social ... · dundee strategic social prescribing group...
TRANSCRIPT
1
DUNDEE STRATEGIC SOCIAL PRESCRIBING GROUP
Social Prescribing as a spectrum of approaches: mapping
activity in Dundee
April 2019
Dr. Phyllis Easton: Health Intelligence Manager, NHS Tayside
Sheila Allan: Community Health Inequalities Manager, Dundee HSCP/ Neighbourhood Services
2
Page Content
3 Executive summary
6 What is social prescribing?
6 National context
7 Supporting social prescribing approaches in Dundee: Strategic Social Prescribing Group
7 The survey
9 Results
18 Focus group summary
22 Summary and discussion
25 Recommendations and next steps
26 References
27 Dundee Strategic Social Prescribing Group membership
29 Appendix 1: the questionnaire
3
THE SOCIAL PRESCRIBING APPROACH: A SURVEY TO MAP ACTIVITIES IN DUNDEE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and context
Social prescribing has been on the agenda nationally across various divisions and topic areas in the
Scottish Government for a number of years and locally through a well-established process of system
wide working to help tackle health inequalities and promote mental wellbeing. Building system
capacity was a key aim of the Equally Well test site founded in 2009 and the approach has continued
through the work of the Health Inequalities Service aided by a range of partners and the prioritisation
of health inequalities and prevention approaches within the city.
Dundee Strategic Social Prescribing Group (DSSPG)
The group was established in May 2018 to respond to the recommendation from the independent
evaluation of the Sources of Support link worker service that there should be a specific plan for
developing social prescribing to prevent fragmentation and duplication of effort across existing
policies. DSSPG recognises that no single organisation owns social prescribing and the methodology
can apply to a specific service or as a range of approaches in different settings. It set out to develop a
framework to identify activity, duplication, gaps and opportunities, share best practice, and potentially
provide a tool for strategic commissioning partners and organisations wishing to develop their own
social prescribing schemes or activities.
What is social prescribing?
Social prescribing, also known as community connecting, navigating, or link working, is a term used to
describe a spectrum of approaches to support people to access services and activities that can help
deal with life circumstances and improve health and wellbeing. Various definitions exist reflecting that
social prescribing is not a treatment in itself but rather a social solution. A preventive approach
requires a broader spectrum of provision reaching people who may not be at the point of requiring or
perceiving themselves to require medical help.
The mapping exercise
In setting out to explore the local social prescribing landscape, DSSPG produced a Survey Monkey
questionnaire offering a description of approaches at different levels using a spectrum diagram:
1. Making
information
available
generally
2. Signposting/
provision of
specific
information
3. Supporting
contact with
services
4. Supported
access to services
5. Following up
and through
6. Dedicated
link worker
role
The survey explored who was doing what, where, with whom and why, and gave respondents the
opportunity to highlight barriers, challenges and ideas for development. The survey was distributed
widely and received 375 responses. Respondents were invited to leave contact details if they wished
to participate in a focus group, and three subsequently took place involving 14 participants. These
provided further insights on current activity, challenges and support required.
4
Results
A summary of findings from the Survey Monkey questionnaire is provided below:
The survey reached a wide range of people across all sectors; the largest number of responses were from Dundee City Council employees (n=162) followed by NHST and Dundee HSCP
The majority of respondents (70.2%) were frontline staff
Respondents’ roles covered a wide range of topic areas. Almost one third focused on mental health. Physical health and community learning/ education were the focus of 1 in 5
Services were delivered at all levels; the most common response was at community level
Across the spectrum of approaches, the most common level reported was signposting and provision of specific information (84%)
12% of respondents identified themselves as not doing social prescribing at any level and were excluded from subsequent analyses
Of those who responded, over 1 on 5 reported spending more than 60% of their time on social prescribing. The majority worked this way with 10 people a week or less
Just over 1 in 10 described social prescribing as their main role whilst over half stated it was an agreed part of their role
Of those who responded, over ¾ felt there was a need for more social prescribing
The most common outcomes respondents were trying to achieve were improved physical and mental wellbeing, then increased knowledge of and access to services and activities
Over half (52.3%) of respondents had not attended any relevant training. Of those who had the most common were Health Inequalities and Prevention, and Poverty Sensitive Practice
A range of identified challenges were selected by respondents, the most common being lack of knowledge about services and activities and finding the time to do this
Challenges given in text responses were themed in the analysis as: service availability and delivery; the way that services are designed; client issues; access to information
Narrative in the “any other comments” section was themed as: knowledge/ access to information; client needs/ barriers; referral processes; service capacity; attitudes/stigma
These challenges were confirmed in the focus groups, which also added; lack of clarity on criteria for services; importance of stigma; potential for peer support and more informal support measures
There were mixed views in the focus groups on the usefulness of social prescribing as a term
Ideas for improvement included; developing a one stop portal for information; better use of community resources; and, provision of networking opportunities and forums for the wider social prescribing workforce
It should be noted that the mapping exercise could not gather data on every component of the
planned framework and issues around data collection were not explored. Work underway at a national
level to test a core minimum dataset for link worker services within general practice may provide some
useful insights.
Recommendations and next steps
This mapping exercise generated many interesting findings and evidenced lots of activity across the
spectrum of approaches. Some clear actions emerged including:
Progression of an information portal/ single point of access
Testing a learning network or forum
Learning from national work in terms of data collection
5
Clarification of ongoing support required to build capacity for social prescribing including training and e-learning
In addition to the broad overarching aim of the framework reflected previously, the DSSPG has reflected on the data from the survey and focus groups and proposed that it also include the following:
Clear articulation of the differences between the service and approach
Assessment of the strategic agendas that either incorporate or reflect social prescribing already or which could be supported to do this e.g distress, risk, personalisation, offending, recovery, procurement
A reflection of the investment made currently in terms of link workers and to support the approach more widely e.g training
Articulation of the importance of prevention/ early intervention and the need to support this through a strong community infrastructure including volunteers
Where gaps exist and how these could be addressed
6
THE SOCIAL PRESCRIBING APPROACH: A SURVEY TO MAP ACTIVITIES IN DUNDEE
What is social prescribing?
Social prescribing is most commonly set in the context of the NHS, specifically primary care. Brandling
and House describe it as being about “expanding the range of options available to GP and patient as
they grapple with a problem” while Skivington et al. describe social prescribing as a “collaborative
approach to improve inter-sectoral working between primary health care and community
organisations” and focus specifically on a links worker programme. However, in spite of the inter-
sectoral working definition, community organisations are seen as the recipients of service users who
experience one way referral through primary care. Similarly, others focus on specific programmes
(Bickerdike et al., Moffat et al.) or services (Carnes et al.) and view the social prescribing process as
originating from a medical consultation.
