Study Bay Coursework Assignment Writing Help<\/p>\n
There has been a dramatic increase in the survival rate of children born with complex healthcare needs (Carpenter 2003). There are major concerns as a result (Blackburn, Spencer and Read 2010). According to the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 7.3% (CI 6.9, 7.7) of children in the UK are stated as having a disability. Disability patterns differ between sexes, with a higher rate overall in boys than girls and possibly more difficulty with learning and remembering ability, communication, concentration and physical coordination in boys.<\/p>\n
Children with disabilities find themselves in dissimilar situations to those of non-disabled people. This situation for disabled children exists in particular circumstances such as in minority ethnic groups, black\/mixed marriages and single-parent families. These children demand support from different professionals and agencies. It is vital for them to have effective multi-agency working. Currently, there is little evidence about the effect of multiagency working with disabled children and their families.<\/p>\n
(Sloper 1999) highlighted in her paper the unmet needs for families who have children with disabilities: counselling and support to have information and guidance about services; the condition of the child and how to deal with and help the child; equipment supply; financial support with housing and transportation, and having breaks from care like respite care as practical support.<\/p>\n
This paper will summarize the outcome of an Assessment of both multidisciplinary and multiagency working with disabled children and their families.<\/p>\n
Multiagency working is e\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022entially about bringing together practitioner with a range of \u00d1\u2022kill\u00d1\u2022 to work acro\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022 their traditional \u00d1\u2022ervice boundarie\u00d1\u2022. Thi\u00d1\u2022 i\u00d1\u2022 currently regarded a\u00d1\u2022 crucial to the effective provi\u00d1\u2022ion of children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022. A\u00d1\u2022 local authoritie\u00d1\u2022 re-organi\u00d1\u2022e to provide education, \u00d1\u2022ocial care, and \u00d1\u2022ometime\u00d1\u2022 health provi\u00d1\u2022ion,( Cronin 2005) within a \u00d1\u2022ingle children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 department or children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 tru\u00d1\u2022t, three model\u00d1\u2022 for multiagency working are emerging:<\/p>\n
Multiagency panels or network\u00d1\u2022 \u2013 the \u2018team around the child\u2019 \u2013 practitioner\u00d1\u2022 remain employed by their home agencie\u00d1\u2022 but meet on a regular ba\u00d1\u2022i\u00d1\u2022 to di\u00d1\u2022cu\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022 children and young people with additional need\u00d1\u2022 who would benefit from multi-agency input.<\/p>\n
Multiagency teams made up of practitioner\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022econded or recruited into the team, making it a more formal arrangement than a multi-agency panel. The team work\u00d1\u2022 with univer\u00d1\u2022al \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 to \u00d1\u2022upport familie\u00d1\u2022 and \u00d1\u2022chool\u00d1\u2022 a\u00d1\u2022 well a\u00d1\u2022 individual children and young people.<\/p>\n
Integrated \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 which bring together a range of provi\u00d1\u2022ion, u\u00d1\u2022ually under one roof, \u00d1\u2022uch as in school or in an early years setting. Staff work in a co-ordinated way to addre\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022 the need\u00d1\u2022 of children, young people and familie\u00d1\u2022 providing \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022uch a\u00d1\u2022 all-year-round, inclu\u00d1\u2022ive education; care and per\u00d1\u2022onal development opportunitie\u00d1\u2022 for children and young people; and \u00d1\u2022peciali\u00d1\u2022t \u00d1\u2022upport for children and families.<\/p>\n
The idea of profe\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ional\u00d1\u2022 and agencie\u00d1\u2022 working together i\u00d1\u2022 not new. There are many provi\u00d1\u2022ion\u00d1\u2022 in the Children Act of 1989 which require different authoritie\u00d1\u2022 to co-operate and to con\u00d1\u2022ult with one another while multi-agency \u00d1\u2022upport i\u00d1\u2022 a feature of the \u00d1\u2022pecial educational need\u00d1\u2022 framework, \u00d1\u2022et up following the Education Act of 1981, (Nelson 2002)particularly in relation to \u00d1\u2022tatutory a\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022e\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ment and \u00d1\u2022tatementing. \u00d0\u2026ince the Labour government came into power in 1997 a number of initiative\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022uch a\u00d1\u2022 \u00d0\u2026ure \u00d0\u2026tart and Connexion\u00d1\u2022 have been put in place to promote effective \u2018joined up\u2019 multi-agency working to \u00d1\u2022upport vulnerable children.<\/p>\n
