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.

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.

This paper aims to explore some of the problems that arise in the execution of a joint force operation (JFO) involving various law enforcement agencies. Particular emphasis is placed on examining factors that impede inter‐agency cooperation and coordination in the context of a JFO targeting serious and major crimes.

This paper is informed by primary research that assessed the level of satisfaction of enforcement agencies involved in a Canadian‐based multi‐agency task force mandated to combat organized crime. Research for this study entailed a questionnaire survey of, and semi‐structured interviews with, operational and supervisory personnel assigned to the JFO, as well senior management within agencies participating in the JFO.

The research uncovered significant differences in the level of satisfaction with the execution of the JFO concept between members from the lead (federal) enforcement agency and those of other participating (municipal and provincial) agencies. The majority of survey participants overwhelmingly believe that the integrated, multi‐agency approach is an essential ingredient in the effectiveness of this JFO. However, among respondents from participating agencies there was a high rate of dissatisfaction with intelligence dissemination and sharing by the JFO, communication between the JFO and member agencies, and the contribution the JFO makes to the priorities and outputs of participating agencies in their own jurisdictions.

These problems strike at the very heart of a multi‐agency approach to major crimes enforcement and can be generalized to other jurisdictions and countries. Indeed, impediments to the timely sharing of criminal intelligence continue to constitute one of the most significant obstacles to inter‐agency cooperation and coordination, and, by extension, the optimal enforcement of organized crime and terrorism. The problems addressed in this study should be of concern to any manager of a multi‐agency task force, and similar research is recommended to unearth problems that may undermine inter‐agency cooperation and plague the effectiveness of a JFO.

Despite the increased prevalence and importance of multi‐agency operations in combating major and serious crimes, little research has been conducted into the issues and problems that obstruct inter‐agency cooperation within this context. This paper represents one attempt to fill this void.

This paper aims to present the rationale for the adoption of a performance measurement approach within a partnership setting, the process followed to develop a multi‐agency performance measurement framework, the resulting model and the associated challenges and key success factors.

This paper used a case study approach.

This paper describes the multi‐agency outcomes‐based performance measurement model used by Children's Services Planning in Northern Ireland to monitor agreed outcomes and identifies the key success factors of developing and implementing such a model.

Findings are limited to the analysis of the development of a performance measurement approach within a single partnership.

This paper has contributed to the debate on performance measurement by illustrating a paradigm shift from collecting activity data on an organization by organization basis to managing information on a multi‐agency basis using indicators based on outcomes as part of an integrated performance measurement system.

Coordination between military and civilian agencies has previously been found to be a significant issue that affects the efficiency of multi‐agency system responses to large‐scale emergencies. The purpose of this article is to present the findings derived from a case study focussing on the problems that abound when the military attempts to work with civilian organisations.

An integrated framework of human factors methods was used to analyse a Military Aid to the Civilian Authorities training exercise, involving the army and seven other responding agencies.

A range of factors that hinder coordination between agencies during multi‐agency emergency responses were identified. Potential solutions for removing these barriers and augmenting coordination levels are proposed.

This research suggests that much further work is required in training and designing multi‐agency response systems and procedures in order to optimise coordination between responding agencies.

This article presents the first attempt to apply structured, theoretically underpinned human factors methods, to understand the problems that abound when the military works with civilian agencies during large‐scale emergency responses.

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 describes the development of a multi‐agency model for adult protection training in Kent and Medway and sets this in the context of the evolution of wider adult protection policy and competence. The rationale for the planning and development of the model is outlined and the content and coverage of the different levels of training are described. Key issues include the progression of staff and managers and the implementation and operation of the model. These are explored in relation to the different demands on the safeguarding activities in Kent and Medway and the different agency and professional interests at stake. Future developments are also briefly mapped and discussed.

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.