Kimberlee, in his paper on work within a CCG in England describes different models and seeks to find
a broader definition of social prescribing. He found that the term social prescribing was often used
interchangeably with social intervention, a term applied to a variety of different interventions aimed
at promoting wellbeing and/or health. Although Kimberlee gives examples of social prescribing
projects which operate independently of the GP, the process stems from a specific service.
In their essay, Brandling and House go on to suggest a definition of the options offered as those that
“make available new life opportunities,” a description that one might argue does not sit exclusively
within a medical model. Social prescribing is not a treatment in itself but rather a social solution.
Taking a preventive approach to health and wellbeing requires a broader spectrum of provision that
reaches people who may not be at the point of requiring or perceiving themselves to require medical
help.
National context
Health Scotland uses the following definition of social prescribing:
“Social prescribing is commonly used in primary care settings and provides non-medical options for
primary care staff to draw on to support their patients’ health and wellbeing, including their mental
health. Social prescribing is an approach used to support self-management. It is primarily used for
connecting people to non-medical sources of support or resources within their community. It can also
be used by professionals working in other services and enhances the holistic approaches to addressing
health, wellbeing and mental health problems.”
Health Scotland has supported developments around social prescribing for a number of years and
hosts a range of resources and case studies on its website including from the Sources of Support link
worker service in Dundee.
Social prescribing was sited originally in the mental health division of Health Scotland and the Scottish
Government and was picked up by the primary care division due to the connections with general
practice, particularly in terms of the efforts of the Deep End GPs in raising awareness of their increased
workload when supporting predominantly deprived patients. Subsequently, in 2013, a national
Community Link Worker Programme was initiated by the Scottish Government to test a link worker
approach in Deep End practices, which provided some resources for the service in Dundee. A
manifesto commitment in 2016 proposed to scale up this approach further to the tune of 250 link
workers across the country by the end of the current political term. Dundee was identified as an “early
adopter” and this greatly increased the number of nationally funded link workers at a local level
effectively providing resources to offer the service to all GP practices in the city with above average
7
levels of deprived patients in their practice population. In April 2018, link workers within general
practice were included in the new GMS contract and funding for the programme transferred to
Primary Care Improvement Funds. The shape and scope of the local link worker service moving
forward is currently being negotiated.
Supporting social prescribing approaches in Dundee
Mapping the use of social prescribing approaches in Dundee builds on a process of system wide
working to help tackle health inequalities and promote mental wellbeing that has taken place over
the past ten years. The nationally supported Equally Well test site, which was established in one
deprived area in the city in 2009 and scaled up across all Community Regeneration Areas in 2013 was
the subject of a research study investigating whether a targeted intervention can result in changes to
services to better address the determinants of health inequalities and mental wellbeing. Results
indicated that a range of positive changes had taken place for staff working at all levels who were
involved in the test site including more recognition of the social determinants of poor health and
wellbeing, the need for compassionate and understanding responses for people experiencing
deprivation and inequalities, and increased awareness of other services, organisations and activities,
enabling them to signpost clients to alternative support. The study suggested that “a simple method
such as providing information about available opportunities, or signposting a person to sources of
support, and doing this in a manner that is respectful and empathetic can make the difference between
an individual remaining marginalised and excluded and developing connections that can help tackle
the causes or consequence of their wellbeing status.”
Evidence from the study suggested that one in every two stakeholders changed the way they delivered
their service as a result of involvement in the test site and that for many this included incorporating a
wellbeing and signposting component. The test site activities that were stated as being helpful in
supporting staff with this “social prescribing” role included the local health and wellbeing networks,
logic model events, community engagement, training and awareness sessions and the establishment
of the My Wellbeing web pages.
Dundee Strategic Social Prescribing Group
Social prescribing as an approach and service is reflected across a number of strategies and plans at a
local and national level. Dundee Strategic Social Prescribing Group was established to develop a
framework for the city picking up on the recommendation from the independent evaluation of the
Sources of Support link worker service in GP practices that there should be “a specific plan for
developing social prescribing to prevent fragmentation and duplication of effort across existing
policies” and “a plan developed with regard to the local strategic priorities and the National Link
Workers programme.”
The survey
In setting out to explore what the local situation is in terms of understanding and participating in social
prescribing activity, we offered a description of social prescribing approaches that can connect people
with options to improve health and wellbeing whether a problem has been diagnosed or not.
8
The survey described here aimed to map current and planned activities taking place in Dundee that
use these social prescribing approaches to link people with services to improve their wellbeing and
social circumstances and to identify any challenges or issues that exist.
The survey was distributed through a Survey Monkey link using a number of networks and emailing
lists including for NHS Tayside and Dundee City Council employees, Dundee HSCP cascade system,
Third Sector organisations, local health and wellbeing networks, and commissioned services.
The following introduction was included at the beginning of the survey to set the scene for participants
and highlight the broad range of activities that make up a social prescribing approach.
Introduction
Social prescribing, also known as community connecting, navigating, or link working, is a term used to
describe a spectrum of approaches to support people to access services and activities that can help
them to deal with their life circumstances and improve their health and wellbeing. This can range from
giving information or simple signposting at one end of the spectrum to supported access and
dedicated link workers at the other. You may not classify yourself as a social prescriber but every
frontline member of staff can adopt these approaches to some extent, be it an implicit or explicit part
of your job. This questionnaire is relevant for you if you think you are carrying out this type of work
already, or would like to but feel unable to at the moment.
How does it work?
The diagram below shows that social prescribing approaches can work at various levels for different
types of people and client groups. It can be used to maintain positive health and wellbeing, prevent
deterioration in life circumstance for those who are at risk, and support recovery for people with
significant needs and challenges.
1. Making
information
available
generally
2. Signposting/
provision of
specific
information
3. Supporting
contact with
services
4. Supported
access to
services
5. Following up
and through
6. Dedicated
link worker role
Level descriptor:
1. Making information available generally (leaflets, posters, telephone numbers, website
addresses e.g. on display boards or at reception desk)
2. Signposting and providing information to individuals directly
3. Supporting individuals to make contact with services e.g. help setting appointments, making
phone calls, filling out forms
4. Supported access e.g. going along to a service or activity with the individual, if necessary for
them to engage
5. Following up and through (finding out whether the individual accessed the service, what was
the outcome, do they need help with anything else?)
9
6. Link worker role where your job is to support clients to identify their needs and access the
services required to help
The survey questions are included as an appendix at the end of this report.
Focus groups
Respondents were invited to leave their contact details if they were willing to participate in a follow
up discussion. Three focus groups were convened after the survey closed. These provided further
insight to attitudes towards social prescribing and additional comments on the challenges and what
was needed to support future activity.