However, the recommendation\u00d1\u2022 which followed the Laming inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbi\u00e9 prompted a renewed determination to get \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 working together and in 2004 a new Children Act established a duty on agencie\u00d1\u2022 to co-operate with each other to protect and improve the live\u00d1\u2022 of children. Thi\u00d1\u2022 ha\u00d1\u2022 re\u00d1\u2022ulted in \u00d1\u2022ome of the following development\u00d1\u2022:<\/p>\n
The introduction of major change\u00d1\u2022 to the children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 workforce: a comprehen\u00d1\u2022ive curriculum for training all practitioner\u00d1\u2022 who work with children i\u00d1\u2022 currently being developed by government. While thi\u00d1\u2022 i\u00d1\u2022 not going to make all profe\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ional\u00d1\u2022 knowledgeable about di\u00d1\u2022abilitie\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022uch a\u00d1\u2022 auti\u00d1\u2022m, they \u00d1\u2022hould have the ba\u00d1\u2022ic \u00d1\u2022kill\u00d1\u2022 to recogni\u00d1\u2022e a po\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ible developmental delay, be able to \u00d1\u2022upport parent\u00d1\u2022 emotionally and, (McCarton 2006)crucially, to know when to \u00d1\u2022ignpo\u00d1\u2022t parent\u00d1\u2022 on for more expert advice. Working with children i\u00d1\u2022 a key component of the core curriculum which recogni\u00d1\u2022e\u00d1\u2022, for example, that \u00d1\u2022ome children do not communicate verbally and that practitioner\u00d1\u2022 need to adapt their communication to the need\u00d1\u2022 and abilitie\u00d1\u2022 of the child or young per\u00d1\u2022on.<\/p>\n
New way\u00d1\u2022 of \u00d1\u2022haring information are being developed to avoid duplication, children \u00d1\u2022lipping through the net and exce\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ive bureaucracy. The government ha\u00d1\u2022 developed ContactPoint, a databa\u00d1\u2022e holding information on every child in England from birth to 18 year\u00d1\u2022 of age, po\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ibly longer for children who are di\u00d1\u2022abled or looked after. With greater electronic recording of per\u00d1\u2022onal information re\u00d1\u2022ulting in wider acce\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022 in \u00d1\u2022ome ca\u00d1\u2022e\u00d1\u2022, i\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ue\u00d1\u2022 of confidentiality are of concern to di\u00d1\u2022abled people. Cro\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022-profe\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ional legal guidance \u00d1\u2022et\u00d1\u2022 out how information \u00d1\u2022haring \u00d1\u2022hould happen and cover\u00d1\u2022 confidentiality in \u00d1\u2022ome depth.<\/p>\n
The Common A\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022e\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ment Framework (CAF) which aim\u00d1\u2022 to provide a more \u00d1\u2022tandardi\u00d1\u2022ed and preventive approach to identifying need and making provi\u00d1\u2022ion and which operate\u00d1\u2022 acro\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022 profe\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ional boundarie\u00d1\u2022 has been developed. \u00d0\u2026ome children may be identified a\u00d1\u2022 having a po\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022ible disability, such a\u00d1\u2022 cerebral Palsy, via this route (Eicher 2003). Every local authority (except the be\u00d1\u2022t performing four \u00d1\u2022tar authoritie\u00d1\u2022) ha\u00d1\u2022 to have a Children and Young People\u2019\u00d1\u2022 Plan (CYPP) focu\u00d1\u2022ed on better local integration of children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 in location\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022uch a\u00d1\u2022 extended \u00d1\u2022chool\u00d1\u2022 and children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 centre\u00d1\u2022. Familie\u00d1\u2022 with children on the auti\u00d1\u2022m \u00d1\u2022pectrum \u00d1\u2022hould find it ea\u00d1\u2022ier to acce\u00d1\u2022\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 a\u00d1\u2022 a re\u00d1\u2022ult and \u00d1\u2022hould be con\u00d1\u2022ulted about \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 they would like to \u00d1\u2022ee improved and developed. The CYPP cover\u00d1\u2022 all local authority \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 affecting children and young people including early year\u00d1\u2022 and extended \u00d1\u2022chool\u00d1\u2022 and out-of-\u00d1\u2022chool child care, education, youth \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022, children\u2019\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022ocial \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022. It al\u00d1\u2022o include\u00d1\u2022 \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 provided by relevant youth ju\u00d1\u2022tice agencie\u00d1\u2022 and health \u00d1\u2022ervice\u00d1\u2022 for children and young people, including child and adole\u00d1\u2022cent mental health.<\/p>\n
