Search results

This paper draws on a review of research by one of the authors (Frost, 2005) and an ERSC‐funded research project (Frost et al, 2005). The findings from this work are applied to the issues arising from the implementation of Every Child Matters (2003) and the Children Act, 2004. It is argued that implementing the Children Act in order to enable integrated working is a complex process demanding effective leadership and management. A variety of practical ideas to help with implementation are given.

This paper aims to describe coal-face challenges to making services in the UK work to ensure the mental and physical health, safety and wellbeing of children.

After briefly referring to some challenges to effective joined-up service provision, it describes examples from the first author's experience of problems, during 30+ years as an NHS clinical child psychologist, and some solutions. It then describes two challenges that underpin many of these problems: lack of understanding of, or training in, evaluating evidence for interventions and a more general lack of knowledge about effective behaviour change principles.

The paper concludes with recommendations about how to achieve effective joined-up services. Common themes emerging from the research are discussed, including choosing evidence-based programmes, providing adequate training to staff, and increasing people's understanding of behavioural principles.

Having effective joined-up services would mean better services for parents and their children, and would be more cost-effective for the NHS. The ideas presented in this paper could also be applied to other services within the NHS.

The Government's welfare and housing agenda focuses on ‘joined‐up’ thinking, choice, balanced communities and social inclusion. Because there is also much concern about the impact of an ageing population, local planners and service providers are encouraged to think creatively and work together. An example from research in the Netherlands shows how local authorities and the non‐profit sector can work together in an integrated approach to older people.

Based on a workshop commissioned by the West Midlands branch of the Association of Directors of Social Services, this editorial considers possible alternatives to care trusts. Although the recent consultation on a new vision for adult social care emphasises the need for more effective partnerships between health and social care, the current care trust model has a number of limitations for many health and local government communities, that could be overcome by alternative approaches.

The article considers the challenges involved in measuring the performance of local public service networks through an empirical analysis of Comprehensive Area Assessments (CAAs), a short-lived but pioneering attempt to gauge the effectiveness of local governments, health trusts, police and fire services in England.

Primary data about the implementation and impact of CAAs were gathered using a mixed method approach, including surveys of local public services, inspectorates and residents together with focus groups and semi-structured interviews in 12 case study areas.

CAAs encouraged agencies to strive to achieve better partnership working but did not provide sufficiently robust comparative data to enable managers to benchmark their performance against other areas or identify good practice elsewhere. Policy makers hoped that citizens would use CAAs to hold services to account but the process failed to attract media or public interest.

The logic of a more ‘joined-up’ approach to performance assessment of local partnerships is compelling. But in practice it is difficult to achieve because institutional arrangements at a national level mean that different sectors work within very different budget systems, professional networks and performance frameworks. Assessing the outcomes achieved by local partnerships also presents new challenges for inspection agencies and requires them to use new kinds of evidence.

This is the only attempt to date to evaluate CAAs and adds to an understanding of the challenges of assessing the performance of local public service partnerships. It highlights new questions for researchers and policy makers about the types of evidence needed to measure partnership performance and the extent to which the public may use the results.

Joint commissioning is an important part of the current health and social care context and will continue to be crucial in the future. An essential component of any commissioning process is priority setting, and this paper begins to explore the idea of integrated priority setting as a key element of health and social care commissioning. After setting out the key terminology in this area and the main priority‐setting processes for health and social care, the paper describes a number of barriers that might be encountered in integrated priority setting. We argue that there are significant barriers in financing, accessibility, evidence and politics, and it is important that such barriers are acknowledged if priority setting is to become a component of joint commissioning. While these barriers are not insurmountable, the solution lies in engagement with a range of stakeholders, rather than simply a technical process.

The article seeks to analyse the potential contribution of social work to integration debates. Social work has tended to be seen as marginal to these discussions despite the potential of social work expertise and leadership to help forge effective approaches to joined-up care. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how social work is well positioned to help lead and support practice focused change across social care and health. It also seeks to show how professional leadership can be a powerful vehicle for changing professional and organisational cultures.

The paper draws on practice and research evidence to demonstrate the proposition that social work can make a powerful contribution to debates about integration.

Three things could help build the cultural capital that is a pre-requisite to building integrated and joined-up approaches. First, the author needs to invest in developing the role of social workers and GPs working together as local professional and practice leaders. Second, there is a real risk that in any discussion about professional leadership and partnership, the author eclipses the singularly critical importance of engaging and involving users and carers in non tokenistic ways. Finally, the author needs to utilise better social work’s skills and knowledge in managing risk, building resilience and promoting social inclusion.

Further evaluation and research is needed about the potential for GPs and social workers to develop joined-up approaches to care for and support older and disabled people.

Social workers need to be provided with the tools, support and space in which to develop their practice leadership role, including but not exclusively with GPs.

This paper does not purport to offer any specifically originally research but rather some reflections on how social work expertise might better contribute to integration debates.

The NHS needs to adapt as never before to maintain and plan for an integrated and sustainable multi-professional workforce, spanning all health and care sectors. This cannot happen without system leaders embracing workforce transformation at scale and enabling system-wide collaboration and support for multi-professional learning and role development. “By learning together, we learn how to work together”. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The case studies included in this paper provide evidence of the ability of NHS systems to adopt integrated workforce models at scale. The case studies were chosen to demonstrate how system-wide change is possible, but still requires a partnership approach to innovation, strategic workforce planning and commissioner support for new models of care.

With partnership working between arm’s length bodies, commissioners, educators and workforce planners, the NHS is more than capable of generating a transformed workforce; a workforce able to continue providing safe, effective and joined-up person-centred care.

The focus of this paper is integrated workforce development undertaken by Health Education England from 2017 to the date of drafting. The case studies within this paper relate to England only and are a cross-section chosen by the authors as a representative of Health Education England activity.

The NHS needs to find ways to use the wider health and care workforce to manage an ever-increasing and diverse patient population. Silo working, traditional models of workforce planning and commissioning no longer provide an appropriate response to increasing patient need and complexity.

The evolution of the NHS into a joined-up, integrated health and social care workforce is essential to meet the aspirations of national policy and local workforce need – to centre care holistically on the needs of patients and populations and blur the boundaries between primary and secondary care; health and social care; physical and mental health.

This paper contains Health Education England project work and outcomes which are original and as yet unpublished.

Since 1997, the Labour Government sought to respond to the dilemmas and consequences of the earlier New Public Management reforms, according to the two principles of joined‐up government and public service delivery. A key aspect of its reform programme has been the public service agreement (PSA) framework, a target‐based performance regime that acts as a vehicle for the majority of spending and policy decisions across government and on the ground. Analysing its implementation and success, the article suggests that, in theory, the PSA regime provides an important example of steering at a distance as a form of political leadership, wherein the role of the centre is to provide the strategic framework for policy delivery. However, there are several structural constraints that have impeded the effectiveness of the framework, such as the pervading Whitehall departmental culture, and the tensions between top‐down performance management and devolved autonomy on the ground.