Results
Total responses
A total of 375 responded to the questionnaire. The largest number of responses came from Dundee
City Council (N=162), followed by NHS Tayside (N=66) and Dundee Health and Social Care
Partnership (N=60). Smaller numbers of respondents worked in other organisations listed in the
chart below.
Chart 1: Organisations where respondents work (N=375)
Role of respondents
Respondents were asked to select from a range of options what type of role they fulfilled in their
employment. A considerable proportion (70.2%) provided a frontline service. Proportions are shown
in Chart 2 below. Six people did not respond to this question.
0.5%
0.8%
0.8%
1.6%
2.4%
10.9%
11.5%
16.0%
17.6%
43.2%
Tayside Fire and Rescue
Police Scotland
Faith based organisation
Private sector
Other
L & C Dundee
Third Sector
Dundee HSCP
NHST
DCC
10
Chart 2: Job role of respondents (N=369)
Focus of role
Respondents were asked what the focus of their role was. Almost one third (30.4%) of those who
responded focused on mental health (Table 1). Physical health and community learning/education
were both reported as the focus for 1 in 5 of the respondents. Respondents could tick more than
one option so totals are greater than 100%. ‘Other’ included Child or Adult Protection (10), Children
and Families (8), Information/Library Services (7) and Older People (4). Three people did not answer
this question.
Table 1: Focus of respondents’ roles (N=372)
Focus No. %
Mental health 113 30.4%
Physical health 77 20.7%
Community learning/ education 72 19.4%
Housing/ homelessness 48 12.9%
Learning difficulties/ disabilities 47 12.6%
Cross cutting/ multi-disciplinary 46 12.4%
Employability 43 11.6%
Other 42 11.3%
Community safety/ criminal justice 36 9.7%
Carers 34 9.1%
Substance misuse 32 8.6%
Volunteering 26 7.0%
Income maximisation 24 6.5%
Regeneration/ community planning 18 4.8%
Environment/ green space 15 4.0%
Frontline service , 70.2%
Back-of-house service, 2.4%
Service manager,
15.2%
Volunteer, 1.6%
Strategic, 5.4% Other, 5.2%
11
Although, not surprisingly, of those who reported a focus on mental health, over half (58%) worked
in NHS Tayside or Dundee Health and Social Care Partnership. The remainder came from a range of
organisations including Dundee City Council, Leisure and Culture Dundee, Police Scotland and the
Third Sector. Responses to the question about which team participants were located in suggested
that many people who do not work in traditional mental health roles recognise the contribution
their work makes to the mental health and wellbeing of the population groups they work with.
Teams covered a wide range of areas such as adult learning, community justice, housing and
homelessness, leisure and sport, and library services. Fewer respondents reported a focus on
physical health and of those almost two thirds (64%) worked in health and social care. However, 18%
worked in Leisure and Culture and 8% in the third sector.
Level of service delivery
When asked about the level that their service was delivered at, the most common response was at
community level (42.8%). Respondents could select a maximum of 3 options and reported a range of
types of service as illustrated in Chart 3. Six people did not answer this question.
Chart 3: Level of service delivery (N=369)
Only 92 people indicated sub group categories. These covered:
LTC/ disabilities/specific condition (13); Children and families (10); Older people (9);
Unemployed/unfit to work/ low income (8); Young people (7); CJ/ offenders (7); Learning
disabilities (6); Care leavers/ carer (6). Small numbers reported complex needs, refugees/ BME,
tenant, domestic abuse and ‘other’ settings mentioned were: GP Practice, acute, schools, residential
care homes, own home.
3.0%
4.9%
19.2%
28.5%
29.0%
34.4%
42.8%
Other
Crisis level
Individual short term
Sub-group level
Population level
Individual intensive
Community level
12
Level of social prescribing
Respondents were asked about the level of delivery within the social prescribing spectrum
illustrated at the start of the survey. Forty five people (12.1%) stated that they provided none of the
options and have been excluded from the chart below and from subsequent questions regarding
social prescribing activity. Results show that over 8 out of 10 people reported that they provided
information and signposting. Chart 4 shows that there is not a diminishing amount of social
prescribing as the intensity increases along the spectrum. As expected, the lowest response rate was
for supported access – buddying, hand-holding, advocacy, providing moral support etc. This has
already been identified as a gap, although it should be noted that over one third of staff do provide
this level of social prescribing support. Respondents could tick more than one option so totals are
greater than 100%, and two people did not answer this question
Chart 4: Levels of social prescribing reported by respondents (N=328)
Forty one respondents reported that they had a dedicated link worker role. It would appear that this
included many who were not named specifically social prescribing link workers but fulfilled that role
between services for the people they worked with. This was borne out over the next few questions.
Proportion of time
Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of their time that was spent on social
prescribing activity. Three out of ten (30.4%) respondents either skipped this question or were
excluded because of having reported doing no social prescribing activity. Reported proportions are
shown below (Chart 5). Over 1 in 5 spent more than 60% of their time on social prescribing activity.
Of those spending 81%+ of their time in social prescribing activity, 25 reported that they were
dedicated link workers and 10 were not. This represents 6 out of 10 of those who reported being
dedicated link workers stating that they spend 81%+ of their time in social prescribing activity.
71.2%
84.0%
57.7%
41.4% 43.9%
12.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Makinginformation
availablegenerally
Signposting andspecific
information toindividuals
Support tocontact
services, makeappointments
Supportingaccess if
needed toengage
Following upand throughafter contactwith service
Dedicated linkworker role
13
Chart 5: Proportion of time spent doing social prescribing activity (N=261)
Number of people
The number of people that respondents carried out social prescribing activity with varied across the
categories offered. Three out of ten (30.7%) either skipped this question or were excluded because
of their previous response of no social prescribing activity. Of the remainder, the majority worked
with 10 or fewer people over a week with smaller proportions working with greater numbers (Chart
6). Of those reporting that they worked with more than 20 people in a week, 7 had described
themselves as dedicated link workers.
Chart 6: No. of people receiving social prescribing activity over the course of a week (N=260)
Social prescribing in relation to role
Respondents were given three options to describe how social prescribing related to their role.
Almost one third (32%) either skipped this question or were excluded because of their previous
answer of no social prescribing activity. Just over 1 in 10 described social prescribing as their main
0 -20%, 35.2%
21 – 40%, 19.9%
41 – 60%, 18.8%
61 – 80%, 12.6%
81+ %, 9.6%
0-10, 61.1%
11-20, 21.5%
21-30, 6.2%
More than 30, 11.2%
, 0
14
role while over half stated that it was an agreed part of their role (Chart 7). Of the 41 reported
dedicated link workers, 14 (34.1%) described social prescribing as their main role and 19 (46.3%) as
an agreed part of their role. Those who reported having added it to their role informally came from a
wide range of teams and provided support from across the spectrum.