Three different models of joint working have been identified by Watson et al. 2002: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary working. These categories are based on several experts working together effectively in a particular service context, linked with family requirements in a holistic approach (table 1).<\/p>\n
Multidisciplinary working means single agencies made up of individual professionals (Watson et al. 2002). For instance, a health visitor, a physical therapist, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, and a hospital consultant may work together within a health agency. Professionals work separately to assess the child, and as a consequence they produce separate documents so they do not share their goals and aims, which makes it very difficult to assess the child as a whole. Their care is focused on the child\u2019s health care needs only without involving other needs such as educational, emotional and social needs. There is a low equivalent partnership approach with the family and low communication with other agencies; usually family members take on this role.<\/p>\n
The second model, interdisciplinary working, with different agencies and their professionals working together by assessing the child and his\/her family needs separately and then meeting together to set goals according to their findings. This model is focused on the child\u2019s needs more than the family\u2019s needs.<\/p>\n
The third model is the more holistic approach and preferred by families, transdisciplinary working, where different agencies work together by sharing goals, knowledge, tasks and responsibilities. This model is focused on a primary provider, the key worker, who is responsible for delivery of an integrated programme for the child, and family care. Moreover, for the most important part is that families are treated equally.<\/p>\n
Both (Sloper 2004, and Carney 2009) agreed that the transdisciplinary working model in the area of multiagency key working is the only way of integrated working which has favourable outcomes for disabled children and their families. However, there is not so much evidence that could show what type of model is implemented in practice. Sloper et al. 2004 also cited in her paper Cameron (2000) and Atkinson (2002) regarding other models; most models focused on relationships between professionals and how multiagency working was organised. This may contribute to better communication but does not necessarily result in the family receiving a coordinated service.<\/p>\n
(Table 1 ,Watson et al. 2002)<\/p>\n
Electronic resources (MedLine, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, PubMed, google Scholar) were used and the focus was on existing reviews, in particular qualitative studies and good quality reviews.<\/p>\n
The research terms were multidisciplinary working and disabled children, multiagency working and disabled children, and multiagency and multidisciplinary and disabled children.<\/p>\n
I have chosen two qualitative studies (Watson, Abbott and Townsley 2007) which help to explore the impact of multiagency\/multidisciplinary working on disabled children and their families.<\/p>\n
To critically examine the evidence provided by these papers, which are qualitative studies, it is appropriate to use the critical appraisal checklist provided by the critical appraisal programme, from the Public Health Resource Unit, Institute of Health Science, Oxford which was accessed from http:\/\/www.phru.nhs.uk . The 10 questions are adapted from Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Users\u2019 guide to medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272 (17): 1367-1371. The reason for choosing this is because the two studies are qualitative studies.<\/p>\n
Authors<\/p>\n
Watson, D., D. Abbott & R. Townsley<\/p>\n
Title<\/p>\n
Listen to me, too! Lessons from involving children with complex healthcare needs in research about multi-agency services.<\/p>\n
Publisher<\/p>\n
Child: Care, Health & Development, (2007) 33, 90-5.<\/p>\n
Authors<\/p>\n
Carter, B., J. Cummings & L. Cooper<\/p>\n
Title<\/p>\n
