An audit of an Intensive Interaction service

Abstract

Purpose – Following the development of the post of Trust Intensive Interaction Co-ordinator, it was decided to assess the state of provision of Intensive Interaction within the social care provision of an NHS Trust in the South of England. The purpose of this paper is to: map strengths and weaknesses of current provision; identify successful provision; identify obstacles to successful provision or factors associated with the maintenance of provision throughout the organisation. Design/methodology/approach – Feedback after training sessions offered by the Trust Intensive Interaction Co-ordinator was reviewed; data about teams supporting people needing Intensive Interaction was analysed to ensure the recommended number of people within a team had received training; opinions of managers and support workers on the provision of Intensive Interaction were gathered. Findings – In total, 96 per cent of Trust employees thought training was right for them; 81 per cent of house teams/services had at least three staff and a manager who had received Intensive Interaction training; three areas of concern were identified from the opinions of managers and support workers: discussion of Intensive Interaction in supervision; responsibility for Intensive Interaction happening; and sharing knowledge of successful Intensive Interaction with those connected to the service user. Originality/value – This is one of the first published audits of an Intensive Interaction service. For the Trust, it provides a baseline to allow monitoring of the maintenance of current levels of service provision over time and, following action taken to address areas of concern, whether future provision has been improved.

Staff experience of the implementation of intensive interaction within their places of work with people with learning disabilities and/or autism

“…Seeing changes in the individual tended to overcome initial doubt, which was supported by Donnelly et al (2015) and Firth et al (2013). This echoes the description by Nind (2000); that intensive interaction is transformative for staff.…”

“…Seeing changes in the individual tended to overcome initial doubt, which was supported by Donnelly et al. (2015) and Firth et al. (2013).…”

“…Weedle (2016) reviewed the literature that explored staff experiences of intensive interaction being implemented in their workplaces, but this was not the exclusive focus of the study, so staff experiences relating to this were not considered in‐depth. In empirical research, intensive interaction has been perceived as valuable and it suggested that staff wished to continue using the approach, especially due to positive effects observed in service users (Donnelly, Elsworth, & McKim, 2015; Firth, Poyser, & Guthrie, 2013). However, organizational issues were found to be a barrier to the maintenance of the approach (Donnelly et al, 2015).…”

“…In empirical research, intensive interaction has been perceived as valuable and it suggested that staff wished to continue using the approach, especially due to positive effects observed in service users (Donnelly, Elsworth, & McKim, 2015; Firth, Poyser, & Guthrie, 2013). However, organizational issues were found to be a barrier to the maintenance of the approach (Donnelly et al, 2015). McKim (2013) stressed that developing the sustained use of intensive interaction requires input and influence from various levels of the organization and that implementation success often depends on individual staff members.…”

“…Only qualitative research will be reviewed to capture the richness of experiences. This will include experiences of training programmes which usually accompany implementation (Donnelly et al., 2015; Firth et al., 2013; McKim, 2013). A variety of settings and programmes will be considered to compare experiences, particularly as there is no standardized implementation process or setting within which intensive interaction is used.…”