Chart 7: Social prescribing in relation to role (N=255)
Current level of social prescribing
Respondents were asked if the current level of social prescribing should change. Over three quarters
of those responding thought that there should be more social prescribing (Chart 8). Only two people
thought that there should be less, and 90 people (24%) skipped the question. Forty four percent of
those who reported they undertook no social prescribing activity thought that there should be more
social prescribing.
Chart 8: Suggested changes to current level of social prescribing (N=285)
Agreed part of role, 58.8%
Added to my role informally,
29.8%
Main role, 11.4%
More social prescribing,
77.2%
Less social prescribing,
0.7%
About the same amount of
social prescribing,
22.1%
15
Outcomes for individuals/families through social prescribing activity
Respondents were given a range of outcomes from which to select those relevant to their aims in
carrying out social prescribing activity. Table 2 shows the results. More than one box could be ticked
so numbers add to more than the total responses. One quarter (24.8%) did not respond to this
question.
Table 2: Outcomes aimed for through social prescribing (N=282)
Outcomes aimed for No. %
Improving physical and mental health and wellbeing 221 78.4%
Increasing knowledge of services and activities 209 74.1%
Increasing access to services and activities 211 74.8%
Improving life circumstances/ income levels 176 62.4%
Increasing social networks and connections 176 62.4%
Early intervention/ preventing harm 153 54.3%
Decreased reliance on your service 108 38.3%
Of those who aimed for a decreased reliance on their service approximately 4 out of 10 (41.7%)
came from health focused organisations and a similar proportion (39.8%) from Dundee City Council.
Training attended
Respondents were asked about training courses attended. Over half (52.3%) did not report having
attended any training. The remaining 179 attended 565 courses shown in Table 3 below. Note that
the percentages shown in this table are of the total responses to indicate the level of training
attended among all respondents to the survey.
Table 3: Training courses attended
Training course No. % of total
respondents
Health Inequalities and Prevention training 98 26.1%
Poverty Sensitive Practice 84 22.4%
Scotland’s Mental Health First Aid 81 21.6%
Substance Use, Stigma and Supporting Recovery 72 19.2%
Assist 69 18.4%
Mind Yer Heid Plus 49 13.1%
Sage and Thyme 39 10.4%
Safetalk 26 6.9%
Other 47 12.5%
‘Other’ included several who had attended training specific to conditions such as Alzheimers and
autism, and others who had received health promotion or behaviour change training.
16
Challenges in providing social prescribing activity
Respondents reported facing a range of challenges selected from options offered. One third (33.3%)
skipped this question or were excluded because they reported that they did not carry out social
prescribing activity. Table 4 below shows the responses from the remaining two thirds. Respondents
could tick more than one option so numbers add up to more than the total.
Table 4: Challenges faced by respondents in carrying out social prescribing activity (N=250)
Challenge No. %
Lack of knowledge about services and activities 106 42.4%
Finding the time to do this 81 32.4%
The services or activities that would help the individual do not exist 79 31.6%
The individual does not qualify for services or activities that could help 59 23.6%
Having the skills or confidence to do this 35 14.0%
Having permission to undertake a social prescribing role 20 8.0%
I don’t think this should be part of my role 6 2.4%
Other (please specify) 45 18.0%
‘Other’ included some additional challenges or issues that had been experienced by respondents.
Mental health support was highlighted as being difficult to access, capacity or resources within
services was seen as an issue, as was keeping up to date with which services or activities were
available. Sustaining services that use volunteers was highlighted as challenging and concerns were
expressed about being able to guarantee that appropriate support would be received for the
individual.
Respondents were invited to add comments that highlighted any other particular challenges or
issues. Several comments were also added at the end of the questionnaire. These can be categorised
into three groups:
a. Service availability, design and delivery
b. Client issues/barriers
c. Access to information/knowledge of services
The following are typical quotes:
Service availability, design and delivery
“I think there needs to be more accessible social activities for older people and not just daycare/lunch
clubs and there needs to be more funding put into dedicated transport groups as this is a big barrier
to older people accessing services.”
“More specialist long-term services available for people with severe psychiatric disorders such as
schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder.”
“It would be useful to have link workers to assist housebound and lonely elderly individuals”
17
The need for further collaboration or support, including increased capacity for the future was
expressed by several respondents:
“I would like to engage more closely with GP services. Currently we do not get GP referrals into our
service directly – this is most likely because they are unaware of what services we have on offer”
“GPs should be one of the first group to recognise how important social networks are and work with partners to learn what is going on in communities which may help their patients. From experience some GP's would gladly hand out information but it is difficult to get through the practice manger as social prescribing not always recognised as 'treatment'.” “I feel that the social prescribing role within my post, whilst acknowledged by management is not valued by them.” “Potential in secondary care .......” “As well as prescribing/signposting to specific existing services I think it's also important we work together to build the capacity of informal community supports otherwise we are just filling up groups and creating more demand without helping develop resources.” The need to be referred through a GP was seen as a challenge:
“... cannot access social prescribing directly - has to currently rely on clients personal motivation to
attend a GP to be referred to the social prescribing services.”
And others expressed a need to provide social prescribing activity outwith the medical context:
“I feel more social prescribing is required but in a more informal manner, in the community and not necessarily provided by services. A good opportunity to consider Peer roles in this capacity?”
There was support for what was viewed as the social prescribing model rather than social
prescribing activity:
“I personally feel this is an excellent model for supporting people to engage with other supports and services as often sign-posting is not adequate and the individual requires a worker to accompany them along to appointments in order to reduce that initial barrier and encourage engagement” “I do not think of providing information through leaflets and signage etc as part of Social Prescribing, even the aim is to increase physical activity and active travel.”
Some comments supported the idea of a preventive rather than reactive approach:
“I often feel that the service user would have benefited from social prescribing at an earlier stage and
that by the time I engage with them, their mental health issues have progressed to a point that they
are intimidated by the thought of mixing with others”
Client issues/barriers
“Trying to get a person’s benefits up and running when they come out of prison.... lack the needed
skills to make a claim e.g. confidence, using a computer and phone systems ........ stigma with some
agencies around offenders”
18
“Mental health issues, substance misuse, domestic abuse, trauma which can lead to a lack of
motivation/engagement from clients supported to address these entrenched issues”
“Difficult to social prescribe for families who have no recourse to public funds.”