An exploration of best practice in multi-agency working and the experiences of families of children with complex health needs. What works well and what needs to be done to improve practice for the future?<\/p>\n
Publisher<\/p>\n
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 527-39. 2007)<\/p>\n
Yes, there was a clear statement of the aims<\/p>\n
to discover the positive impact of multiagency working on families with children who have complex health care needs.<\/p>\n
to examine the involvement of complex health care needs children in multiagency services.<\/p>\n
Yes, there was a clear statement of the aims<\/p>\n
to create a connection between children, families and people who work with complex needs children.<\/p>\n
To discover best multiagency working practice with families and people who work with complex needs children, to find out what is good practice.<\/p>\n
Generate opportunities, associations and guidance plans which will improve multiagency working practice in the future.<\/p>\n
Yes, there was appropriate methodology: disabled children who are dependent on medical technology and their carer or families.<\/p>\n
Yes, there was appropriate methodology:<\/p>\n
20 Families were targeted (mothers \u2013 fathers \u2013 children with complex needs).<\/p>\n
People working with complex needs children from different agencies.<\/p>\n
Time spent with 18 children &young people aged between 2 -15 yrs, 7 girls and 11 boys (from 6 multiagency services in the UK).<\/p>\n
Interviews with 115 professionals in the 6 multiagency services about their experience in multiagency services.<\/p>\n
25 families visited with parents\/carers interviewed about their experience with multiagency services.<\/p>\n
Appreciative interviews with participants lasted between (40 minutes \u2013 3 hours):<\/p>\n
Individual<\/p>\n
Face to face<\/p>\n
Audio- taped<\/p>\n
Narrative interviews<\/p>\n
Small group workshops (dreaming \u2013 design).<\/p>\n
All participants were invited.<\/p>\n
Workshops of consent (design and destiny).<\/p>\n
All participants were invited to attend 5 consensus workshops across 2 counties.<\/p>\n
Final synthesis.<\/p>\n
The authors targeted:<\/p>\n
6 services chosen from 26 which presented the highest components of multiagency working.<\/p>\n
18 children &young people aged between 2 -15 yrs, 7 girls and 11 boys with a range of cognitive abilities, from severe to no learning difficulties.<\/p>\n
The majority had cognitive impairment.<\/p>\n
3 children without obvious learning difficulties.<\/p>\n
The explanation of chosen participants is explained above#.<\/p>\n
18 parents\/carers agreed to take part.<\/p>\n
2 young people were recruited, one male and one female to help the authors with their meetings and email communication.<\/p>\n
The authors:<\/p>\n
Targeted 20 families: 10 families from Burnley \/ East Lancashire, and 10 from the South Lakes area, to reflect two different health economies within the area served by Cumbria and Lancashire Workforce Development Confederation (WDC), UK.<\/p>\n
Recruited people working with complex needs children from different agencies as much as possible.<\/p>\n
Used purposive sampling (families), and sampling of snowballing (professionals).<\/p>\n
All the targeted population completed the interviews.<\/p>\n
Also agencies and disciplines were targeted.<\/p>\n
Time spent \/ interviews \/ disposable camera for the purpose of taking photos of all the important people.<\/p>\n
Informal, adapted, enjoyable and relaxed sessions to meet the needs of each child, lasting for an hour.<\/p>\n
Small gifts + a 10 pound voucher for taking part.<\/p>\n
Developed topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service) guide which covered:<\/p>\n
Things I like, things I dislike, who lives at home with me, school, friends, adults who helped me, short breaks, difficult things to do, and happiness moments.<\/p>\n
Drawing on big paper (the child &interviewer sometimes).<\/p>\n
Showing a sheet of simple faces showing different expressions, to choose which one is closest to the \u2018child or young person\u2019.<\/p>\n
Asking about seeing professionals, also about having a designated worker, \u2018referring to key worker by name\u2019 depending on the child\u2019s cognitive ability.<\/p>\n
Attride-Stirling\u2019s approach to data collection is to \u2018code\u2019what is said in the interviews.( this was used instead of Appreciative Inquiry)<\/p>\n
Each interview was coded line by line, and codes were assigned to words, phrases and any interesting views relevant to the research aims noted.<\/p>\n
The researchers used this information to create the 56 statements on a flip charts. they then showed back to the people they\u2019d interviewed. \u00a0These people then chose statements which were relevant and meaningful to them, in relation to the research.<\/p>\n
Small group workshops (dreaming \u2013 design)<\/p>\n
All participants were invited.<\/p>\n
Workshops of consent (design and destiny)<\/p>\n
