Policies for Partnership Working in Health and Social Care

Policies for Partnership working(a) in wellness and kind do byThe alliance between fountainheadness and accessible maintenance proceedss policies in UKIntroductionFor the past decade or so, the centralise in spite of appearance wellness and kind assistances has been on improving all-round serve by means of alliance between different disposals. The aim of this has been to remedy integration, efficiency and provide cave in c ar for all types of patients in the community. However, the policies bear on in two wellness and kindly c atomic number 18 operates have non ever so allowed the confederations to move around as they should. Whilst in that respect have been both(prenominal)(prenominal) successes and coalitions have ameliorate integration and everyplaceall look at, in that location have also been mistakes that in some incases have do things worse alternatively than better.1The aim of this essay is to rails the ontogenesis of the federation betwe en wellness and offbeat run over the plump ten years or so, and how in force(p) this partnership has been. there will be a critical review of partnership constitution, and a foc spendd case mull over on the current Start partnership as an example of how partnerships between wellness and cordial serve in the UK are fairing.The development of a partnership between health and upbeat serviceThe development of partnerships between health and eudaemonia go has been a critical pore of parvenue Labour policy over the last ten years. However, these terms are often non defined in particular well and are therefore fairly difficult to analyse. The enigma is that quislingism and partnership between the cheeks is difficult in light of different elaborations and indexfulness relationships inside the professions.2 However, this has not stopped attempts by new(a) Labour to nominate partnerships between health and social mete out through various initiatives and policies.It w as in 1999 that the government set bring out its radical NHS Plan that promised to transform the commission in which health and social services interacted. The development of share Trusts meant that health and social services would be dealt with by a singular organisation in certain areas for the first time. The main focus of the changes being on child services, service for the elderly and mental health services.3The first job of developing partnerships was to overcome the difficulties and issues between new rung committed to the partnership and one-time(a) staff who had fermented in the organisations as separate entities. The UK Centres of Excellence funded by the DfES were created in an effort to cartel high quality services in genius place. These then led to specific Childrens Centres. The idea was to combine disciplines of health and social care in one arena as a focus on a specific group of individuals in this case families and children.4The focus for many of the part nership policies and initiatives has been on children, families and the elderly in an effort to provide better merged care for these groups. cardinal of the biggest developments at heart partnerships between health care and social care has been to empower those who use the services in an effort to smooth over integration. The idea is that with substance ab user association these organisations will better understand how to pass away as a partnership to serve well the necessitate of the user. If the users cigaret help to shape service standards, then divagations between the organisations will be reduced and effective partnership will be increased.5The idea behind this is also to manage interior motley at heart the country as a society and the diversity within organisations so that these different parts whoremaster work unitedly more easily.6 The partnerships and their success are looked at in two ways. Firstly, how well the partners can work together to address mutual ai ms, and also how service delivery and effects on health and well-being of service users has been improved.7The focus of policy has been on inter-organisational partnerships between health and social care, rather than focal point on individual professionals on the job(p)(a) together between organisations. The development should be seen as NHS working with DfES/DCSF rather than GPs, doctors and nurses working with social workers.8The biggest liberation has been the creation of the Primary foreboding Groups and charge Trusts which are responsible for the welfare of healthcare services in the community. These organisations are being encouraged to work with social services so that intermediate care can be provided, hospital waiting lists can be cut and the roots of issues can be sorted rather than merely the outcomes being treated. The formation of plow Trusts that try to combine health and social services in one organisation has been somewhat hit and miss in the UK.9 The next fu nction will critically examine these policies.Critical review of partnership policyOne of the biggest capers with these policies is that many of the terms used are extremely obtuse and it is hard to valuate their effectiveness. Partnership is not accurately defined by most of the policies, and this leaves the concept open to interpretation.10The concept of user appointment and feedback within the policy is also rather poorly defined, and this means that the effectiveness of user exponentiation to bring together health and social services tools is seldom monitored.11 There ask to be more feedback for users on their society within these organisations, and the participation of users needs to be tied directly into policy to improve partnerships.12The term culture is also stipulation importance in the policies because it determines how the organisations work together in the partnership and work with users of the services. However, studies have sh induce this term has not been giv en a universal meaning and local organisations have given the term different meanings. This leads to inconsistent services and fluctuating