People with type 1 diabetes may be at increased risk of disordered eating, which may increase risk of elevated poor outcomes and high-risk complications. Type 1 diabetes disordered eating (T1DE) services were set-up to integrate diabetes and mental healthcare to better support people with T1DE and improve longer-term outcomes. A rapid evaluation was conducted to explore the implementation of T1DE services. Specifically, we aimed to: describe service delivery models; investigate staff experiences of impact and delivery of implementation; explore patient experiences of T1DE services; and to report health outcomes and associated costs.

Rapid evaluation using mixed methods (service mapping, staff and patient interviews, staff survey, analysis of clinical and economic data). Health outcome data was reported at baseline and 6 months.

This study explored the implementation of five new T1DE services and three existing services.

Staff working within T1DE services and patients who received care from T1DE services.

Assessment of our mixed methods study identified four key findings: (1) T1DE delivery models: The T1DE services displayed modest variation in models of delivery, but similarities were more evident, with a focus on direct delivery to patients involving joint meetings between diabetes and mental health staff. Nevertheless, some services also took on a ‘consultation’ role, providing advice and support to wider staff outside the service also managing these patients. Delayed implementation of the services slowed the formation of fully integrated teams and the ability of services to operate at scale. (2) Staff experience: Workforce issues were a crucial aspect of T1DE pilots. Managing this patient population is associated with high levels of anxiety for staff. Nevertheless, once formed, staff reported a very positive experience of working in integrated teams. (3) Patient experience: Although only a small sample of patients were interviewed, they reported a profoundly different experience to their previous care, which was now perceived as supportive and relationship focused. Although such improvements were aligned with the integrated care model underlying T1DE, it was less clear how such changes in patient experience would feature in decisions about commissioning. (4) Health outcomes and associated costs: There were 139 patients accepted onto the care pathway. Improvements were seen for all health outcomes. Compared with baseline measures, there was a mean 0.97% reduction in HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) from 11.2% to 10.2% at 6 months. Improvements were also seen in other outcomes, including the diabetes eating problem scale and the diabetes distress scale. However, the number of patients on the care pathway with follow-up at 6 months was relatively small (n=29–47) and definitive statements about clinical or cost-effectiveness were not possible.

Overall, T1DE services were well received by both staff and patients. Due to a number of logistical challenges, the implementation of services was slower than anticipated, resulting in a limited number of patients on the care pathway. Securing local funding for existing services, once national pilot funding ended, was identified as a significant challenge. In order to ensure services are sustainable and commissioned at a local level, consideration may need to be given to alternative service delivery models.

The enhanced midwifery continuity of carer (eMCoC) pilot programme provided additional resource (funding) to midwifery teams operating in the 10% most deprived areas in England. The eMCoC programme aims to provide additional support to those at greatest risk of poor maternal health outcomes. We conducted a rapid formative evaluation aiming to explore the implementation of the pilot programme to (1) generate timely insights to inform ongoing service delivery; (2) generate a logical framework of the eMCoC service and; (3) inform the design of a longer-term summative evaluation.

Rapid evaluation using mixed-methods.

We explored implementation of the eMCoC service in 58 funded local midwifery teams across 23 Local Maternity and Neonatal Systems (LMNS). We undertook qualitative data collection in 10 case study sites across England, focusing on the implementation in 17 teams.

We purposively sampled 34 service users who received care from enhanced teams, and 38 staff working in enhanced teams. Inclusion criteria for the service user interviews included women who had received care from enhanced teams during our evaluation period and were more than 28 weeks pregnant. Exclusion criteria included women who had not received care from our target teams. We undertook descriptive analysis using the Maternity Services Dataset to compare the characteristics of service users in enhanced teams with service users receiving other midwifery service models.

Many of the 58 teams funded were unable to implement eMCoC during the evaluation period because of institutional and organisational barriers. The barriers identified here are indicative of the barriers associated with implementing midwifery continuity of carer. Largely, the eMCoC service successfully targeted women living in the most deprived areas and a focus on reaching women living in these areas was valued by enhanced teams. Equally, enhanced teams strived to broaden the targeted characteristics (i.e. more broadly than on the basis of deprivation) to include a wider and more diverse set of social risk factors and vulnerabilities, based on local needs and priorities. Service users reported being well supported by the enhanced teams, including receiving relational and well-being support and personalised one-to-one public health education, information and support. Service users emphasised that enhanced teams went ‘above and beyond in their care’.

Funding for eMCoC has been well received by both staff and service users. The implementation of the enhanced roles was perceived to have supported delivery of team-based care, facilitating successful release of midwifery capacity and the delivery of additional public health activities. Supporting a team-focused ethos seems an important feature of eMCoC services. This was consistent across sites and from both staff and service user perspectives. There appears to be many routes (i.e. different service delivery types) to delivering enhanced care, and the multiplicity of service delivery types found in this evaluation suggests no tightly prescribed way of meeting eMCoC’s objectives. The flexibility of the initial funding specification guidance from NHS England has been a key driver of local ownership and permitted eMCoC services to be organically built ‘from the ground up’. Our conclusions point to the value of autonomy afforded to local areas to use eMCoC funding as they deem necessary to best suit the needs of their staff and specific service user groups. Attention should be placed on the barriers to implementation and sustainability issues which can be addressed, namely: delays in releasing funding from LMNS and Integrated Care Boards to providers, and protecting maternity support worker and midwifery time to their allocated teams.