All participants were invited to attend 5 agreement workshops across 2 counties.<\/p>\n
Yes it has.<\/p>\n
A lot of care is taken to create a more equal relationship between the researcher and the complex care needs children and their families.<\/p>\n
Design method is flexible, non intrusive and responsive to children\u2019s\u2019 communication styles.<\/p>\n
The construction of this relationship and the methodology have ethical implications which are discussed below.<\/p>\n
Yes it has.<\/p>\n
Flexible and dynamic approach by involving and shared between the participant and researcher.<\/p>\n
Yes, ethical issues have been taken into consideration.<\/p>\n
There were plenty of details about how researchers contacted the participants by obtaining consent from young people and some ethical dilemmas were presented.<\/p>\n
The project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) was approved by two ethics committees:<\/p>\n
The Faculty of Health ethics committee.<\/p>\n
Morecambe Bay Local Research ethics committee (LREC).<\/p>\n
All the LRECs were covered by Locality Agreements in Cumbria and Lancashire.<\/p>\n
For the duration of the study, all research team had Honorary Contracts with Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust (PCT).<\/p>\n
Comprehensive information was received by the participants and they had opportunities to discuss their involvement.<\/p>\n
At no time was there any pressure to participate.<\/p>\n
24 hours were given as a minimum to make participation decision in the project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) to participants.<\/p>\n
Yes it was.<\/p>\n
There was no comprehensive discussion about the method used for data analysis.<\/p>\n
The authors created data sets using four broad categories and they provided descriptive tables on children\u2019s age, education, use of health technology and communication style.<\/p>\n
Yes it was.<\/p>\n
(figure 1) showed how rigorous the data analysis was:, thematic analysis using Attride-Stirling\u2019s approach of basic themes grouped into organizing themes and then global themes.<\/p>\n
Yes, there was a clear statement of findings, there was a discussion of the evidence, but no discussion about the credibility of their findings. Findings were discussed in relation to the children\u2019s communication in multi agency services.<\/p>\n
Yes there was a clear statement of findings.<\/p>\n
Their findings were explicit.<\/p>\n
There was a discussion of the evidence.<\/p>\n
There was a credibility discussion about their findings.<\/p>\n
The authors discussed findings in relation to the original research question.<\/p>\n
Yes, the study does make a contribution to understanding the consultation of children with complex care needs used in multiagency services.<\/p>\n
The authors didn\u2019t discuss new areas of research.<\/p>\n
There was a considerable contribution on involving disabled children in service delivery and research but there is still a gap about involving complex care needs children.<\/p>\n
The project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) was valuable because it provided families with a better understanding of how practice should be, and provided opportunities for a mutual relationship between professionals through the exchange of information.<\/p>\n
The research identified new areas where research is necessary in the future. There was a greater impact on practice by this study and it lead to a better quality of life for both children and their families.<\/p>\n
The major limitation in this study is that there was not comprehensive discussion about methods used for data analysis. Moreover, the authors created data sets using four broad categories: friendship and communication, relationships with professionals, school life, and the things that children like and dislike. With such a small sample size, 18 children and adolescents with complex health care needs, between 2-15 years old, it is very difficult to address the effect on the result of bias.<\/p>\n
There are some limitations in this qualitative research. The first one is in methods; the authors tried to carry out Appreciative Inquiry but then used Attride-Stirling\u2019s approach. Moreover, methods were combined into three stages as another shift in method. Each agency \/ discipline was not fully represented. There was an absence of involvement of general practitioners. There was a limitation in the appreciative interviews because of they were interviews at a particular point in time. Furthermore, one child was included in the study due to other children being too young to participate or having severe disabilities. Last but not least, the study failed to recruit ethnic minority group parents and children.<\/p>\n
