Successful Partnership Working is Everyones Business - Literature review Example

?Successful Partnership Working is Everyone’s Business In a world that seems to be getting smaller due to globalization efforts, collaboration amongst people seems to be prevalent. People from all walks of life, from different fields come together for common purposes and work towards the same goals. This paper will show that indeed, “Successful partnership working is everyone’s business”, especially in important causes such as addressing the needs of children and young people with learning disabilities. Beresford & Bransfield (2006) have noted that there is emerging interest in developing partnerships in health and social care with regards to policy areas and different professional groups, research, policy and practice and also between the various organizational structures that exist within the field of health, social care and other affiliated institutions. Especially in the English context, health and social care partnerships have become a central feature of government policy as well as the development of a wide range of activities at the local level (Glasby et al. 2011). The previous New Labour government committed to ‘joined-up solutions’ to ‘joined up problems’. Due to the strong advocacy of central government for partnership working, so many other different partnership arrangement have been designed such as “Care Trusts, use of the Health Act flexibilities, joint appointments, and the use of staff , secondments/joint management arrangements, appointments, and the use of staff secondments/joint management arrangements” (Glasby et al., 2011). The question now is if these partnership working collaborations are effective for the people they serve. Learning Disabilities One area of concern that necessitates partnership working is the provision of services for individuals with learning disabilities since each person in society is considered valuable regardless of his or her abilities. Usually, learning disabilities are detected and diagnosed during childhood. At that time, people and agencies already work together to help the child in need. Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on each children’s service authority to make arrangements to promote cooperation between itself and relevant partner agencies to improve the wellbeing of children in their area. “This will help to ensure children and families have prompt access to the services (universal, targeted and specialist) they require, recognizing the range and diversity of their needs and strengths in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for children; ensure other agencies to whom the duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare applies are aware of the local authority’s responsibilities including how those staff undertaking social services functions will respond to referrals regarding a child’s safety and welfare.” (HM Government, 2007, p. 37). That means, multi-agency working should work well for the sake of the learning-impaired children. As these children with learning disabilities grow older, they still need support with their condition in order to function well. Kool Care, an inter-professional organization provides intensive health, social care, support and advocacy for young people aged 16-25 years with mild to moderate learning difficulties. This service helps these young people to be more independent while optimizing their health and well-being despite their learning disabilities. The young people come to the community facility three times a week to avail of its services. Staff who work together in helping them include learning disability nurses, social workers, youth workers, health promotion advisors speech and language therapists and support workers. Due to the demand for this service, there is now a waiting list of clients with learning disabilities eager to avail of such service. In order to plan how partnership working will be able to serve all the clients of Kool Care even those in the waiting list, it is necessary to understand the context of partnership working or even multi-agency working. Partnership Working The complexity of learning disabilities especially for this age group of teenagers and young adults necessitates partnership working in order to address all their needs. Huxham & Vangen (2005) define partnership working as ‘Any situation in which people are working across organisational boundaries towards some positive end’ (p. 4). Partnership working brings more effective provision of a wider range of services that meets and addresses the needs of clients as well as benefits the professionals involved in the partnership (Tait & Shah 2007). The Audit Commission (1998) describes joint working arrangements of partners as independent bodies who agree to cooperate to achieve a common goal. They get to share relevant information, jointly agree on a programme often with common staff or resources and share the same risks and rewards. Foster (2002) explains that “collaborating local authorities will seek to align and incorporate strategic objectives while retaining flexibility and influence over outcomes and assuring value for money” (p. 21). This implies that the vision shared by the collaborating agencies call for an alignment of their business culture and aspirations for comparable levels of service quality that entails commitment to openness between these agencies (Foster, 2002). The Audit Commission (1998) also identified five main reasons why agencies come together to develop partnerships. One is to deliver coordinated services for targeted individuals. In the case of Kool Care, the clients there need coordinated services to help them with their learning disabilities by addressing the specific need of managing the disability while transitioning to more productive endeavors such as further schooling or finding a job. Another reason for partnership is to tackle “wicked” issues or those with complicated matters that cannot be resolved by one agency alone. In learning disabilities, teachers of regular education are not enough in supporting the special needs of the individuals with learning difficulties. They would need to work with specialists in the field of special education to fully support the individual with learning disabilities. A third reason for partnership working is to reduce the impact of organizational fragmentation as well as minimize the impact of any consequence resulting from it. For example, the regular school system has failed to recognize the dyslexic condition of a student and labeled him as a slow learner. Partnership working may mitigate the damage already created in the individual by providing interventions to help him read and comprehend better with special strategies. The fourth reason for partnership working is to bid for or gain access to new resources. Working together with someone from a different discipline exposes one to new paradigms and resources used in addressing the issue of the client. Finally, partnership working is effective in meeting a statutory requirement. The government orders some local agencies statutory duties to work together. Joint