Stakeholders' views on measuring outcomes for people with learning disabilities

What works and how do we know? These are recurring questions for health and social care professionals, although mediated through differing philosophies and historical perspectives. The aims of the study reported here were to discover views of managers and commissioners of services for people with learning disabilities in Scotland regarding (a) current approaches to service evaluation (as an indication of what is to be measured) and (b) healthcare outcome measurement (as an indication of preferences regarding how this should be measured). A postal questionnaire was used to survey 94 stakeholders from the NHS, Local Authorities, and non-statutory organisations across Scotland. Respondents' views were sought on current approaches to service evaluation within learning disabilities; outcome measurement; appropriateness of specified methods of measuring health outcomes; desired future methods of outcome measurement within learning disabilities; and service user involvement in care. A 77% (73/94) response rate to the questionnaire was achieved. Different methods of service evaluation were used by different stakeholders. Staff appraisal was the most frequently identified method (used by 85% of respondents). Specific outcome measures were used by 32% of respondents although there were differences of opinion as to what constitutes specific outcome measures. Overall there was strong support for goal-setting and reviewing (83%) and individualised outcome measures (75%) as appropriate methods for use with people with learning disabilities. The hypothetical question asking what outcome measures should be introduced for this client group had by far the lowest response rate (51/73). The overwhelming majority of all respondents, 68 (92%), reported user involvement in their service. Staff ambivalence to outcome measurement was evident in the research and respondents highlighted the complexity and multidimensional nature of outcomes for this service user group. Managers recognised that outcome measurement was expected but were uncertain how to go about it.