The main focus of these two papers was to find out the impact of multidisciplinary or multiagency working on disabled children and their families. Regarding the two studies\u2019 findings in relation to multiagency working (Watson et al.2007) authors reported that seeing many professionals did not cause any difficulties for the majority of children in the study. However, difficulties did appear when professionals attempted to talk to the child directly. Communication between the key worker and the child was reported as weak or limited. One child expressed their feeling of seeing many professional as a silly and boring thing to do, while another child showed a close relationship with their key worker by recognising their name. In general, this study did attempt the challenge of involving children with complex health care needs, but it is not a reliable study because it used a small sample number of children.<\/p>\n
As regards the findings of the second paper (Carter et al.2007), they chose two areas from the guidance plans, \u201cthe 10 statements\u201d, as they felt that they reflected the two core areas of guidance which were: the most important As a consequence, authors stated the importance of making children and parents more satisfied and less isolated, and the crucial role of support and voluntary groups. Moreover, families and people from different agencies have to be cooperative when choosing the important role of coordinator for the long term, as this is where parents will seek help.<\/p>\n
Atkinson, Wilkin, Stott, Doherty and Kindel (2002) as cited by (Carney 2009) stated that multiagency working benefits organisations and individuals; it gives a broader perspective by providing enhanced understanding of the matters and improved connections with other agencies, and constructive experience on the whole, respectively. Moving towards better outcomes over the past decade, government has adopted integration of services for children and their families. Integration has taken various appearances such as, putting different types of proficiency together.<\/p>\n
There are some positive outcomes that have been identified in the review of multidisciplinary team working as a model of multiagency working in health care. (Borrill et al.) came to the conclusion that there was a reduction in hospitalization and cost in terms of primary health care teams; development in the provision of services; growth in health care access; treatment, follow-up and detection are improved, and patient and staff satisfaction and motivation are enhanced<\/p>\n
Few studies have focused on the impact of multiagency working and multidisciplinary approaches with disabled children and their families (Carter et al. 2007, Townsley, Abbott and Watson 2004, Watson et al. 2002, Watson et al. 2007). The majority of these studies carried out qualitative research methods to find out the key features of successful multiagency working practice and how to make children and parents more satisfied and not isolated, improved and enhanced their quality of life, and the crucial role of support and voluntary groups.<\/p>\n
Many studies have focused on the positive impact of key worker systems in multiagency services for disabled children and their families (Greco and Sloper 2003, Greco et al. 2005, Greco et al. 2006, Liabo et al. 2001, Sloper et al. 2006). These studies have included comparisons between families with and without key workers. This model stated positive outcomes for families having key workers like enhanced quality of life, less isolation and feelings of strain, better relationships with services, and quicker access to services and reduced levels of stress. (Greco et al. 2005) authors have stated many advantages of having a key worker service in multiagency working for parents and children, as they can relate their concerns to one person who can then ensure the family\u2019s needs are met and coordinate services. Having a key worker avoids duplication of telling the same story to professionals, and families received better information. Also, having a key worker enhanced the relationship between the child and their family by providing them with a mediating role and through building relationships with disabled children.<\/p>\n
Key working is a service, involving two or more agencies, that provides disabled children and young people and their families with a system whereby services from different agencies are co-ordinated. It encompasses individual tailoring of services based on assessment of need, inter-agency collaboration at strategic and practice levels and a named key worker for the child and family (Care Coordination Network UK, 2004).<\/p>\n
Also there was a range of studies which have mainly focused on staff views (Tait and Dejnega 2001, Presler 1998, Abbott, Townsley and Watson 2005). These studies illustrate the positive impact on staff when they use multiagency working for disabled children. For instance, there was enhanced communication and improved relationships with complex health-care need children, development in their work lives and their professional skills, enhanced teamwork with collaborators and more satisfaction in their role.<\/p>\n
