Importance of Interprofessional Working - Essay Example

INTEGRATED SERVICE due: Introduction Inter-professional working refers the diversity in which people in different professionals interrelate for provision of integrated services. It involves a collaboration that seeks to achieve a co-ordinated, synchronised model built on a harmonious relationship (Davis 2011: 17). The working together in children’s services is related to welfare of the children. This forms a multi-agency working which is meant to impact positively on the provision of proper services to the children (Fitzgerald & Kay 2007: 26). It is best understood by making an examination of the relationship existing between key worker services to promote inter-agency care coordination and different schools. The key workers can help in the improvement of home-school liaison so as to assist schools in the fulfilment of their statutory obligations. The child protection system provides a way in which the many agencies and professions work together to coordinate their work with children and families (Munro 2011: 52). For instance in the UK, children under five years are under the care of different professionals from different authorities. These authorities include local education authority, private nursery classes and schools and infant school classes. The various government departments, agencies and interest groups have their own different goals and aims, have different admission criteria, staffed with people with different training, different level of pay and different conditions of service, but they all work in their different capacities for the success of the education of the children. The different services are also of help to different groups of families and children. For instance, the parents of socially advantaged children, coming from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit from the services provided to their children. Thus is because the children have been over-represented in the local authority day nurseries, children’s centres as well as nursery schools. Inter-professional working is can also be well defined, drawing attention on the state sector. There have been important differences within the state sector in terms of the services provided. In most cases, day nurseries provide whole day care, and their administration is by staff having two years training. The state puts emphasis on the staff to provide proper social and emotional development for the children. The nursery classes and schools are mainly administered and staffed by education workers with qualifications in graduate teaching, and are often supported by nursery officers with two years training or a teaching assistant. This is meant to enhance the children learning by following a quality curriculum. The adoption of the tradition of inter-professional working and integrated services has produced a very significant contribution in the education system for the young children. The educators in their various capacities have on their turn accepted that they should care for and about the children left in their charge. On the other hand, most parents and professionals have the understanding that the care for a child involves the encouragement of early learning. The development of combined provisions has in the past met its aims of providing a more flexible and integrated service to children and the parents as well. Key workers can provide valuable assistance to mainstream schools so as to improve their inclusive practice and assist special schools in meeting the often complex, individual needs of their pupils. Improving on the tradition, new models of integrated children’s centre have come up as it will be discussed in the following section. Every child, whether disabled or normal has a right of education. Out of this understanding, there has been much advocacy across the world for education for all children. To provide education services for the disabled pupils, different agencies have expressed much interest for development of an effective coordination mechanism geared towards ensuring such children receive proper care while in the learning process. There is an increasing recognition that such care and coordination can bring with it positive impact on the children and their families. Unfortunately, the emphasis on the provision of proper education services for all has not been quite realized, despite the literature of care coordination in which education is a core provider. There lacks evidence of engagement of professionals in education and also the results of children and schools. Key workers in the education sector should maintain provision of care coordination and also maintain a good relationship with schools. For proper understanding of the inter-professional working for provision of integrated services, focus will be given on interactions with professionals from seven key worker services across England and Wales, parents and carers who were recipients of the services, as well as teachers in schools serving children supported by key workers. Using the information, it will be possible to establish disparities in education and various services provided by key workers, as well as the factors influencing their work with teachers. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of teachers themselves taking the role of key workers, it will be possible to evaluate the tradition of inter-professional working and draw conclusions on how the key workers can improve home-school relationships and facilitate the contribution of teachers in the inter-agency working. The measurement of the accuracy of the system can be attained by getting a clear understanding on how it enables mainstream schools meet the individual needs of all pupils including the ones with disabilities and also how the practice can further be improved. The models of integrated working Three models will be analysed in this paper. They include family intervention project, key worker and team around the child. 1.0: Family intervention project The discussion made here is based on the development policy on families experiencing multiple problems in England. The discussion is concerned with examining how processes and results are inter-linked in FIPs (Family Intervention Projects), and to learn from well-developed practice in promoting the health and wellbeing of family members (Boddy, Statham, Warwick, Hollingworth & Spencer 2012: 12). A family experiencing multiple problems poses specific challenges for policy makers, the society and service providers, as a result of the extent and complexity of their needs in terms of the costs and consequences of the difficulties they face. Their main complex disadvantages are often positioned within academic and policy discourses, something which shares a concern with social relationships and with the involvement of people in their childhood (Devaney & Spratt 2009: 635-641). Child welfare professionals need to be more focused on identifying children from such families and prioritising responses to the children (Sousa & Costa 2010: 444-454). Moreover, child maltreatment provides an important demonstration of the methods rising up children and the disadvantages accompanying it, which include poverty of the parents due to lack of employment, lack of proper maternal care, accompanied by alcohol and substance abuse. 