Is Social Prescribing Working?

Download (PDF 834KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Kingston Upon Thames carried out research Between November 2019 and March 2020 by conducting a series of telephone interviews with consenting users of the Community Connector Service at Staywellasking about the medium-term impact of the service on their health and wellbeing. In total, 22 people provided a response.

Healthwatch Kingston Upton Thames found that 83% of respondents who answered said they were very pleased or pleased, in retrospect, to have been referred to the service. 87% of respondents who answered were of the opinion that the service was very useful or useful. Every respondent who answered said that the Community Connector with whom they met was either very helpful (71%) or helpful (29%). The additional comments about the Community Connectors were also very positive and there was a strong sense that what the respondents valued above all else was that someone, sometimes for the first time in a long time, was actually taking a personal as well as a professional interest in their welfare. When asked whether users had taken part in any new activities - as a result of their contact with a Community Connector -there was a greater divide in the feedback, with 50% saying yes and 50% saying no.

Healthwatch Kingston Upon Thames recommends that funding of the community connector service, or a similar such intensive social prescribing service in Kingston, be maintained and that the potential for the service to reach, and benefit, a wider range of people be explored. They also recommend that funders (especially the Primary Care Networks) and service providers (in particular Staywell) find a way to further assess and evaluate the medium-term benefits to service users of the Community Connector Service and any similar such service that is devised in the future. 

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Is Social Prescribing Working?
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Kingston upon Thames
Date of publication 
Tuesday, 30 June, 2020
Date evidence capture began 
Friday, 1 November, 2019
Date evidence capture finished 
Tuesday, 31 March, 2020
Key themes 
Quality of appointment
Quality of care

Methodology and approach

Primary research method used 
Structured interview
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Community services 

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
25-64 years
65-85 years
85 +
Not known
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Not known
Does the information include staff's views? 
Not known
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Not applicable
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Not applicable

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.