Search results

An innovative training initiative to raise the awareness of personality disorder and enable more effective working with people with personality disorder who come into contact with the wider multi-agency system has been developed. For the purpose of the training initiative the nationally recognised Knowledge and Understanding Framework (KUF, awareness-level programme) has been employed. An overview of the comprehensive multi-agency training initiative will be outlined with reporting and discussion of the outcome data provided within this paper. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper outlines the development and outcomes of a service evaluation study. The utilised outcome measures were carried out at pre-, post- and three-month follow-up measures. The Personality Disorder-Knowledge Attitude and Skills Questionnaire was utilised on the recommendation of the central team. Additionally a Visual Analogue Scale was developed for the purpose of this study was also employed.

Data findings are positive particularly when comparing pre- and post-results and the pre- and follow-up results. There appears to be an apparent peak in results post-training which could be attributed to the fact that knowledge and understanding is recent and fresh in the delegates mind, however positive results are still reported at follow-up there does appear to be decline in results and durability of the effect when three-month follow-up is compared against the post-training results.

Follow-up was at three months, which is a relatively short-time span post-training it would be of great interest to see in the future if the decline in the three areas continues. If this was followed up and if this pattern continued this could provide us with evidence to support the development of refresher courses. In the future, due to the multi-agency design of this service evaluation, comparisons of the different sectors, agencies and occupations involved, could also be explored further to establish what multi-agency areas the training has had the most effect and impact.

High levels of demand from multi-agencies to receive training in personality disorder is reported. Our findings and experience provide evidence that multi-agencies partners from a variety of professional backgrounds can effectively work in partnership with people with lived experience to effectively deliver the KUF training.

This innovative roll-out of KUF training provides evidence that with a little investment, a comprehensive multi-agency roll-out of KUF is achievable and can provide statistically significant positive results displaying the effectiveness and change brought about via the KUF training.

The originality of this sustainable and low-cost approach to educating the wider system is reported in this paper. This has lead to the strategy receiving national recognition winning a nursing times award in 2011 and a model of innovative practice nationally.

The challenges of transferring the theoretical requirements of an effective multi-agency partnership into everyday practices are often overlooked, particularly within safeguarding practices. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore practitioner perspectives of working within a multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) and those factors that encourage or hinder a multi-agency approach to safeguarding vulnerable individuals.

Semi-structured interviews with 23 practitioners from one MASH location in the North of England were conducted, with a thematic analysis being used to analyse findings.

The interviews with practitioners illustrated the complexity of establishing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding. It was inferred that whilst information sharing and trust between agencies had improved, the absence of a common governance structure, unified management system, formalisation of practices and procedures and shared pool of resources limited the degree to which MASH could be considered a multi-agency approach to safeguarding.

Establishing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding is complex and does not occur automatically. Rather, the transition to collaborative practices needs to be planned, with agreed practices and processes implemented from the beginning and reviewed regularly.

Few studies have investigated the implementation of MASH into safeguarding practices, with this paper providing a unique insight into practitioner opinions regarding the transition to multi-agency practices. Whilst there is a focus on MASH, the challenges to arise from the research may be reflective of other multi-agency partnerships, providing a foundation for best practice to emerge.

Recent government policies in relation to children stress the importance of service integration and partnership working, with particular emphasis on combating social exclusion. With reference to findings from a three‐year empirical study, this article examines some key elements of the process of multi‐agency working in services for disabled children with complex health care needs. It highlights some of the barriers to effective partnerships and lists some pointers for policy and practice.

The aim of this article is to describe a consultation/mentoring dialogue between a researcher of multi‐agency teams and a multi‐agency team manager, by providing a content analysis of the notes of a series of mentoring dialogues, presented in the form of a conversation. Themes discussed include: governance and the role of the steering group; managing the agencies; the role of the team manager; explanatory and practice/intervention models; job roles; professional procedures; workload; team functioning and culture; and the consultation process itself. The article suggests that research findings can usefully inform the development of new multi‐agency teams and that collaboration between researchers and service managers can be mutually beneficial.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight contemporary issues in achieving best practice in safeguarding adults across multi‐agency settings.

The paper is an empirical exploration, reviewing a range of relevant literature and recent policy to present evidence suggesting that there continue to be challenges in achieving best practice in multi‐agency approaches to safeguarding. The literature review was undertaken using the following databases: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, PsycINFO and Medline. The inclusion criteria included being peer‐reviewed and published between 2004 and 2012. The key words used were: “safeguarding adults” and “abuse”. Further literature was found through adopting a “snowballing” technique, in which additional sources were found from the reference lists used in the initial articles.

