Developing innovative models of practice at the interface between the NHS and child and family social work where children living at home are at risk of abuse and neglect: a scoping review

Abstract

A B S T R AC TThe case has been made for introducing a rights-based, public health approach to child protection in England. A continuum of prevention is proposed, with multi-agency responses calibrated more carefully to the level of risk identified by children, parents and practitioners. The aim was to allocate inter-professional authority and resources in such a way as to ensure the safeguarding response is proportionate to the nature and level of concerns expressed and reliable in achieving good outcoSmes for children and parents alike. Recent research findings confirm the need for new models of service alignment and interprofessional responsibility at the interface of 'primary' and 'specialist' health-care services and 'children's social care', where significant safeguarding concerns are raised. This paper reports the findings of a scoping study, designed to establish the extent to which innovative practice methodologies have been implemented and evaluated in England to date. While the evidence to support the effectiveness of specific practice methodologies and contrasting logics of service design and implementation is shown to be very limited still, achieving reliability and legitimacy in the safeguarding relationships established at the service interface seems to depend on the integrity of the dialogue facilitated in each case.

Developing Safe Care in Mental Health for Children and Young People: Drawing on UK Experience for Solutions to an Under-Recognised Problem

“…A scoping review into the development of models and approaches to address the difficulties of interprofessional working between NHS and local authority social services identified a number of initiatives being trialled [63]. For multi-agency team work, it was found that the common assessment framework (CAF) formed an integral role, as it can be used to create an interprofessional group of 'virtual' professionals around the individual, including principal professionals to organise and facilitate care [63]. Other approaches identified included the co-location of professionals through Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) to facilitate information sharing [64].…”

“…Other approaches identified included the co-location of professionals through Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) to facilitate information sharing [64]. Whilst there are some initial positive findings for MASH, such as better information sharing [63], it was concluded that for all new initiatives identified, there were too few studies to conclude their effectiveness, particularly for outcomes relating to young people and families [63]. The implementation of new multi-agency inspection frameworks in April 2015 [65] may help provide such evidence when data has been collected and analysed.…”

“…The implementation of wider learning mechanisms such as Multi-Agency Critical Incident Experience (MACIE) or Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to clarify leaning and accountability [60] Addressing difficulties posed by multi-team working through using the common assessment framework (CAF) [63], Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) [64], Huddles [69] or through programmes such as AMBIT [66] changes to patient flow and deal with staff adjustments [70]. Within paediatrics, results have been positive, with huddling being attributed to improved efficiencies and quality of information, sharing, increased levels of accountability, empowerment and sense of community, a lowering in 'unsafe transfers' and an increase of days between incidence [71,72].…”

Health visiting and safeguarding children: A perfect storm?

“…Existing research evidence on the health visiting role in safeguarding and protecting children largely derives from small scale qualitative studies (Appleton and Cowley, 2008;Selbie, 2009;Burchill, 2011;Taylor et al, 2013;Bradbury-Jones et al, 2015;Taylor et al, 2017;Rooke, 2015) and literature reviews (Litherland, 2012;Botham 2013;Akehurst, 2015;Perryman and Appleton, 2016). We also found evidence generated from larger studies that included health visitors alongside other professionals concerned with safeguarding and protecting children (Whiting, Scammell and Bifulco, 2008;Fifield and Blake, 2011;Reeves et al, 2015;Whittaker et al, 2016;Luckock et al, 2017).…”

User-driven innovation and technology-use in public health and social care: A systematic review of existing evidence

“…Generally speaking, all included studies demonstrate a strong believe that UDI in public health and social care is far more sustainable than innovations generated by a single institution. By focusing on the end-users, health and care recipients and professionals, UDI first unfolds welfare principles, such as empowerment and client self-determination (Humphreys, 2015;Lassen et al, 2015;Angelini et al, 2016); it also facilitates changes of culture of care, and organizational structure where top-down innovation process was dominate (Sugarhood et al, 2014;Wihlman et al, 2014;Luckock et al, 2017;Valaitis et al, 2017). Through involving different intermediate users, UDI brings closer cooperation among different health and social care stakeholders and facilitate the change of existing system for a better solution to addressed revealed challenges (Lindgren, 2013;Purkayastha et al, 2015;Savory and Fortune, 2015;Bugge et al, 2017).…”