Access to information/knowledge of services
“I am very keen to be connected through the social prescribing model - we deliver a range of services which may not be widely known about and I would very much like to have better connections with GPs who may be the only health professional that an individual sees.” Knowing what is available was mentioned by several people, highlighting the challenges of
overcoming that:
“Information on activities, groups etc available in Dundee are not held centrally in one easy to access
place.”
ALISS was mentioned often through both additional comments in the survey and in the focus groups.
It was commonly viewed as potentially a good resource but not populated with enough information
to be useful.
Focus Group summary
In addition to the on-line survey, focus group sessions were offered to all respondents who had
indicated interest in having further discussions about their social prescribing role and had left their
contact details when completing the questionnaire. Of the 88 respondents who left details, 19
attended 3 focus group sessions in January and February 2019. Focus group participants came from
a wide range of background and services including the Third Sector, Health and Social Care, the
Council, and acute care.
There was a semi-structured format for the discussions covering the following key points:
1. Setting the context: this involved the facilitator giving a summary of the purpose of the
Strategic Social Prescribing Group, the aims of the mapping exercise and the aspirations for
the social prescribing framework that the findings of the survey will influence.
2. Introductions: participants introduced themselves and provided an example of how they
used social prescribing approaches currently. This found that many participants were
signposting their clients to other services and activities whilst others were offering support
to set up contact with and access services. A few focus group participants were providing a
dedicated link worker service and one participant did no social prescribing but passed on
clients to colleagues who could.
3. Exploring terminology: participants were asked if they considered this type of activity as
social prescribing at the time and whether it was a helpful term or not, and there were
different views around this. Many had no issue with the term and felt that it lent weight to
the validity of the approach as it could be perceived as having a medical or clinical value and
could support compliance.
19
“Prescribing can conjure up images of doctors.”
“Only heard the term when the Link Workers went into the GP practices, so feel it has a
medical identity.”
“The term works well from a compliance perspective, people are more likely to comply when
the term is used.”
Others perceived the term detrimentally and felt that frontline staff did not understand
what it meant for them or their clients.
“A GP recently mentioned social prescribing, but we have found that there is not a broad
knowledge across practices or GPs”
“I would call myself a social prescriber through what I do within my role but feel that I have
to explain the term to people as most individuals don’t understand what it means”
Some felt that they had been using these types of approaches for a long time but had not
called it social prescribing.
“We have been signposting people for years and found it a successful approach.”
“...... roles involve support and signposting. It is needs based and provides a person centred
approach.”
“..... signposting is a day to day part of the role and we connect people with many different
services”
“Never knew the term until recently”
The spectrum diagram was seen by all as a helpful illustration of what is meant by social
prescribing approaches.
“It’s a good way of breaking down the different elements to social prescribing.”
One participant felt that there should be a reflection of the community activities that
formulate part of the social prescribing pathway, that is, those activities that people signpost
to.
4. A summary of what the survey found re. the challenges when adopting a social prescribing
role: the facilitator laid out the themes that free text responses had been categorised into
from the on-line survey and asked if these resonated with the focus group participants and
whether anything was missing.
a. Service availability, design and delivery
b. Client issues/ barriers
c. Access to information/ knowledge of services
20
All participants felt that these themes were important and relevant. In relation to theme a)
discussions took place on factors such as waiting times and lists, bureaucracy, lack of staff
and quality of staff, and practical barriers to access such as transport, all of which were seen
to be important.
“The people that [we] visit would still have some accessibility issues .... often isolated with
mobility issues. We try to bridge situations like this with befrienders, but age is a continual
barrier and we frequently find that older people don’t use the internet.”
“.... systems that do not communicate with each other which means you face bureaucracy in trying to access information and face waiting for responses........ There is a lack of joined up thinking and transport is also another issue.” “Waiting lists are too long, people feel they are not supported as they cannot access services
and this then leaves us .... questioning which are the best services to signpost into.”
“We need more staff in services ......
“The quality of staff is more important, we need staff with the right skills.”
“I would like to be able to refer directly into SOS, currently having to refer clients back to
their GP for a referral to a link worker”
In b) there was general recognition that more vulnerable people often required support to
access services and that for some this required being accompanied by another person to
support engagement. Focus group participants reflected that there were too few services
that could provide this kind of support and/or potentially a lack of awareness (from them
and others more broadly) of the services that do. There was a comment that more
vulnerable people also need support to participate in groups, not only to get there. The fact
that some people are housebound was raised as an issue.
“..... some services do not advertise who can attend their service, who matches their criteria.
This can be an issue for individuals as they are left guessing or won’t engage as they perceive
that they will not be allowed to access that support.”
“... we can accompany a person to the first session of an activity or group but don’t have the
capacity to maintain that support level to continue attending meetings with them. This is a
bigger issue when a person has dementia and may not remember everything about the
previous session.”
Theme c) inspired most discussion and debate in the focus groups. Participants shared
frustrations at having to investigate regularly what services and activities are out there and a
lack of a single platform that enabled them to do this effectively. There was differing
awareness of local groups and organisations and those who worked at a city-wide or
regional level stated that it was impossible for them to keep up to date with the service
landscape. Many participants felt that they had built their own knowledge base through
networking or using trusted services previously, which they then relied on for their clients.
Networking was seen as a useful tool for learning about other services and some
21
participants were in a position to do this more than others. Lower level community
based/led activities were seen as hugely beneficial but it was acknowledged that these often
sit below the radar in terms of an electronic presence and that awareness of them therefore
can be limited.
“.... there are free bus tickets available to people receiving cancer treatments but many people do not know they are available to them” “Individuals don’t necessarily know what services they will need or where to find them until their circumstances change and they actually need them”
5. Anything missing? A couple of participants mentioned a lack of clarity in how services and
activities are promoted meaning that people can be unsure of whether they qualify or can
attend. In addition, the issue of stigma came up and whether people may classify themselves
as someone in need of a particular service or whether they would feel comfortable
attending a specific group. Peer support was mentioned on a couple of occasions as well as
the benefits of using group or service participants as assets when promoting or delivering
activities.
“There are a lot of people within communities who want to help but they would not see
themselves as a social prescriber”
6. Ideas and solutions
- What would help improve the way that services work in relation to the needs of your
clients?
- What would help improve the ability of your clients to access services?
- What would help improve access to information/ your knowledge of services and
activities?
Following on from the above, discussions around what would help people in their social
prescribing role focused on a number of key areas. These included the development of a
one-stop portal for electronic information; an on-line resource that held information about
all services, organisations, groups and activities in Dundee including those that are very local
and low level. Some participants shared examples of where they searched already or what
they knew was available such as Aliss, the Directory of Local Organisations, My Wellbeing,
My Life and various websites. Participants reflected that they often resorted to using Google
and found this generally quite helpful. Others picked up the phone to ask someone they
thought might be able to help. Specific leaflets such as DD1 were mentioned as useful
particularly to give to clients to take away. Other ideas included an on-line forum or blog,
telephone information or helpline, or all group emails when someone was looking for
information about a service. It was suggested that quality assurance could be addressed
through a “Trusted Trader” approach.