1.1: Intervention for family with mental problems To counteract the above problems facing children with mental problems, there is a particular need for identification and intervention of families with multiple problems, and the most effective approaches have to be adopted (Boddy et al., 2012: 44). 2.0: Key worker On this part, discussion is made on the relationship existing between key worker services to promote inter-agency care coordination and schools in different parts in England and Wales. In those particular areas, key workers acted as a named person whom families of children with disabilities and complex needs could approach for advice and who also helped them in coordination of specialised services provided by agencies such as health, social services, education and voluntary services. The key workers play an important role in assisting the mainstream schools to improve their inclusive practice and also in assisting special schools to meet the often complex, individual needs of their pupils. This section will explore the various roles played by the key workers in schools and give a reflection of how the British government emphasises on international inclusion. 2.1: Inclusion/ integration of children with disabilities into mainstream schools There are strong educational, moral and social grounds for taking care of the children and young people having disabilities in the mainstream schools, as asserted by the declaration signed during a convention of 92 governments, including Britain. On the same vein, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child endorses moves towards inclusion. As a result, many countries have responded with an increased emphasis on the inclusion. However, this has been based on different historical and ideological backgrounds, political persuasions and priorities and economic contexts. As a result, progress has been slowed down and is faced with difficulties. For instance in Norway, Italy, Portugal and Spain pupils with special needs usually attend their local community schools (Webb, Greco, Sloper & Beecham 2008: 189-205). In 1997, Britain’s New-Labour came up with a commitment to social justice, with the central intention being to increase the education of such challenged children in the public schools. However, the complexity of seeking to balance the children’s rights to mainstream schools with their rights to appropriate and effective education suggests that the total inclusion may not be feasible. In England and Wales, however, extra resources have been provided in support of integration of pupils with special needs in the mainstream schools. This has been realized by providing ramps for wheelchairs as well as providing support personnel for the individual pupils. The updated Code of Practice specifies the criteria for identification of the levels of special educational need and the actions the schools should take, emphasizing on the monitoring of progress towards identified goals and provides a framework for partnership with parents, while at the same time setting out the procedures for drawing up a statement of the pupils with special needs. The legal document states a child’s special educational needs, stipulates the support needed and also the way of providing the required support (Webb et al., 2008: 189-205). Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) formed in 2001, advocates for anti-discrimination of children with disabilities. It has been revealed that while teachers’ attitude towards inclusive education is generally positive, it differs depending on the nature and severity of particular conditions. Teachers are more likely to include students with mild disabilities as compared to the ones with complex needs. 2.2: The role of a key worker One of his/her roles is to identify the needs of the child. To this effect, the key worker should be residing in the area of service, and he/she also needs to seek specialist care from more than one agency. He/she needs to have deep knowledge of the area for him/her to be able to identify a particular child in need. Additionally, the key worker acts as the main point of contact for the child and the family. Once the contact has been established between the key worker and the family of the child, the family will be relying fully on the key worker for the welfare of the child. The key worker also draws up and reviews a multi-agency care plan. He/she establishes the necessary links for the benefit of the child in need. From time to time, he/she contacts agencies he/she deems resourceful for the work (Webb et al., 2008: 194). Working with other professionals is another role of the key worker. This is necessary because the diagnoses and impairments of the children they support vary widely, with most children having more than one condition. The conditions may include epilepsy, cerebral palsy, autism and learning difficulties. For instance, key workers help teachers to understand a child’s family background and any particular events which may affect such a childs attitude to, and behaviour in school. Teachers recognise key workers to have a unique relationship with parents, and are likely to regard them as allies. They consider parents to be more willing to express their concerns and to confide in key workers than would be the case with teachers. He/she needs the services of other professionals like in the education, health and social setups all which helps him/her in carrying out the job of providing care for the child. He/she also provides information to families in addition to providing support for the families and helping them to access services. A key worker should be in a position to support the family right from the first care planning meeting to the end of his/her assignment with the family. The care plan used during the case studies ranged between 6 and 18 months, with designated key workers working with between 20 and 40 families and non-designated key workers working between one and five families in addition to their usual professional role (Webb et al., 2008: 189-205). 3.0: Team around the child In 1989, the House of Commons Education Select Committee on Educational Provision for the Under-Fives (HMSO, 1989) recommended a combined provision as the best way forward to meet the needs of families and children. Similar recommendations were made by the Rumbold Committee of Inquiry into the Educational Experiences Offered to Three-and-Four-Year-Olds. The two were formed to strengthen the National Association of Nursery Centres (NANC).Their aims were to promote high quality, fully integrated care and education in partnership with parents and carers. The association believed in the multi-disciplinary teams’ co-ordinating qualifications, experience and skills (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart 2004: 3). This favoured the developments in early childhood provision. 