Although guidance such as No Secrets from the Department of Health, in 2000, emphasises the importance of a multi‐agency approach, this continues to be problematic and presents challenges. In practice, differing professionals may not fully understand each other's roles and responsibilities and both thresholds and scope of adult abuse are still not universally agreed. Legislation could be used positively to mandate the multi‐agency approach to adult safeguarding, supported by local Safeguarding Adults Boards and local policies can be used to provide guidance and clarity for practitioners. Further empirical investigation into supporting the multi‐agency approach is required.

The paper fulfils the need for discussion on the complexities and challenges that continue to present in multi‐agency responses to adult safeguarding practice.

This study aims to create a platform for frontline practitioners to share experiences, express opinions and forge new ideas for effective multi-agency work when responding to child exploitation by county line gangs (CLGs).

CLGs are grooming children as young as age 7. The need for effective multi-agency responses to grooming by CLGs is a key priority for prevention. Using findings from focus groups held with 13 youth practitioners, school staff and charities, this article highlights the barriers that multi-agency frontline practitioners face when they are tasked with responding to instances of child criminal exploitation by CLGs.

Discussions within the focus groups indicate there are many common barriers and driving factors with regards to young people being successfully groomed by a CLG. More specifically, findings from this research identified school exclusions and a lack of prosocial sense of belonging to be a driving factor that exacerbated the risk of being successfully groomed by a CLG. Lack of a significant adult relationship was also found to be a barrier to successful multi-agency intervention, which was attributed to the lack of funding and resources required for adequate staffing needed to build meaningful relationships.

This study offered the unique opportunity for practitioners from various different sectors and jurisdictions to share their experiences of not only working with young people involved in CLGs, but also their challenges when using a multi-agency approach. These discussions are particularly important in the case of CLGs due to the cross-jurisdiction nature of the gangs’ activities. This research has identified issues with multi-agency responses to CLGs and offers recommendations for improvement. Identifying and understanding the barriers that practitioners face when responding to CLGs can allow for the development and implementation of various measures, which will aid the safeguarding of vulnerable victims of exploitation by CLGs.

The paper focuses on preventative services for children, young people and families. It argues that client‐led service provision calls for flexibility from service providers, using the distributed expertise to be found across the professions involved and a high degree of interprofessional trust. All this, in turn, requires a systemic response from the major agencies if they are to support this new professionalism.

This paper aims to provide a framework from which practitioners can develop a partnership approach to multi‐agency decision‐making.

The authors have drawn on the direct experiences of social work practitioners currently involved in safeguarding activity and qualified social workers undertaking post qualifying social work education. Those seeking safeguarding guidance from a safeguarding adult co‐ordinator/manager indicate multi‐agency decision‐making can be professionally, intellectually and emotionally challenging. In response to these concerns, the authors have worked together to develop a simple framework designed to support practitioners in facilitating effective multi‐agency decision‐making.

There is a need for effective practice in multi‐agency decision‐making to be central to delivering a system of personalised care that both empowers and protects. The Harvard Business model identifies five key stages as being crucial to decision‐making; first, establishing context; second, framing the issue; followed by generating alternatives and evaluating alternatives and finally choosing the best option. The model stops here, but for most decisions a sixth step is required to identify actions and those responsible for implementing them.

Policy and legislation alone cannot protect adults at risk and in vulnerable circumstances from abuse, there also needs to be commitment at an organisational and practitioner level to develop decision‐making processes that ensure safeguarding and personalisation is interwoven as efficiently and effectively as possible.

This paper aims to present a simple conceptual framework, outlining four pathways for guiding multi‐agency involvement in different situations of adult abuse.

The essential elements of best practice for each pathway are described.

The four situations is a framework that, together with the seven‐stage safeguarding adults pathway, has been evidenced through practice to provide a conceptual tool on which to base multi‐agency activity in response to a large variety of concerns about safeguarding adults.

The four situations framework creates a straight‐forward template that provides guidance to all concerned as to which organisations will be involved in the steps of developing the safeguarding pathways and what their roles and responsibilities will be.

This article examines the effectiveness of the multi‐agency approach in adult protection and draws on findings from research that examined the effectiveness of both partnership working and perceptions of the regulatory framework to protect vulnerable adults. The research findings were collected through the use of a survey of all local councils with social services responsibilities in England and Wales. Examples of good practice in partnership working were found. However, resource pressures, insufficient information sharing and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities were reported to hinder a multi‐agency approach.