success within a partnership.13However, there have been some benefits of the increased user participation within health and social care partnerships. It has allowed users to gain more power within the relationship and in many ways help to self-manage their own needs more cl first. This is certainly the care within health and social care partnerships for the elderly community. Rather than being seen as a poop out on resources, the older generation can straight work with health and social services to maintain a higher quality of liveliness and continually contribute to society. With health and social care working together in this way, the elderly community have better access to their needs as well as being more efficiently care for due to the organisational collaboration.14The difference here is that whereas before an elderly person would be see n separately by the NHS and by private and government-based social services agencies, these organisations now work together to provide all indigenous care needs in one package. This makes it easier for all involved in the process.15 It removes the boundaries that have been such(prenominal) an issue for many older people over the decades within the UK welfare system.16The problem of course arises when the partnership as a consentient is not serving the needs of individuals. Whereas before an individual may be failed by one organisation, now the failure will cover all the services they require. With the health and social services organisations also working with private entities such as insurers, if one area fails then the service package as a whole can fail.17The problem is silence that the two markets of health and social care are organisationally opposed. The culture within the organisations is geared towards opposition rather than cooperation, and this has been extremely hard to overcome.18 The disciplines have found it hard to soma up levels of trust that allow for successful communication and partnership.19Despite these problems with policy, there have been cases where policies have established partnerships between health and social services. One of these partnership initiatives is known as certain(a) Start. The next separate will present a case study of this partnership to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.Case study of sure startThe certain(predicate) Start weapons platform was created in the early years of the New Labour government and looked to help children and families both before and afterwards birth in a holistic and integrated way. This includes provided healthcare and social care for children, as well as providing in-need adults with social care that they can benefit from. The government put a large amount of money into the meet from 1998 onwards, and has rolled the political platform out across the country.20The program sees all health and social care service providers work together to benefit proves and children in a wide mixed bag of ways, particularly for vulnerable children and those with learning difficulties. These issues can benefit from an integrated glide slope that combines different aspects of health and social care in one package.21Reports from this program in local areas show that commitment to partnerships and cooperation has been high amongst the staff involved. Those involved in the partnership, whether health and social services staff or parent members, found the experience to be positive and allowed for a more integrated approach to family welfare. Work with families has improved somewhat, although there are still problems.The biggest problem to the effectiveness of the partnership is differing organisational cultures. These cultures mean that health and social services cannot continuously work effectively together, and that there are also limits on paternal involvement. Parents found that the bureaucratic cultures of the organisations meant they were reluctant to participate further in the partnership. Likewise, staff within the different organisations found it hard to work with certain different staff because of differences in organisational culture.22In other studies, the results were even poorer. Rutter found that the physical object of accredited Start to eliminate child poverty and social excision was not being met. The results of National Evaluations of the authorized Start Team were analysed and showed that after 3 years, there was no significant service improvement. In fact, in some areas the service had got worse and had made the situations of families worse.23The problem here was that whilst the partnership was working successful in bringing together health and social services, this was not improving the actual services offered on both sides. With and one organisation to now use, the most disadvantaged families were being let down in all areas r ather than just in a few areas. It seems that many of the weaknesses of both organisations were combined in the partnership rather than their strengths.Other results show mixed results. One study showed that the partnership had been effective for teenage mothers in improving their parenting, but the actual children of such mothers were in some cases worse off. The problem seems to be not with the concept of the partnership itself, but the actual practical effectiveness of the local organisations involved in the particular partnership and the level of communication and cooperation between different staff.24Overall, the project has certainly been a success in developing integrated remain firm networks for children and families throughout the UK. However, the effectiveness of this support network has been hindered in many areas because of different organisational cultures and a lack of adequate management capacity across the disciplines. These cultural problems have also limited the effectives of service user participation in some areas, and this is something that needs to be addressed in the future if these partnerships are to be successful.25ConclusionThe policies of the New Labour government have tried to overcome the