“There is an awareness of services though [we] rely on publications like in Your Neighbourhood”
“... the Dundee Drop In leaflet”
“We don’t know everything that is out there so it’s good practice to share tips and ideas.”
22
“There is a Directory of Organisations which is available on the Dundee City Council Website,
but it is only as good as the information that people provide us with regarding their services.”
“ALISS is a good tool and would improve if services put their details into the database.”
Using community networks and local people themselves was spoken about, either as
information sources or to provide community transport and/or to accompany people to
groups or activities. Bureaucracy and accountability was seen as a barrier to this type of
approach.
All focus groups raised the issue of networking opportunities and forums where staff could
share information about what they provide and hear about what other services are out
there. There was some awareness of existing local opportunities to do this such as Health
and Wellbeing Networks which those who attended found useful. To a greater or lesser
extent there was an appetite for some sort of social prescribing forum or network, and
potentially a range of events or workshops.
“We could do with a focus group every so often just to network and find out more about groups, and also to support each other in the type of social prescribing work we are doing with individuals”
Ideas included a type of “trade show” for local services and/ or a Dragon’s Den pitch where
services were given one minute to share their wares. It was acknowledged that this would
require leadership and resourcing. Many of those present felt that they would make it a
priority to attend if these kinds of opportunities were available whilst others would struggle
to make themselves available or would require a Tayside wide perspective.
7. Thanks and close
Summary and discussion
This survey attracted a considerable number of respondents from a wide range of organisations and
working across a variety of areas and population sub-groups within their role and remit. The survey
provided a snapshot of activity taking place in Dundee across the spectrum of social prescribing
approaches identified by the Strategic Social Prescribing Group and various proportions of
respondents reported participating in the individual activities across the whole spectrum. It was
anticipated that there would be a reducing gradient of activity reported as the spectrum moved
from basic provision of information towards a dedicated link worker role. However, this was not the
case and many staff were offering support at the more intensive levels of the spectrum, and at more
than one level, depending on the needs of their clients. Also, the numbers of people reporting that
they fulfilled a link worker role was greater than expected. However, this would appear to reflect
that people carry out that role in areas other than specific social prescribing services and from their
responses to other questions suggest that their activities sit within the social prescribing approach
although they may not be identified as such. Just over 1 in 10 of those who reported taking part in
social prescribing activity did so as their main role with over half reporting the activity as an agreed
part of their role and almost one third having added it to their role informally. When this is
considered alongside three quarters of the respondents indicating that they thought there should be
23
more social prescribing, it would seem that for a considerable proportion it is included in their role
either formally or informally, and its value is recognised by the wider group of participants in the
survey.
In general, those respondents who reported using social prescribing approaches as part of their role
recognised the benefits and impact of this across a range of stated outcomes not necessarily related
to the primary purpose of their service or role.
Overall, over half of the respondents had not attended training courses relevant to population
groups likely to benefit from social prescribing and this may be an opportunity to provide support
through training to people who, through their participation in the survey, have expressed an interest
in social prescribing.
Many challenges in delivering social prescribing activity were reported in the survey and these were
borne out and expanded during the focus group discussions. Lack of knowledge of services and time
constraints were most commonly reported as was the lack of existence of appropriate services.
However, the latter may have been conflated with the lack of knowledge of these services. The
qualitative data gathered allowed a more detailed discussion of what the main challenges are and
what suggestions there were to promote the adoption of a social prescribing approach.
As with all surveys, there are limitations to the findings. Participants are self selected and their
responses self reported. Those with a particular interest in the survey topic are more likely to
respond and more likely to have particularly positive or negative opinions. However, in this case, in
setting out to explore the current situation in terms of people taking a social prescribing approach, it
was appropriate to hear from people with an interest in the subject so that we could find out about
their experiences and inform any potential development of the approach and activity. It was of
interest to see that almost one quarter had added social prescribing to their role informally and to
note that over 4 out of 10 of those who currently did not carry out social prescribing activity thought
that there should be more social prescribing. The qualitative data from both the survey and the
follow up focus groups allowed a greater understanding of people’s experiences, issues and
potential solutions.
The Dundee Strategic Social Prescribing Group recognises that no single organisation owns social
prescribing and that the methodology can apply to a specific service or as a range of approaches in
numerous settings and with different client groups. As stated above, the findings from the survey
and focus groups seem to bear out the fact that social prescribing (whether it is recognised as or
called this or not) is indeed happening in a number of ways in Dundee. The Strategic Group was clear
that its work will not result in a new strategy; instead, the aspiration is that the proposed framework
for social prescribing will reflect current activity, identify duplication, gaps and opportunities for
expansion or collaboration, share tools and best practice in terms of data collection and referral
pathways, and potentially provide a tool for strategic commissioning partners and organisations
wishing to develop their own social prescribing schemes or activities. In addition to the quantitative
findings reflected above, qualitative data from the survey and focus groups went some way to
gathering information that can at least in part begin to answer some of these questions and which
can start to shape the development of a partnership framework.
This investigation into social prescribing approaches aimed to identify whether duplication was
happening although this may be difficult to do through a survey and focus groups alone. Whilst it
could be surmised from the findings that lots of social prescribing activity is taking place in the city
and that some of this may be within the same services or communities with the same types of client
24
groups, there is evidence to suggest that rather than duplicating effort this is providing a consistent
approach that helps identify unmet need with more vulnerable people. Respondents reflected that
they are having a range of conversations with local people and service users to identify what is going
on in a person’s life more broadly and to support them to find out about or access other services or
activities that can help. This holistic person-centred approach to working with people is unlikely to
result in too much support or unnecessary intervention. The resultant pathway and potential
outcome will be dependent on the unmet need identified, and participation in another service or
intervention is at the discretion of the person themselves.