consultative committees are assigned to work on certain state issues and concerns. Just how does partnership working or multi-agency services work? In the case of collaboration for the benefit of individuals with learning disabilities Hughes & Rycus (1998) explain that when an individual with a learning disability avails of multi-agency services, a social worker helps him source the services he needs for his disability in the medical and educational systems. Communication and cooperation among various professionals and agencies ensue in addressing the individual’s needs. Joint work by representatives of different agencies has been proven to accelerate the progress of interventions of young people with learning disabilities and ultimately contribute much to their well-being. Educators, therapists, psychologists, speech pathologists, physicians, social workers and even government officials join hands in the care and education of these young people to ensure their optimum growth and development. Partnership Working as a Policy The English Department of Health gave its statement of critique of failing agencies in partnership working. It clarified its rationale for it (Department of Health, 2000). It warns against agencies that are more concerned about boundaries and the needs of their own organization rather than the needs of the people they serve with other agencies. It is disgruntled about “poor organization, poor practice, poor use of taxpayers’ money and that such is unacceptable” (p. 3). Effective partnerships should work hard to provide better services so they produce better outcomes for the people they serve as well as their families, thereby contributing to better quality of life. Health care professionals follow core principles in their practice. For example, nurses and midwives have four main core principles of the code for their profession namely: • Make the care of people your first concern, treating them as individuals and respecting their dignity. • Work with others to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of those in your care, their families and carers, and the wider community. • Provide a high standard of practice and care at all times. • Be open and honest, act with integrity and uphold the reputation of your profession. (NMC, 2009, p. 12) Under the second principle fall the guidelines for partnership working. Health care professionals usually work as part of a team. Being so, they should be aware of their own roles and responsibilities as well as those of other people they work with in the provision of health and social care. They should also cooperate within teams and show respect for the expertise and contributions of their colleagues even if they are from other disciplines. These colleagues should be accorded with fair and non-discriminatory treatment. Should anyone of the members of the team is not working well with the group or puts someone at risk of harm, then he or she should be reported to the proper authorities (NMC 2009). Benefits of Partnership Working A review of school-based interventions in the UK to enhance children’s and youth’s well-being suggests that schools can play a valuable role in providing a base for partnership working and multi-agency support for children and families within local communities (Pugh & Stratam, 2006). Pettit (2003) reports measurable improvement of behavior and better peer relationships of children and youth helped by both school staff and child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Improved academic attainment of the children and acquisition of new learning skills were likewise reported by the workers. Service practitioners find fulfillment working in multi-agency settings because they get to interact with other practitioners, sometimes from other disciplines, giving them different perspectives and a more holistic view of the individuals they serve. Benefits to staff working in multi-agency partnership work settings include: professional development: opportunities to share expertise and learn from colleagues through discussion of casework and joint delivery of interventions. In addition, there is less replication between the different partners due to their own specializations. For example, an occupational therapist collaborating with a speech therapist will not have any conflict of interest due to their different fields of specialization. Thus, it produces greater understanding of their own practices apart from their partners’ practice (NFER, 2004). Partners also gain much professional development and career progression opportunities; more involvement in community development; improved awareness of different services and changed public perceptions of service providers (NFER 2004). Possible Barriers to Partnership Working Partnership working is not without its challenges. As early as 1962, Kurren has already identified some challenges in partnership working and inter agency collaboration. Some of these are associated with personnel. One major obstacle to interagency joint planning is its shortage. Volunteers are difficult to recruit and without adequate personnel, it is virtually impossible to consider joint planning activities of various agencies. There is a high degree of competition in the recruitment of personnel by several agencies having similar advocacies and cooperative planning among public and voluntary organizations is practically nonexistent (Kurren, 1962). Another identified challenge in collaboration is the informal nature of relationships among agencies. Many agreements reached between agencies may have been established on a personality basis rather than through formal structures or abiding by the agencies’ plan of service (Kurren, 1962). The informal nature of the agreements that have evolved over a period of time may not seem to be structured or well organized. Having people from different backgrounds, qualifications and disciplines work together entails flexibility and adaptability to others. However, this cannot be expected from everyone. Being so, conflicts are bound to arise. Partners bring with them their professional training and credibility. When they become part of a multi-agency team, they may use this as a shield of security which may protect them when they are threatened. However, they need to shift the paradigm they have been accustomed to “reinterpret their professional role against a backdrop of changed expectations about how professionals should operate in a group.” (HM Government 2007. P.48) or else, they may suffer from anxiety that parts of their job can be done by others who may not be as qualified as they are. On the other hand, the unqualified support workers may likewise feel inadequate in carrying out their jobs if their more qualified colleagues question their abilities. Alignment of motivation across political divisions may be more difficult as many politicians may be cautious of arrangements transferring control to a joint body or even a rival authority where priorities may be identified to be different (Foster, 2002). There is also a risk that control of joint projects may be proportionate to the amount of funding contributed by each