Search results

While there is a rich literature on the role of partnerships between statutory agencies and third sector organisations for public service delivery in health and social care, the evidence base on, partnerships between community-based groups and charities for older people in the UK is lacking. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data, the purpose of this paper is to examines partnerships within 46 live at home (LAH) schemes. These schemes were specifically designed to tackle isolation and promote independence and wellbeing by providing a wide range of activities, based on the needs of its members.

This study is based on an online survey of 46 LAH schemes and face-to-face interviews with seven scheme managers to capture data on the various partnership initiatives within the LAH schemes.

Third sector partnerships for older people varied by type – formal, semi-formal and informal. In addition, third sector partnership working fosters the achievement of clear outcomes for older people who LAH and could be a mechanism for building social capital in communities. The study also identified barriers to developing third sector partnerships within this context. Mapping existing partnerships in LAH schemes were considered to be useful in engaging with partners. LAH scheme managers were better able to identify partnerships that could be deepened and broadened, depending on the desired outcomes.

To the author’s knowledge, there are few studies on third sector partnership working in LAH schemes for older people. According to Age UK, there are 1.2m chronically lonely older people in the UK. Over half of all people aged 75 and over live alone (ONS, 2015). Loneliness and social isolation in later life are considered to be two of the largest health concerns we face. Scaling up these third sector partnerships may offer a credible way to shore up support for older people who live alone or want to live at home.

As the government's strategy for the implementation of the ‘Big Society’ gains momentum within an increasingly difficult financial framework, this article discusses some of the major implications of this approach for partnership working in crime and disorder reduction. It considers whether the approach is a totally new one or merely an extension of previous government policy, while considering some of the advantages and disadvantages of extending the ‘Big Society’ ideology. While acknowledging the potential problems of implementing such an approach, the article also highlights the opportunities that may present themselves for enhanced community consultation in the delivery of partnership working.

Health and social care partnership working is often predicated on the notion that it improves outcomes for service users. Yet there is a lack of evidence linking partnerships to changes in outcomes. Against this background, the Health Services Management Centre at the University of Birmingham designed the Partnership Outcomes Evaluation Toolkit (POET) specifically to evaluate health and social care partnerships in terms of service user outcomes. This paper reports on the field testing of POET with Sandwell Integrated Support Service. This research provided a number of interesting insights into this service, and indicated some dissonance between staff and service user and carer expectations.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the effectiveness of partnership working in public health and draws on a systematic review of public health partnerships and original research conducted by the authors. It then considers in the light of research evidence whether the recently established Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act will help agencies to work together more effectively to improve population health or will go the way of previous initiatives and fall short of their original promise.

The paper is based on a systematic literature review conducted by the authors and empirical research focusing upon the ability of public health partnerships to reduce health inequalities and improve population health outcomes. It also draws on recent studies evaluating HWBs.

The paper finds that, hitherto, public health partnerships have had limited impact on improving population health and reducing health inequalities and that there is a danger that HWBs will follow the same path-dependent manner of previous partnership initiatives with limited impact in improving population health outcomes and reducing health inequalities.

The research draws on a systematic literature review and further scoping review of public health partnerships, in addition to empirical research conducted by the authors. It also reviews the current evidence base on HWBs. It is recognised that HWBs are in their early stages and have not as yet had the time to fulfil their role in service collaboration and integration.

The paper gives an overview of how and why public health partnerships in the past have not lived up to the expectations placed upon them. It then offers practical steps that HWBs need to take to take to ensure the mistakes of the past are not replicated in the future.

The research outlines how public health partnerships can operate in a more effective manner, to ensure a more seamless provision for service users. The paper then gives pointers as to how this can benefit HWBs and the wider community they serve.

The paper draws on a comprehensive research study of the effectiveness of public health partnerships on improving health outcomes and a systematic literature review. In addition, it also draws upon the current evidence base evaluating HWBs, to inform the discussion on their future prospects, in regard to partnership working in public health and promoting service integration.

Policy and practice documents are increasingly adopting a focus on outcomes. This article seeks to clarify what is meant by the term ‘outcome’, the outcomes that have been highlighted in key policy documents, and the extent to which they reflect the outcomes prioritised by service users. The discussion will draw on the early stages of a DoH‐funded project exploring the effectiveness of health and social care partnerships from the perspectives of service users.

This article aims to explore public‐public partnership issues arising when public sector organisations work together in order to deliver a new government sponsored initiative.

A qualitative approach was adopted for this study, employing in‐depth interviews across four UK case study sites. The rich qualitative data gathered from these interviews is analysed utilising a thematic framework.

The findings indicate that most of the participants did not feel that they were involved in a partnership and had little or no contact with their partner. The key role of inter‐personal relationships amongst individual members is emphasised.

The findings presented represent the pilot sites utilised in a government sponsored initiative. As future public‐public partnerships develop, further research should be undertaken to explore this phenomenon and establish the generalisability of these findings.

The study indicates that while there are clear benefits of partnership working, achieving successful collaboration is not straightforward. Improvements need to be made to develop partnerships using both formal and informal communication methods.

This paper demonstrates the importance of the relationships between, and perceptions of, personnel at an individual level in the success of public‐public partnerships.

The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on how partnership practices that build resilience in families work. Two broad questions are explored: first, what are the forms of expertise required in practices that effectively build resilience through partnership?; and second, how can some of the challenges practitioners experience when working in partnership be addressed?

A theoretical approach is taken, framing partnership as collaborative knowledge work between practitioners and clients. Concepts of relational expertise, common knowledge and relational agency are explored as means to understand the forms of expertise involved in partnership. An empirical example is provided from practices guided by The Family Partnership Model, an approach that has been widely implemented.

These concepts help to address three key challenges experienced by practitioners: client readiness for change, maintaining focus and purpose and using specialist expertise in partnership. This approach elucidates features of partnership practice that distinguish it from expert-led models, while highlighting diverse forms of expertise in play.

The framework presented in this paper is distinctive and can be used to identify how practitioners can avoid common dilemmas, even in challenging circumstances with vulnerable families where practitioner-client relationships may be perceived as fragile. It counters the idea that partnership work dilutes professional expertise. Instead, an enriched and augmented view of professional expertise is presented.

This paper explores the partnership between social services and primary care, in one geographical area, in relation to five potential types of obstacle: structural; procedural; financial; professional; and status and legitimacy. It examines the theory of partnership and the Government’s attitude towards it. It uses semi‐structured interviews with a range of stakeholders to study partnership in practice. Finally, it highlights some of the challenges for the future.

In the first of these two articles on integrated team working (Hudson, 2006) the focus was on the nature of the front‐line integration ‐ the Sedgefield Integrated Team (SIT). Positive findings were reported on the ways in which professionals from disparate backgrounds under single management were working together for service users. However, it is important to nail the myth that front‐line staff will happily and creatively collaborate if only managers would leave them to it. The reality is that initiatives like SIT have no qualities of spontaneous growth or self‐perpetuation ‐ they need to be planned, created and nurtured by policy‐makers and managers. This article looks at how these activities, known locally as the ACCESS programme (Adult Community Care Enhancement Strategy for Sedgefield), were undertaken in Sedgefield.

This paper describes a partnership between the NHS Executive and the Housing Corporation in London to develop a joint work programme with the objectives of promoting a better understanding of the interface between housing and health and establishing healthy housing strategies through partnership working. Progress has been made to date in mapping organisational roles regionally, auditing current practice locally and holding seminars for housing and health professionals. Two partnership‐based projects have also been commissioned.