The survey set out to identify gaps and opportunities for expansion. Free text comments in the
survey, and discussions in the focus groups, highlighted a number of areas where respondents felt
more could be done. Link workers for the elderly and in acute care settings was mentioned, further
support for those exiting prison was perceived as required, as well as more social activities and
opportunities for people in communities who are isolated. Suitable and affordable transport was
seen as a gap as was the lack of staff or volunteers who could provide direct support for more
vulnerable people to access and participate in groups. Although not a gap as such, some
respondents and participants in the focus groups felt that the quality of services in general could be
improved and that the attitude of some service providers when working with more vulnerable
people could be better. Stigma in general was mentioned on a number of occasions. Several
respondents mentioned bureaucracy and service criteria particularly in relation to trying to access
mental health support. This was seen by some as a false economy in that mental health may
deteriorate and more intensive support would be required further down the line. Arguably, the
importance of prevention and early intervention is well known and reflected in a number of key
strategic plans in the city. Both the City Plan and the Health and Social Care Partnership Strategic
Commissioning Plan reflect these approaches explicitly as priorities. It may be however that the
challenging financial climate for public services and the third sector is starting to affect the service
landscape and the bar is raised ever higher for qualification for services. Equally, there is enough
evidence to suggest that improved awareness of local opportunities may help link people with more
community-based activities that could for some prevent the need for mainstream services or act as
an adjunct to more formal support. A one-stop shop for access to information was perceived by
many as a desired and necessary development for the city.
As well as additional link workers and more social prescribing activity in general, alongside better
services and improved service landscape, some respondents thought that there should be
opportunities to learn from others adopting a social prescribing role. Focus groups participants in
particular thought that a learning network or forum would be helpful. The benefits of existing
forums were mentioned and the local Health and Wellbeing Networks in particular were perceived
as useful places to hear about and share service developments. A few focus group participants had
taken part in information sharing events and workshops and felt that opportunities such as these
were beneficial. For some, just the chance to network and talk to other service providers would be
enough, whereas others seemed to indicate that something more with perhaps a skills development
focus could help. Given this interest it may be worthwhile to consider testing a new forum with a
specific focus on supporting social prescribing and/or events or conferences once or twice a year.
How these would be resourced would have to be confirmed and it should be noted that not all
respondents would necessarily find it easy to commit time to attend.
Further, in terms of opportunities for expansion or collaboration, there seemed to be genuine
commitment to and interest in supporting communities to be part of the social prescribing
workforce. There was a general view in the focus groups and through some of the comments in the
25
survey that informal support for people in their local communities was often the best solution. Using
local people as assets and avoiding medicalising or formalising support was mentioned in all focus
groups with examples of good practice given such as time-banking and community cafes. As well as
being supported to develop their own responses and run their own activities, some participants felt
that local people could be harnessed in promoting activities and supporting others to attend. This
“peer support” approach was seen to be effective in supporting the more vulnerable. In the absence
of this, some respondents in both the focus groups and survey felt that there should be more
“buddying” type posts, whether paid or unpaid.
The Strategic Social Prescribing Group aims to develop a framework that will share tools and best
practice in data collection and referral pathways for example. Whilst the investigation unearthed
some ideas around how to share best practice and inform referral pathways as mentioned above,
issues around data collection and other tools were not mentioned specifically by respondents except
perhaps in terms of building evidence of impact and efficacy to help justify and validate their social
prescribing role. This could be explored further in social prescribing learning networks or forums
should they be established. In addition, the siting of social prescribing link workers in general
practice as part of the new GMS contract and Primary Care Improvement Plans will provide
opportunities to share learning around this model across Tayside. This would link into the work
being supported by the Scottish Government and Health Scotland at a national level to test a core
minimum dataset with the “early adopters” including the Dundee Sources of Support service. It
would make sense to explore overlaps between the development of the social prescribing link
worker service in primary care in Tayside, the nationally supported developments, and the
overarching support for this approach more broadly across the wider public health workforce in
Dundee.
Lastly, one of the aims for the framework is that it could be used as a possible tool for strategic
commissioning partners wishing to develop their own social prescribing services or activities. In
order to do this, it is proposed that further consideration is given to assessing and analysing how
social prescribing as both a service and approach is integrated into existing plans for the city and
what else needs to happen to ensure that this is part of the fabric of how services are planned and
delivered in Dundee. The results of this survey begin to paint a picture of a workforce that is willing
and able to provide holistic support to their client groups and local people in general recognising the
benefits for individuals and services in doing so. More can be done to make this easier and more
efficient. Priorities suggested by these findings include ensuring management and strategic support
for this approach, the development of a one-stop portal to access information about services and
the establishment of learning networks as well as targeted support for some vulnerable groups that
could benefit from more intensive and tailored engagement.
Recommendations and next steps
A summary of the actions that emerged from the mapping exercise and subsequent discussions within
the Dundee Strategic Social Prescribing Group are summarised below:
Progression of an information portal/ single point of access
Testing a learning network or forum
Learning from national work in terms of data collection
Clarification of ongoing support required to build capacity for social prescribing including training and e-learning
26
In addition to the overarching aim of the framework, the DSSPG recommended that it should also include:
Clear articulation of the differences between the service and approach
Assessment of the strategic agendas that either incorporate or reflect social prescribing already or which could be supported to do this e.g distress, risk, personalisation, offending, recovery, procurement
A reflection of the investment made currently in terms of link workers and to support the approach more widely e.g training
Articulation of the importance of prevention/ early intervention and the need to support this through a strong community infrastructure including volunteers
Where gaps exist and how these could be addressed This report will be shared widely with key partners and the above actions and recommendations agreed and taken forward as required.
References
Bickerdike L, Booth A, Wilson PM, Farley K, Wright K. Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more
reality. A systematic review of the evidence BMJ Open 2017; 7:e013384
Brandling J, House W. Social prescribing in general practice: adding meaning to medicine.
British Journal of General Practice 2009; 59(563): 454-456
Carnes D, Sohanpal R, Frostick C, Hull S. Mathur R, Gopalakrishnan N, Tong J, Hutt P, Berlotti
M. The impact of a social prescribing service on patients in primary care: a mixed methods
evaluation BMC Health Services Research 2017; 17: 835-843
Kimberlee R. What is social prescribing? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 2015;
2(1): 102-110.
Moffat S, Steer M, Lawson S, Penn L, O’Brien N. Link Worker social prescribing to improve
health and well-being for people with long-term conditions: qualitative study of service user
perceptions. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e015203
Skivington K, Smith M, Rui Chng R, Mackenzie M, Wyke S, Mercer SW. Delivering a primary
care-based social prescribing initiative: a qualitative study of the benefits and challenges.
British Journal of General Practice 2018; July: e487-e494
27
Strategic Social Prescribing Group membership
The list below reflects members who have been active in attending meetings and also those on the
distribution network who receive documentation for information and comment.
