Managed Networks and Integrated Children's Services ‐ Case Study of Devon

Abstract

This article explains how joint agency services for children with special needs have been operating in Devon for a number of years. The business processes and ICT systems underpinning the service are described and specific key worker services are explained. The Fair Access to Carers' Breaks model explains how Devon has allocated financial resources to meet individual users' needs. This will be relevant to any authority looking for a transparent means of distributing equitably financial resources such as the additional resources provided by Aiming High for Disabled Children. The article goes on to describe how child and adolescent mental health services were added to the joint agency service and how the choice and partnership approach (CAPA) has virtually removed the waiting list for this service in Devon. The article then describes how further integration of services will be achieved by establishing early response and further response services which will include the Public Health Nursing Service and Education staff.

Choice and Partnership Approach to community mental health and addiction services: a realist-informed scoping review

“…All reports were written in English. Reports were limited to four regions: the UK,15 17 28–32 34–57 Canada,13 16 33 58–63 New Zealand28 29 64–67 and Australia 14 28 29 68 69. Despite CAPA having also been implemented in Norway, Belgium and Ireland, we did not identify any reports from these settings in our searches.…”

“…Most evaluations (n=31/36) were local or regional in scope and situated in urban centres or mixed urban, suburban or rural settings13 16 30–32 34–37 39–54 56 58–62 66 67 69; one described a rural context 14 68. Two represented national evaluations of CAMHS that had implemented CAPA across England15 17 and New Zealand 64 65.…”

“…Many (n=20/36) evaluations reported the motivation for the implementation of CAPA, including to reduce wait times or waiting lists,13 14 33 35 37 39 43 55 57–59 62 62–64 68 improve efficiency,14 34 35 38 40 42 69 improve care quality, service user experience or accessibility,13 17 40 56 69 choice in service,39 41 43 60 68 meet service demands or client needs or values,14 15 17 39 42 58 60 68 provide client-focused service,15 17 41 43 58 60 support staff,40 43 provide transparency39 40 and provide meaningful data 40. Few evaluation (n=10/36) cited theories supporting how CAPA or its components ‘work’; those that did most often reported that CAPA’s strength as a service delivery model is in its efficiency in managing demand/capacity 13–17 33 35 36 43 55 58 63 68 69.…”

Improving quality of a rural CAMHS service using the Choice and Partnership Approach

“…Prior to the implementation of CAPA, a waiting list was utilised to manage the increasing demand for LRH CAMHS assessment and intervention services. While several CAMHS teams in England and New Zealand have seen dramatic reductions in waiting lists after the implementation of CAPA, 7,8,11 the LRH CAMHS waiting list has been eliminated with clients contacted as soon as the referral is received and Choice appointments occurring within a one-day to four-week time frame depending on the Triage Rating Scale requirements. 12 A limited set of priority entry criteria is utilised within LRH CAMHS which still considers crisis presentations and allows for an appropriate response.…”

Clinical change after the implementation of the Choice and Partnership Approach within an Australian Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service

“…The Choice and Partnership Approach (CAPA) model of practice was developed in the United Kingdom to enhance Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) by improving access to appropriate and timely client‐ and family‐focussed clinical care (York & Kingsbury, ), as well as streamlining and standardising service practice to increase overall efficiency (Fuggle et al., ; Wilson, Metcalfe, & McLeod, ). Although the response of CAMHS appears to be improved with the implementation of the CAPA process by reducing waiting lists (Chugg, ; Clarke & Emberly, ; Fuggle et al., ; Naughton, Basu, O'Dowd, Carroll, & Maybery, ; Robotham & James, ; Robotham, James, & Cyhlarova, ; York & Kingsbury, ), to date no research has examined routinely collected intake and discharge clinical outcomes after implementing this model.…”