3.2: The role of qualified educators in the early years For the development of an effective multi-professional practice, leadership is crucial. The currently available pre-school services vary enormously in terms of staff training and in the services provided. Early years leaders’ qualifications can increase the quality of learning environment, according to Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales. Leaders with the highest early year’s qualifications will be found to dominate in the nursery schools and classes rather the care sector. The quality of the environment will increase with the level of qualification. Positive learning effects include social-behavioural and cognitive effects and both are most pronounced for the most disadvantaged and underachieving children (Sylva et al., 2004: 4). According to a study by EPPE (Effective Provision of Pre-School Education), there exists variations in the effectiveness of individual settings, which are often greater than variations between different types of provider. Children were found to benefit significantly more when they attended local authority combined centres. The study also found that settings with better qualified workers and especially those with a good proportion of trained teachers on the staff, showed higher quality provision, and their children made greater academic progress and better social/behavioural gains. In order to achieve better learning outcomes, it is essential to provide more and better-qualified educators, especially teachers with an appropriate early years training. Previously, many of the day care centres integrated some education with their childcare but EPPE found that the quality of the educational provisions made by the combined centres provided by local education authorities (LEAs) were higher (Sylva et al., 2004: 4-5). 3.3: Key workers and lead practitioners According to Rouse and Griffin (1992), younger children need intimate relationships with a significant, responsive adult. Learning centres can contribute a lot to the development of children. This is acquired when the educator takes full charge of his or her work of improving the quality of service provided. Primary educators, therefore, have a key responsibility of coordinating with the parents to ensure the full development of the child. This is very crucial, particularly in the event that a child protection issue arises or home visiting is needed. The role of the leading professional is well achieved someone from the service who has the most contact with the child on a day-to-day basis. The lead professional provides a bridge between the child and their family when various services are incorporated, and an integrated response is required. The lead professional should also ensure that the child and the family get appropriate interventions when needed. The interventions should be well planned, regularly reviewed and effectively delivered (Sylva et al., 2004: 12-13). Conclusion From the model on the team around the child, we can conclude that the quality of care and learning has a lot of importance on the development of a child and the trust developed by parents. A number of countries, especially in Northern Europe, the USA and Canada, are developing family-centred care coordination for facilitation of inter-agency working for the benefit of disabled children and young people. At present, many families are under increasing stress in both urban and rural areas, and the rise in poverty has meant that over four million young children in the UK live in poverty stricken households. Wherever the children’s centres are, the issue of quality is crucial. On the model of key workers, we can conclude that they provide an effective model of care coordination and facilitate the aspirations for inclusion embodied in UNESCO’s 1994 Salamanca Statement. Recent research on the implementation of care coordination initiatives, including key worker schemes, has neglected the role the role that education professionals can play in such schemes, has neglected the role that education professionals can play in such schemes, the factors promoting and constraining their participation and the resultant outcomes for both children and their families and teachers and schools. Reflecting on the model of family intervention, health is essential in the families. Health issues within families range from issues such as lack of basic needs to advanced physical and mental health problems. These issues are often compounded by related issues such as abuse of alcohol and drugs, and to some extent domestic violence. Such complexities call for a broad conceptualisation of health, which encompasses socio-emotional health and well-being. In future, there is dire need for families’ health needs to be met and well managed. Intensive family intervention can make a lot of positive impact on the way the child relates with teachers and fellow pupils. This way it will be easier to accord the child proper care since a health problem will be identified at the earliest stage and therefore attended before it affects the child. The Government has collaborated with institutions such as the Royal College of General Practitioners and authorities to research on how health reorganisation can be done and also to provide effective help for children already suffering or the ones with a potential to suffer a significant harm. All in all, the three models come to a common conclusion that the integrated work by various professionals will work to help children in need of coordinated care. Their skills will complement each other towards the desired result. Bibliography BODDY, J., STATHAM, J., WARWICK, I., HOLLINGWORTH, K., & SPENCER, G. (2012). Health Related Work in Family Intervention Projects. London: TCRU, Institute of Education. DAVIS, J. M. (2011). Integrated Childrens Services. SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446288306 DEVANEY, J., & SPRATT, T. (2009). Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(6), 635-641. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.12.003 FITZGERALD, D., & KAY, J. (2007). Working together in childrens services. Routledge. ISBN 1135394547, 9781135394547 MUNRO, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: final report, a child-centred system (Vol. 8062). The Stationery Office. ISBN 0101806221, 9780101806220 ROUSE, D., & GRIFFIN, S. (1992). Quality for the under threes. Contemporary issues in the early years: working collaboratively for children. SOUSA, L., & COSTA, T. (2010). The multi‐professional approach: front‐line professionals behaviours and interactions. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(4), 444-454. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00693.x SYLVA, K., MELHUISH, E., SAMMONS, P., SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD, I., & TAGGART, B. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: Final Report: A longitudinal study funded by the DfES 1997-2004. Institute of Education, University of London/Department for Education and Skills/Sure Start. WEBB, R., GRECO, V., SLOPER, P., & BEECHAM, J. (2008). Key workers and schools: meeting the needs of children and young people with disabilities. European journal of special needs education, 23(3), 189-205. DOI:10.1080/08856250802130459 Read More