previous problems of drawing together the health and social services into one partnership. These organisations have always been highly separate, and attempts in the 1980s and early 1990s to foster cooperation between them often failed because of the differences in the organisations.26 The issue has been that difficult to find a fast and effective solution to the boundaries between health and social care is difficult, although it is attainable in the long-term.27The partnerships themselves have actually been kinda successful in creating sustainable and integrated local support networks across the UK. However, the effectiveness of these partnerships has been damaged by a number of factors.Firstly, there is still too much competition and a cult ure of blaming the other organisation between health and social services. Both organisations would prefer to absolve themselves of business and compete for success rather than work together to solve the problem together. Although when things go right the partnership can work, when things go wrong both parties look to blame the other side. This means many users are let down by the partnership with no-one taking responsibility for the failure.28Also, there has been too much emphasis on inter-organisational cooperation rather than inter-professional cooperation. Whilst organisations as a whole are difficult to change because of imbedded cultures and management styles, individual professionals can quickly be shown how to work together to both achieve better results for their respective organisations. The government policies should be more focused on acquire individuals within different organisations (e.g. doctors and social workers) than looking at combining whole organisations. This gives the user the integrated support they need whilst still allowing the different organisations to centre on what they do best.29In conclusion, partnerships between the health and social services in the UK can work to improve support for those who need it. However, the focus needs to shift from inter-organisational cooperation to inter-professional cooperation if the partnerships that have been successfully set up are to be effective in the future.BibliographyAnning, A (2005) Investigating the impact of working in multi- agency service delivery setting in the UK on early years practitioners beliefs and practices. daybook of Early Childhood Research, 3(1), pp.19-50 Balloch, S and Taylor, M (2001) Partnership Working policy and Practice. Bristol The insurance Press.Barnes, M, Newman, J and Sullivan, H (2004) Power, participation and political renewal theoretical and empirical perspectives on globe participation under new Labour. hearty Politics, 11(2), pp. 267-279. Belsky, J et al (2006) Effects of Sure Start local broadcasts on children and families early findings from a quasi-experimental, cross sectional study. BMJ, 332, p. 1476.Brown, L, Tucker, C, and Domokos, T (2003) Evaluating the impact of integrated health and social care teams on older people living in the community. health and mixer explosive charge in the Community, 11(2), pp. 85-94.Carnwell, R and Buchanan, J (2005) hard-hitting Practice in Health and Social Care A Partnership Approach. Maidenhead Open University Press.Carpenter, J, Griffin, M and Brown, S (2005) The fix of Sure Start on Social Services. shorthorn Centre for employ Social Research. Available at http//www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/ data/uploadfiles/SSU2005FR015.pdfCarr, S (2004) Has service user participation made a difference to social care services? capital of the United Kingdom Social Care constitute for Excellence. Available at http//www.scie.org.uk/publications/positionpapers/pp03.aspClarke, J (2005) New Labours citiz ens activated, empowered, responsibilized, prone? Critical Social Policy, 25, pp. 447-463.Dowling, B, Powell, M, and Glendinning, C (2004) Conceptualising successful partnership. Health and Social Care in the Community, 12(4), pp. 309-317.DCSF (2008) Sure Start Partnership Work. SureStart Website. Available at http//www.surestart.gov.uk/stepintolearning/ setup/feinvolvement/partnership/ (Accessed twenty-seventh December 2008).Gilson, L (2003) Trust and the development of health care as a social institution. Social intelligence and Medicine, 56(7), pp. 1453-1468.Glasby, J and Peck, E (2004) Care Trusts Partnership Working in Action. Oxford Radcliffe Publishing.Glass, N (1999) Sure Start the development of an early intervention programme for young children in the United Kingdom. Children and Society, 13(4), pp. 257-264.Glendinning, C (2002) Partnerships between health and social services developing a fabric for evaluation. Policy and Politics, 30(1), pp. 115-127.Glendinning, C, Pow ell, M A and Rummery, K (2002) Partnerships, New Labour and the presidency of Welfare. Bristol The Policy Press.Ham, C (1997) Health Care Reform Learning from global Experience. comprehensive Session I Reframing Health Care Policies. Available at http//www.ha.org.hk/ file away/hacon97/contents/26.pdfHudson, B (1999) reefer commissioning across the primary health caresocial care boundary can it work? Health and Social Care in the Community, 7(5), pp. 358-366.Hudson, B (2002) Interprofessionality in health and social care the Achilles hound of partnership? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16(1), pp. 7-17.Leathard, A (1994) spill Inter-professional Working Together for Health and Welfare. London Routledge.Leathard, A (2003) Interprofessional quislingism From Policy to Practice in Health and Social Care. New York Routledge.Lewis, J (2001) old(a) People and the HealthSocial Care Boundary in the UK one-half a Century of Hidden Policy Conflict. Social Policy and Administration, 35 (4), pp. 343-359.Lymbery, M (2006) Untied we stand? Partnership working in health and social care and the role of social work in services for older people. British Journal of Social Work, 36, pp. 1119-1134.Maddock, S and Morgan, G (1998) Barriers to transformation beyond bureaucracy and the market conditions for collaboration in health and social care. multinational Journal of earthly concern Sector Management, 11(4), pp. 234-251.Martin, V (2002) Managing Projects in Health and Social Care. New York Routledge.Myers, P, Barnes, J and Brodie, I (2003) Partnership Working in Sure Start Local Programmes Early findings from local programme evaluations. NESS tax write-off Report 1. Available at http//www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/documents/synthesisReports/23.pdfNewman, J et al (2004) Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy and Society, 33, pp. 203-223.Peck, E, Towell, D and Gulliver, P (2001) The meanings of culture in health and social care a case study of t he combined Trust in Somerset . Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15(4), pp. 319-327.Rummery, K and Coleman, A (2003) Primary health and social care services in the UK jump on towards partnership? Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), pp. 1773-1782.Rutter, M (2006) Is Sure Start an Effective Preventive Intervention? Child and Adolescent psychological Health, 11(3), pp. 135-141.Stanley, N and Manthorpe, J (2004) The Age of Inquiry Learning and Blaming in Health and Social Care. New York Routledge.1Footnotes1 Leathard, A (1994) Going Inter-professional Working Together for Health and Welfare. London Routledge, pp. 6-92 Lymbery, M (2006) Untied we stand? Partnership working in health and social care and the role of social work in services for older people. British Journal of Social Work, 36, pp. 1128-1131.3 Glasby, J and Peck, E (2004) Care Trusts Partnership Working in Action. Oxford Radcliffe Publishing, pp. 1-24 Anning, A (2005) Investigating the impact of working in multi- agency service delivery setting in the Uk on early years practitioners beliefs and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 3(1), pp.19-215 Barnes, M, Newman, J and Sullivan, H (2004) Power, participation and political renewal theoretical and empirical perspectives on public participation under new Labour. Social Politics, 11(2), pp. 267-270.6 Clarke, J (2005) New Labours citizens activated, empowered, responsibilized, abandoned? Critical Social Policy, 25, pp. 449-4537 Dowling, B, Powell, M, and Glendinning, C (2004) Conceptualising successful partnership. Health and Social Care in the Community, 12(4), pp. 309-312.8 Hudson, B (2002) Interprofessionality in health and social care the Achilles heel of partnership? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16(1), pp. 10-14.9 Rummery, K and Coleman, A (2003) Primary health and social care services in the UK progress towards partnership? Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), pp. 1777-1780.10 Glendinning, C (2002) Partnerships between health and social services developing a framework for evaluation. Policy and Politics, 30(1), pp. 115-117.11 Carr, S (2004) Has service user participation made a difference to social care services? London Social Care institute for Excellence. Available at http//www.scie.org.uk/publications/positionpapers/pp03.asp12 Newman, J et al (2004) Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy and Society, 33, pp. 217-220.13 Peck, E, Towell, D and Gulliver, P (2001) The meanings of culture in health and social care a case study of the combined Trust in Somerset . Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15(4), pp. 323-325.14 Balloch, S and Taylor, M (2001) Partnership Working Policy and Practice. Bristol The Policy Press, pp. 143-145.15 Leathard, A (2003) Interprofessional Collaboration From Policy to Practice in Health and Social Care. New York Routledge, pp. 102-10316 Lewis, J (2001) Older People and the HealthSocial Care Boundary in the UK Half a Century of Hidden Policy Confl ict. Social Policy and Administration, 35(4), pp. 343-344.17 Ham, C (1997) Health Care Reform Learning from International Experience. Plenary Session I Reframing Health Care Policies. Available at http//www.ha.org.hk/archives/hacon97/contents/26.pdf, p. 2518 Maddock, S and Morgan, G (1998) Barriers to transformation Beyond bureaucracy and the market conditions for collaboration in health and social care. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(4), pp. 234-235.19 Gilson, L (2003) Trust and the development of health care as a social institution. Social Science and Medicine, 56(7), pp. 1463-1466.20 Glass, N (1999) Sure Start the development of an early intervention programme for young children in the United Kingdom. Children and Society, 13(4), pp. 257-259.21 DCSF (2008) Sure Start Partnership Work. SureStart Website. Available at http//www.surestart.gov.uk/stepintolearning/setup/feinvolvement/partnership/ (Accessed 27th December 2008).22 Myers, P, Barnes, J and Brodie, I (2003) Partnership Working in Sure Start Local Programmes Early findings from local programme evaluations. NESS Synthesis Report 1. Available at http//www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/documents/synthesisReports/23.pdf23 Rutter, M (2006) Is Sure Start an Effective Preventive Intervention? Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3), pp. 137-140.24 Belsky, J et al (2006) Effects of Sure Start local programmes on children and families early findings from a quasi-experimental, cross sectional study. BMJ, 332, p. 1476.25 Carpenter, J, Griffin, M and Brown, S (2005) The Impact of Sure Start on Social Services. Durham Centre for Applied Social Research. Available at http//www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/SSU2005FR015.pdf, pp. 44-4826 Glendinning, C, Powell, M A and Rummery, K (2002) Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare. Bristol The Policy Press, pp. 34-3627 Hudson, B (1999) Joint commissioning across the primary health caresocial care boundary can it work? Health and Social Car e in the Community, 7(5), pp. 363-365.28 Stanley, N and Manthorpe, J (2004) The Age of Inquiry Learning and Blaming in Health and Social Care. New York Routledge, pp. 1-529 Martin, V (2002) Managing Projects in Health and Social Care. New York Routledge, pp. 180-190