authority, making smaller authorities lose control of their own provisions. At the same time, good service providers may not want to risk their high standards and good name by sharing projects with weaker counterparts (Foster, 2002). Cultural barriers may also restrict partnership working from achieving common goals and maximizing productivity. Cross-cultural issues must be resolved in order to have a smoother flow of transactions between parties. Attitudinal factors usually serve as impediments to the effectiveness of multi-agency working. This may be exhibited by a reluctance to 'step out of the box' and work in new and flexible ways to support individuals with learning disabilities. Practitioners must remember that their commitment in reaching their shared goals takes priority over their preferences in staying in their comfort zones. If this basic philosophy and discipline is not established, then it becomes a huge barrier to the success of the whole team. Having unclear and undefined roles is also another barrier to success. The risk of overlapping with some agencies taking more responsibility than is appropriate is great that ultimately, a sense of injustice may surface. Another challenge for partnership working is information-sharing. Necessary information should be shared with other concerned members of the team if it would directly affect the clients involved. If transparency is not maintained within the multi-agency setting, then doubts and malicious intentions may bring about dark clouds in an otherwise bright vision of success. Recipients of services from multi-agency partnerships have been disappointed with such barriers that impend service-user networking and dissemination of service-user knowledge. It further exacerbates “inequalities of power, status and resources” (Beresford & Bransfield 2006). Rummery (2003) identified the biggest barrier for partnership working getting collaborative projects to take off successfully and sustaining them are failure to plan properly. In terms of planning, all bases should be covered including government and local authorities (including National Health Services) and take into account their own “planning cycles, priorities, management structures and accountability arrangements” (Rummery 2003, p. 205). An example is the accountability of social services departments. Some may be accountable to councillors who are locally elected while some NHS counterparts are not, hence, funding on services may be from different sources. Such differences should be made clear to all collaborating partners from the onset since they can be a source of conflict and delay in the future. Another consideration is that social service departments and some primary care organizations are rarely co-terminous, so the differences in the activity of terms can also be a challenge in the smooth flow of operations of the partnership. In order to promote more successful collaborations, what are important are open and effective communication and understanding as well as ensuring that all stakeholders are truly committed to the project (Rummery, 2003). Partnership Working for Kool Care Foster (2002) emphasizes that in developing collaborative relationships, the skills required are “people skills”. Members of the collaborative team need to be able to understand another’s point of view, to compromise and seek a joint solution to problems, sharing information and ideas openly without malice. This goes for everyone across the board. People skills need to be developed at all levels within authorities and identified in the management teams of potential partners. Foster (2002) adds that the best authorities will be open enough to consult widely and early with stakeholders and potential suppliers as to their concerns and on their part, use effective collaborative tools in assuring the quality of service they provide. Partnership working entails a lot of changes and challenges. Individuals and agencies called to join the team should perceive their role in terms of outcomes rather than their professional backgrounds and boundaries and commit to the causes they have been summoned for. In this current case, they are advocates of individuals with learning disabilities. Serving these individuals to the best of their ability is their contribution to shaping an individual who may someday make a huge difference in the world, because they had reliable partners who supported them fully in the past. References Audit Commission (1998) A Fruitful Partnership: Effective Partnership Working. Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales Beresford, P. & Branfield, F. (2006) Developing inclusive partnerships: user-defined outcomes, networking and knowledge ?a case study, Health & Social Care in the Community 14 (5): 436-444 Department of Health (2000) Partnership in action: new opportunities for joint working between health and social services—a discussion document. London: Department of Health. Foster, D. (2002) Inter agency collaboration, The PFI Report, www.pfi-online.com Hart, D., Mele-McCarthy, J., Pasternack, R. H., Zimbrich, K., & Parker, D. R. (2004). Community college: A pathway to success for youth with learning, cognitive, and intellectual disabilities in secondary settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 54–66. HM Government (2007) “Statutory guidance on making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004” Every Child Matters Change for Children. London: Department for Education and Skills Hughes, R. C., & Rycus, J. S. (1998). Developmental disabilities in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press. Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005) Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. Routledge. Kurren, O. (1962), Inter-Agency Joint Planning and Collaboration — Fact and Fiction, Exceptional Children, November,1962 Learning Disabilities (n.d.) Retrieved on May 1, 2013 from http://ohp.nasa.gov/cope/a_ld.htm NfER (2004) Qualitative Study of the Early Impact of On Track. Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2009) Guidance on professional conduct for nursing and midwifery students. Retrieved on May 14, 2013 from http://www.nmc-uk.org/Documents/Guidance/NMC-Guidance-on-professional-conduct-for-nursing-and-midwifery-students.pdf Pettit, B. (2003) Effective Joint Working between CAMHS and Schools. London: DfES Research Report 412 Pugh, G. and Statham, J. (2006). ‘Innovative approaches in schools and community programmes.’ In: McAuley, C., Pecora, P.J. and Rose, W. (Eds) (2006) Enhancing the Well-being of Children and Families through Effective Interventions: International Evidence for Practice . London: Jessica Kingsley. Rummery K. (2003) “Social Work and Multi-disciplinary Collaboration in Primary Health Care” (Chapt. 10) in Weinstein, J., Colin Whittington & T. Leiba (eds.) Collaboration in Social Work Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Shalaway, L. (1998) Learning to Teach. New York: Scholastic Professional Books Tait, L. & Shah, Sl (2007) Partnership working: a policy with promise for mental healthcare, Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 13: 261-271 Read More