THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERAGENCY PATNERSHIP AND INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE WITH REFERENCE TO A CHOSEN SERVICE USER GROUP AND YOUR OWN SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE.
Extracts from this essay...
ANALYSE WHAT HAS HINDERED AND HELPED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERAGENCY PATNERSHIP AND INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE WITH REFERENCE TO A CHOSEN SERVICE USER GROUP AND YOUR OWN SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE. This assignment will be divided into five sections. Firstly I will define inter-agency partnership and inter-professional collaboration secondly I will discuss what has informed my collaborative practice naming the key policy that backed the collaborative practice for my chosen service user. Thirdly my service user group will be highlighted which is children and give an outline of how my practice setting work in partnership with different agencies giving practice examples. Fourthly I will discuss what has hindered and helped interagency partnership and interprofessional collaborative practice within my practice setting in reference to my chosen service user group and finally conclude the essay. Inter-agency partnership is created at a formal organisational level when two or more agencies agree to work together to share information or to jointly plan services. Inter-professional collaboration is defined as how two or more people from different professions communicate and co-operate to achieve a common goal, passing the client to the next practitioner in a chain of care( Overtveit et al 1997). The important of inter-professional working is co-ordination in order to ensure that each professional's effort is acted upon and to ensure that each practitioner is aware of what the others are doing. The move towards interagency collaborative working began with the shift in emphasis from institutional to community-based care (Barr et al, 1999; Sibbald, 2000), when it was felt that the demarcations and hierarchical relations between professions were neither sustainable nor appropriate. New ways of working had to be found that crossed professional boundaries, in order to allow a more flexible approach to care delivery (Malin et al., 2002). The children Act 1989 laid the foundation for joint working which led to a range of locally commissioned service for children from family centres to therapeutic services (Weinstein, 2003).
The need for a more child-centred and the use of holistic approach by various agencies has long been acknowledged and is expressed in aspirations to 'joined up' practice. However, the achievement of such seamless service has proved evasive. WHAT HELPED INTERAGENCY PATNERSHIP AND INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION Careful consideration should always be given, to what intervention is needed to achieve, particularly in terms of the child's long term wellbeing. In planning and implementing intervention, the aim should always be good long-term outcome in terms of health, development and educational achievement for children who have child protection concerns. Collaborative working has been seen as the 'common sense' approach to child protection work . Challis et al (1994) argues that collaboration is necessary because it bridges the 'gaps in coverage, conflicts of aim and failures of communication'. They identify a number of forms collaboration could take, the most important being what they term 'rational planning' the aim of which is to produce 'a seamless service'. Ensuring that all children within our community are safeguarded and protected from abuse is an objective to which the government is firmly committed. Good co-operation and jointly working by all agencies - social services, health, education, the police, counsellor and the voluntary sector is an essential for safeguarding the welfare of children. Inter-agency collaboration worked particularly well if differing perspectives to be shared constructively to respond to common concern. To focus on the service user, to have an agreed plan stating who is going to do what, when and for what purpose (Ovretveit et al 1997). WHAT HAS HINDERED INTERAGENCY PATNERSHIP AND INTERPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION Agencies all agreed that co-operation was needed but found it difficult. Previous attempts at 'inter-agency' working have left many frustrated with the process and the results and there is a general feeling that is just creating: more and more follow up and not real work with young people. When we place service user and their needs at the centre of out concerns we work better in partnership both with service users and with other agencies.
(2001). Small group communication and performance: do cognitive flexibility and context matter? Management Decision. 39 (4) pp323-330. ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN & THE BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. (2000). Teamworking in Primary Healthcare: Realising Shared Aims in Patient Care. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. RYAN, A.A. (1996). Doctor-Nurse Relations: A Review of the Literature. Social Sciences in Health. 2 (2) pp93-106. SALTER, B. & TAPPER, T. (1994). The State and Higher Education. London: Woburn Press. SIBBALD, B. (2000). Inter-disciplinary working in British primary care teams: a threat to the cost-effectiveness of care? Critical Public Health. 10 (4) pp439-451. STAINTON, T. (1998). Rights and rhetoric of Practice: contradictions for Practitioners, IN SYMONDS, A. & KELLY, A., The Social Construction of Community Care. Hampshire: MacMillan Press Ltd. STANDING MEDICAL & NURSING & MIDWIFERY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SMNMAC) (1996). In the Patient's Interest. Multi-professional Working Across Organizational Boundaries. London: DoH. SUNDIN-HUARD, D. (2001). Subject positions theory - its application to understanding collaboration (and confrontation) in critical care. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 34 (3)pp376-382. TIERNEY, W.G. (1987). IN TROWLER, P. (2003). Education policy. (2nd Ed.) London: Routledge. UNITED KINGDOM CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR NURSING, MIDWIFERY AND HEALTH VISITING. (UKCC). (1992). Code of Professional Conduct.. London: UKCC. UNITED KINGDOM CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR NURSING, MIDWIFERY AND HEALTH VISITING. (UKCC). (1999). Fitness for Practice. London: UKCC. UNITED KINGDOM CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR NURSING, MIDWIFERY AND HEALTH VISITING. (UKCC). (2001). Fitness for Practice and purpose: The report of the UKCC's Post-Commission Development Group. London: UKCC. WALKER, A. (1997). Community Care Policy - from consensus to conflict IN BORNAT ET AL. community Care: A Reader. Hampshire: MacMillan Press Ltd. WALL, A. (1996). The professions and the Context of Care. IN LEATHARD, A. (Ed.) Interprofessional learning and Caring for needs. London: South Bank University. WENGER, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. WHITEHEAD, D. (2001). Applying collaborative practice to health promotion. Nursing Standard. 15 (20) pp33-37. WILLIAMS, a. (1998). Qualitative research: definitions and design IN ROE, B. and WEBB, C. (1998). Research and Development in Clinical Nursing Practice. London: Whirr Publishers ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 1
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- Over 150,000 essays available
- Just £6.99 a month
- Over 180,000 student essays
- Every subject and level covered
- Thousands of essays marked by teachers