It’s been a funny old week of oscillating emotions from a day in which I spent talking about how social care has the potential to be the economic driver of our communities to the next day when I gave a speech bemoaning the fact that the social care sector was being treated like April Fools because of the gap between political rhetoric which values social care on the one hand and the palpable reality of lack of priority and investment on the other hand.

But it’s also been a week where there have been moments of inspiration – when I’ve heard of colleagues in different worlds – for instance in the clinical and acute context – share insight and challenge around different and inclusive ways of doing things – ways which treat all with respect and which are grounded in the understanding that whether in social care or health we are all linked.

And so I find myself as we move towards World Health Day and Week reflecting in this blog on what I consider to be the real promise of a whole system approach to health and social care. A promise we talk a lot about not least in Scotland but have done so little to progress.

The first mark of that promise is that it starts with a holistic understanding of health. I know after all that in the end of the day and in all the conversations, committees, consultations and discussions I am involved in – that the majority of people across Scotland are not interested in whether you come from the world of clinical health or social care – they are interested in what difference will you make to their life when they or those they love most need support and care.

A holistic understanding of health is not reduced to clinical technical input but is so much broader and dynamic. That’s why I’ve always considered the definition of health which first appeared in 1948 from the World Health Organisation to be so appealing. It stated that:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

It offered for the first time a really multidimensional view of health. But some argued that it was both too idealistic for instance a question as to whether ‘complete well-being’ was ever achievable, whilst others stated at the same time that it was too narrow and limited. So, there are more contemporary and I think holistic interpretations which I like. The one that I use most first appeared over a decade ago in the BMJ – from Huber et al:

“Health is the ability to adapt and self-manage in the face of social, physical, and emotional challenges.”

Huber et al., “How should we define health?” BMJ, 2011

That definition has I think a sense of dynamic rather than being too static. Health is not a fixed state. It is always changing. There is a focus on the person and the individual and what it takes to live well not just to meet clinical outcomes. It recognises the profundity of relationships, and the conditions we live in – and I think it is holistic in that it encompasses physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and social dimensions of well-being.

So, if that’s our starting point – the promise of a holistic grounding and understanding of health, how do the systems of clinical, acute, secondary, primary, community and social care fit into this world and how do they collectively achieve this holistic vision?

Every so often, our national imagination is stirred by talk of reforming the NHS – and we’ve seen a lot of this in the media this last week – including a new operational framework and improvement plan – and undoubtedly it will become one of the go-to themes for the election next year. We will see conferences brim with vision, thought pieces and official papers will flutter with ideas and new possibilities. Political manifestos will beat with the drum of change, however unfunded and impractical.

But every time we talk about the health of our NHS, I find myself wondering – how can you heal one part of the body while ignoring the whole ? How can you address the challenges and reap the potential of the NHS without addressing and understanding the critical role of social care?

If you stand in a care home at 7am, you’ll see care workers gently waking someone who has perhaps not spoken since Tuesday. You’ll watch someone support a man to eat who is still fighting battles he long ago forgot. If you wait long enough, you might see someone cry – not because they are sad, but because someone has finally listened to them and heard their voice. That’s health. That’s care. That’s the invisible scaffolding that holds up not only the NHS, but communities themselves.

So when we speak of reforming the NHS in Scotland, we must be honest: no amount of reorganisation, digital dashboards or apps or indeed workforce and retention tweaks, no amount of increased salaries or improved terms and conditions, will ever succeed unless we grasp the fragile threads tying it to a social care system that is unravelling.

We have, I think for too long, clung to the idea that health and social care are separate domains. Hospitals for the sick. Care homes and homecare services for the frail. GPs for diagnosis. Social workers for discharge plans. This binary thinking – and believe you me it exists in abundance even if it strikes you as overly simplistic – has created a system where people fall between the cracks – cracks that grow into canyons.

A hospital bed can be cleared by a scan and a prescription. But where does that person go next? Who helps them eat, wash, recover? Who sits with them when night falls and confusion sets in? That’s not medicine. That’s social care and compassionate response. And without it, the hospital door becomes a revolving one.

So we need not just to talk whole system approaches but to walk it.

We’ve tried integration in Scotland. On paper, at least. Integration Joint Boards (IJBs), Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs), new governance models. But too often, this “integration” has been structural  – not cultural, not relational, and not felt in the daily lives of those delivering or receiving support. Too often it’s been stymied by self-interest, defensiveness and protectionism – not least around who controls the money!

We forget that integration is not about structures but about shared purpose. About valuing a care worker as much as a consultant. About giving equal dignity to a social care manager and a medical director. It is about seeing the whole person – not their diagnosis, not their discharge date, but their story.

When crises hit – Covid, ‘winter’ pressures, strikes – we turn to social care to carry the burden. We need beds? Use care homes and call it step down or interim beds. We need support? Call on care workers in the community and give some more funding for a short period to reduce the demand. And yet, when the storm passes, we return to underfunding, undervaluing, and overlooking the very system that was there for us.

If we are serious—truly serious—about NHS reform, then social care must be our first priority, not our afterthought. It must be funded sustainably. Its workforce must be respected, paid fairly, and given hope. Its leaders must be included in every major decision about health reform rather than as it is now not even being in the room. Because it is only when health and social care are integrated in vision, in leadership, and in heart, that we will build a system that truly works.

Imagine a Scotland where discharge plans begin with the question: “What matters to you?” Where care workers are not scrambling for hours and minutes but shaping lives. Where the boundaries between hospital and home, GP and guardian, nurse and neighbour are softened by collaboration, not hardened by bureaucracy.

That future isn’t impossible. But it requires bravery and humility. It requires us to stop speaking about health reform as if it ends at the hospital door. And it demands that we finally, truly, put social care at the centre of our vision for wellbeing.

Until then, any reform of the NHS is like rebuilding the roof while the foundations crumble.

Donald Macaskill