Name Post Title Organisation
Sheila Allan Community Health Inequalities
Manager
Neighbourhood Services/ Dundee HSCP
Shona Hyman Senior Manager, Service
Development & Primary Care
Dundee H&SCP/ NHS Tayside
Craig Mason Senior Manager, Council Advice
Services
Dundee City Council, Corporate Services
Frank Weber GP Principal
Theresa Henry Sources of Support Team Leader Dundee H&SCP
Ailsa McAllister Senior Officer, Strategy,
Performance & Support Services
Dundee H&SCP
Christine
Lowden
Chief Executive Officer Dundee Voluntary Action
Karen Moir Senior Officer, Community Safety
& Justice
Dundee City Council
Allan Millar Employability Manager Dundee City Council, City Development
Alan Gibbon Senior Chaplain Spiritual Care, NHS Tayside
Mary Colvin Senior Health Improvement
Practitioner
Directorate of Public Health, NHS Tayside
Peter Allan Community Planning Manager Dundee City Council, Chief Executive’s
Dept.
Jim Fenton Housing Manager, Tenancy &
Estates
Dundee City Council, Neighbourhood
Services
Gwen Davidson ICJ Senior Manager Dundee H&SCP
Simon Brady Macmillan Development Officer Leisure and Culture Dundee
Eric Knox Chief Executive Officer Volunteer Dundee
Lynne Duncan Member Friend of Botanic Gardens
Grigor Grant Senior Health Practitioner Dundee City Council, Discover
Opportunities
Allison Fannin Planning and Development
Manager
Dundee H&SC Partnership
28
Phyllis Easton Health Intelligence Manager Directorate of Public Health
Mike Andrews Resource Manager Dundee H&SC Partnership
Laura Menzies Senior Officer, Contract Services Dundee H&SC Partnership
Maureen
McGlone
Senior Officer, Contract Services Dundee H&SC Partnership
Michelle Young Equally Well Co-ordinator Dundee City Council, Neighbourhood
Services
Alison Anderson Greenspace Team Leader Dundee City Council, Neighbourhood
Services
Viola Marx Green Health Partnership co-
ordinator
Dundee City Council, Neighbourhood
Services
Distribution list
Arlene Mitchell Locality Manager Dundee H&SCP
Mark
McGilchrist
Senior research fellow Div. of Pop. Health Sciences
Glyn Lloyd Service Manager Dundee City Council, Children & Families
Frances Greig Manager, Learning and
Organisation Development
Dundee City Council, Corporate Services
Karen Gunn Manager, Discover Work Service Dundee City Council, Corporate Services
Lindsay
Cameron
Senior Welfare Rights Officer Dundee City Council, Corporate Services
Kenna Balion Welfare Right Officer Dundee City Council, Corporate Services
Lesley Howells Centre Head Maggie’s, Dundee
Nicola Steven Project Manager/ Practice
Facilitator
Dundee HSCP, NHS Tayside
29
Appendix 1
This survey
This survey has been developed by Dundee Social Prescribing Group to map current and planned
activities and outcomes across the spectrum and identify any challenges or issues that exist. Findings
will help develop a framework that reflects current activity, shares best practice, identifies gaps and
opportunities, and provides a tool for those wishing to develop this way of working. Information
collected will be confidential and used only for the purposes of the mapping exercise. All data will be
anonymised and you will not be identifiable by the results.
1. Which organisation do you work within?
Dundee City Council
NHS Tayside
Dundee Health and Social Care Partnership
Leisure and Culture Dundee
Police Scotland
Tayside Fire and Rescue
Third Sector
Faith-based organisation
Private sector organisation
Other (please specify)
2. What specific team or section of this organisation do you work in?
Free text box
3. What is your role?
Please select one option which reflects your main area of responsibility.
I provide a frontline service which brings me into contact with people
I provide a back-of-house service
I manage a service
I volunteer
I work at a strategic level
Other (please specify)
4. The key focus of my role/ service is:
Please select a maximum of three options
Employability
Substance misuse
Community safety/ criminal justice
Income maximisation
Housing/ homelessness
Community learning/ education
Mental health
Physical health
Regeneration/ community planning
Environment/ green space
30
Volunteering
Carers
Learning difficulties/ disabilities
Cross cutting/ multi-disciplinary
Other (please specify)
5. My service is delivered at:
Population level (universal service that everyone is entitled to)
Community level (within a designated geographic area)
Sub-group level (with a particular type of person e.g. parents, unemployed, older/ young
people, those with mental health issues, carers) Please state which (free text box).
Individual level/short term (one-off or limited contact)
Individual level/ intensive contact (case worker/ key worker, longer term regular contact)
Crisis level (emergency services e.g. A&E, Police)
Other (please specify)
6. The level that I deliver social prescribing is:
(Please tick all that apply)
Making information available generally (leaflets, posters, telephone numbers, website
addresses e.g. on display boards or at reception desk)
Signposting and providing specific information to individuals directly
Supporting individuals to make contact with services e.g. help setting appointments, making
phone calls, filling out forms
Supported access e.g. going along to a service or activity with the individual, if necessary for
them to engage
Following up and through (finding out whether the individual accessed the service, what was
the outcome, do they need help with anything else?)
I have a dedicated link worker role
None of the above (direct to question 13)
7. The proportion of my time that I spend doing this is approximately:
0 -20%
21 – 40%
41 – 60%
61 – 80%
81+ %
8. The number of people that I do this with over the course of a week is approximately:
0-10
11-20
21-30
More than 30
9. Social prescribing is:
My main role
An agreed part of my role
Something I have added to my role informally
31
10. I think there is a need for:
More social prescribing
Less social prescribing
About the same amount of social prescribing
11. Outcomes for individuals
What are the outcomes you are aiming to achieve for individuals/ families through your
social prescribing activity? (Please tick all that apply)
Improving physical and mental health and wellbeing
Improving life circumstances/ income levels
Increasing knowledge of services and activities
Increasing access to services and activities
Increasing social networks and connections
Early intervention/ preventing harm
Decreased reliance on your service
12. I have attended the following training:
Health Inequalities and Prevention training
Poverty Sensitive Practice
Mind Yer Heid Plus
Substance Use, Stigma and Supporting Recovery
Assist
Safetalk
Sage and Thyme
Scotland’s Mental Health First Aid
Other (please specify)
13. The challenges that I face in being a social prescriber are:
I don’t think this should be part of my role
Finding the time to do this
Having the skills or confidence to do this
Lack of knowledge about services and activities
The services or activities that would help the individual do not exist
The individual does not qualify for services or activities that could help
Having permission to undertake a social prescribing role
Other (please specify)
14. Please use this space to reflect anything else you would like to say about your social
prescribing role, or lack of activity of this type, that has not been covered elsewhere. Please
include information about any social prescribing activities that you are planning.
15. The Social Prescribing Group would like to have more detailed discussions with staff
regarding their social prescribing activity and the results of this survey. If you wish to be
considered please leave your email address and telephone number below or contact