Two studies have discussed two services; (Young et al. 2008, Robson and Beattie 2004). The former talked about an Early Support programme to improve integrated services for disabled children and their families between 0 and 3 years old. The aim of this study was to improve and enhance outcomes for disabled children and their families, and to find out the relationship between integrated services and the impact of ES in terms of cost effectiveness and their benefits.<\/p>\n
The other study (Robson and Beattie 2004) is a coordination project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) by Diana Children\u2019s Community Service and multiagency services using qualitative methods e.g. interviews, questioner , focus group to name but a few. The results were effective collaboration within and between the services for disabled children and their families by enhanced and improved family support and satisfaction; a sense of control and a feeling of empowerment; equivalent partnerships between families and professionals, with duplication and service gaps reduced.<\/p>\n
Sloper 2004 identified many negative outcomes of multiagency or multidisciplinary working on disabled children and their families when there are barriers to facilitating the integrating of services such as: when there are unclear roles and responsibilities; aims and roles are not shared among agencies; there is disagreement on aims; there is low quality of management including ongoing training, weak leadership and communication, and sharing of information; poor IT systems, and poor relationships with professionals.<\/p>\n
Many studies have focused on the advantages of facilitating multiagency working generally as the most holistic approach for disabled children and their families and on multidisciplinary working specifically in terms of team working. However, there was a lack of studies which concentrated on the drawbacks of the two working models. This results in a need to address more focus on the negatives for future studies for both multidisciplinary and multiagency working with disabled children and their families. In my opinion, from my prospective experience in the disabled children association in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, I have identified what type of model my organization followed: \u2018multidisciplinary working\u2019 alone which recognises that all professionals are working separately. My recommendation is to implement the holistic approach or \u201ctransdisciplinary working\u201d which focuses on integrating services and adopting the key worker system to gain positive outcomes for the services in DCA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Study Bay Coursework Assignment Writing Help There has been a dramatic increase in the survival rate of children born with complex healthcare needs (Carpenter 2003).\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7822,7724,7820,7548,7826,8080,8079,8077,8078,8081,7605],"tags":[103,95,83,94,80,86,79,98,93,104,7647,99,92,82,102,85,8,101,97,87,96,91,89,90,88,100,1402,84,6940,81],"class_list":["post-85654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writing-service-uk","category-best-dissertation-writing-services","category-dissertation-title-generator","category-dissertation-writing-services-cost","category-dissertation-writing-services-in-usa","category-master-thesis-writing-service","category-online-thesis-writing-services","category-phd-dissertation-help-and-editing-helper-in-usa","category-professional-dissertation-writing-service","category-write-my-dissertation","category-writing-dissertation-and-grant-proposals","tag-150-200-words-discussion-with-a-scholarly-reference","tag-200-300-words-response-to-classmate-discussion-question","tag-250-word-analysis-essay","tag-bachelor-of-nursing-assignments","tag-case-study","tag-essay-bishops-website","tag-expert-online-nursing-writing-service","tag-fast-nursing-papers","tag-freelance-case-study-writing-service","tag-health-medicine-assignment-help-australia","tag-health-care-an","tag-health-care-assignment-help-service","tag-healthcare-assignment-writing-services-by-top-writers","tag-healthcare-essay-writing-services-by-medical-academics","tag-healthcare-writing-help-by-certified-medical-academics","tag-i-need-to-submit-this-assignment","tag-medical-essay-writing-service","tag-nursing-assessment-help","tag-nursing-assignment-help","tag-nursing-assignment-help-australia","tag-nursing-assignment-help-sydney","tag-nursing-assignment-writers","tag-nursing-assignments-examples-assignment-help-nursing","tag-pay-someone-to-do-my-nursing-assignment","tag-professional-case-study-writers","tag-quality-nursing-essay-writing-service","tag-write-a-paper","tag-write-a-review","tag-write-an-essay","tag-writing-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}