Relationships, learning and team working in UK services for children

Abstract

Purpose -This paper seeks to report on education, health, and social care practitioners' experiences of working across traditional boundaries and establishing new relationships in the context of the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) in UK children's services. Design/methodology/approach -Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 20 education, health and social care practitioners, and operational managers using the qualitative methodology of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Findings -The article highlights how change in the composition of teams has provided stimulus for new relationships, learning, and ways of working.Research limitations/implications -The study is based upon a relatively small number of interviews conducted within one county. Originality/value -Consideration of relationships and learning within multi-agency practice contexts is underdeveloped within the literature. As new forms of partnership may result from ongoing reconfiguration of services, this research into partnership working around the CAF offers insights and learning for future interprofessional teamworking.

Perspectives of specialists and family physicians in interprofessional teams in caring for patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study

“…One of the main facilitators appeared to be the synchronous one-time collaboration instead of the traditional asynchronous circulation of patient information among providers. [28][29][30] Synergistic interactions improved communication and promoted the development of trust and mutual respect. In this way, the TIP Program overcomes important barriers described in the literature [13][14][15] through understanding each other's roles and responsibilities, and timely and appropriate communication.…”

Case Study of a Child and Youth Advocacy Centre (CYAC) in a Canadian City

“…Multi-agency collaboration can have extremely positive outcomes for victims and survivors if they are done well (Robinson et al, 2008). While much of the research in this area comes from the US and the UK (see Collins & McCray, 2012;Garret, 2004;Houghton, 2011; research for Canada. Robinson et al (2008) explain that multi-agency relationships are the cornerstone to victim programming and have been a priority for the UK government for years.…”

“…2012interviewed frontline practitioners and managers in education, health and social care, and found that overall, relationships improved when they implemented a multi-agency collaboration. The team improved in terms of communication and planning though this process was gradual and not without tensions (Collins & McCray, 2012).…”

“…Eventually, the new team became the preferred way of working and the multi-agency collaboration improved further in terms of communication and relationship development (Collins & McCray, 2012). Furthermore, the participants indicated that the multi-agency collaboration increased learning opportunities, individual and collective skills, information sharing, and joint decision-making (Collins & McCray, 2012).…”

“…were also listed as tensions for multi-agency collaborations (Brandon, Howe, Dagley, Salter & Warren, 2006;Collins & McCray, 2012;Garret, 2004;Newman & Dannenfelser, 2005). Many studies have indicated that power struggles exist between agencies and often times the police either take the lead in the investigation or expect to be the agency in charge of the investigation (Garret, 2004;Newman & Dannenfelser, 2005;O'Neil & McCarthy, 2014).…”