Partnership in Health and Social Care - Coursework Example

PARTNERSHIP IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE By Location Contents Task Two: Information Pack 3 Analysis of Models ofPartnerships Applied in the Care Residence 3 Legislation, Policies, and Organizational Practices that Support Partnerships 4 How Differences in Working Practices and Policies Affect Collaborative Working 5 Task 3: Report 6 Executive Summary 6 Evaluation of Potential Outcomes of Partnership Working for Service Users, Professionals, and Organizations 7 Potential Barriers to Partnership Working in Health and Social Care Services 9 Strategies to Improve Outcomes for Partnership Working in Health and Social Care Services 10 Conclusion and Recommendations 10 Bibliography 12 Partnership in Health and Social Care Task Two: Information Pack The care residence has exhibited a commitment to developing partnerships in the delivery of both health and social care. The main purpose of adopting care integration has been to improve the quality of care delivered to different clients. Analysis of Models of Partnerships Applied in the Care Residence The care residence exhibits evidence of implementing a diverse range of models of partnerships. Worth noting is the fact that the institution has focused on developing different types of partnerships to promote more positive outcomes. For example, the care residence has implemented the multidisciplinary team model. Evidently, the model has the potential to bring together professional and experts from the social work profession as well as qualified healthcare providers to integrate the expertise and deliver quality care. The multidisciplinary approach serves to meet the diverse needs of a patient (Weissman, Olfson, Gameroff, Feder, & Fuentes 2001, p. 456). With different experts working in a collaborative manner, it becomes easier to meet the diverse needs of the client. The model emerged from the recognition that some clients do not only require a single professional. For this reason, a new trend was developed by bringing together professional from different fields (Larkin, Richardson, & Tabreman 2012, p. 200). Additionally, the care residence also exhibited strategic partnerships formed to promote the safety of the clients. Different organizations were working closely at a strategic level to formulate proper treatment and care plans that need to be delivered to different clients. In some cases, partnerships at the strategic level are of critical importance as it gives the experts a sense of direction on the best approach to promoting the health and wellbeing of a client. Evidently, the local authorities had taken a step of commissioning different service providers to collaborate effectively in the delivery of healthcare (Jagosh et al., 2012, p. 330). The National Health Service was working closely with the local authorities to ensure that clients received the care they deserved in conformity with their needs. The model of integrating services is provided by local authorities as the well as the NHS is a common aspect in England, which serves to ensure that partnerships are more effective. A close analysis of the funding provided to the care residence revealed that the pooled budgets were in place (Walshe, Caress, Chew-Graham, & Todd 2007, p. 52). The NHS was collaborating with other councils to fund and provide resources for the care residence. Worth noting is the fact that community services as well as NHS bodies were closely integrated into the care residence and were actively providing quality care. Legislation, Policies, and Organizational Practices that Support Partnerships England has outstanding sections of different Acts that support the formation of partnerships in the delivery of proper care to patients. These Acts outlines the need for different organizations, the National Health Service, as well as the local authorities to work closely in integrating care. The NHS Act of 2006, specifically section 75 supports the coming together of NHS bodies and England Local Authorities in funding the delivery of care relevant to different populations and clients (Valentijn et al 2015, p. 16). These bodies are allowed to develop pooled budgets or commission their staff members to work in a collaborative manner. Under the Act, strategic partnerships as well as integrated structures of different partners in health care are allowed. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act of 2007 urges and mandates primary care providers to collaborate with local authorities at both the strategic level and the level of care delivery in an effort to promote the wellbeing of the England society. The Act does support the formation of different types of partnerships between primary care providers and other relevant partners that can share a similar vision in promoting the wellbeing of the society. The Health and Social Care Bill is an additional legislation that fosters the formation of partnerships by different boards as well as local authorities in providing quality integrated care (Haywood 2015, p. 1070). Therefore, the England legislation clearly outlines the need for partnership formation at different levels with the sole objective of promoting the quality of care delivered (Carnwell & Buchanan 2009, p. 45). Moreover, the National Health Service has provided policy guidelines as well as preferred practices in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland that support partnership formation in care delivery. For example, the NHS Reform Act of 2004 in Scotland promotes the formation of partnerships within a community that work collaboratively in care delivery. In Wales, the National Health Services Act of 2006 has been quoted in support for care integration and joint commissioning to provide quality healthcare (Ford & Stepney 2003, p. 260). In Northern Ireland, the Health and Social Care Board plays a critical role in providing the relevant guidelines in care integration. The NHS provides policies that foster partnership formation. How Differences in Working Practices and Policies Affect Collaborative Working Partnerships in care delivery bring together professionals from different health institutions as well as experts from the social care field. Worth noting is the fact that the professional from different fields abide by the different practices and rely on different policies that determine their actions and decisions in care delivery. For this reason, partnerships compel individuals guided by different policies to embark on similar objectives and goals (Farrell 2001, p. 29). Without a doubt, the setting of partnership formations may be affected by such differences. For examples, the different policies, and practices may affect the decision-making process. Healthcare providers are guided by a different set of policies while social care providers conform to policies that define the social care profession. Although the policies from the different professions may place a priority on the needs of the patient, there may be differences in the rationality of decision-making (Rummery & Coleman 2003, p. 1780). For example, healthcare providers rely on the evidence-based practice as a critical policy. The same policy is not mandatory in social care provision. Such aspects may compromise the efficiency of partnerships, compelling the partners to handle several conflicts. However, the practices and policies of the different professionals may be utilized for outcomes that are more positive. If the experts on the ground understand the different policies and practices that guide their profession, they are more likely to develop an effective strategy for decision-making and problem solving. In all the cases, the professionals should ensure that client needs receive the priority. Task 3: Report Executive Summary The report provides an outline of the potential outcomes registered by collaborative partnerships in care delivery. Additionally, the report highlights some of the outstanding barriers that reduce the efficiency of partnerships in care delivery. Notably, such barriers need to be promptly addressed if the partnerships are to achieve their goals (Brett et al., 2014, p. 645). Therefore, the report highlights some of the strategies that can be adopted in overcoming the barriers that prevent effective partnerships. Evaluation of Potential Outcomes of Partnership Working for Service Users, Professionals, and Organizations A critical analysis of the outcomes of partnerships in care delivery reveals that the level of efficiency depends on several factors. For example, the model of partnership adopted and the procedures involved in the implementation may serve as some of the determining factors (Ehrlich, Kendall, Frey, Denton, & Kisely 2015, p. 83). Moreover, the type of organizations and professionals working together and their level of collaborative efforts serve to determine the outcomes. In many cases, partnerships comprise of professionals with different working practices. However, the professionals must adopt a definitive standard of working within the partnership. The adopted standards determine the effectiveness of the partnership (Petch, Cook, & Miller 2013, p. 630). In the case of service users, they benefit immensely from positive health outcomes. Partnerships in care delivery to ensure that service users receive quality health care as well as the relevant social support. Service users with diverse needs do not need to seek for help in different places. They can benefit from the existing partnerships because different professionals are working together in developing an effective care plan. For this reason, service users report rapid assessments from different professionals, ensuring that the diagnostic procedure occurs at a faster rate. Many of the service users have reported that they benefit immensely from the proactive nature of care delivered that take into consideration all the factors affecting an individual’s life (Miller, Whoriskey, & Cook 2008, p. 25). Many of the service users only need to access a single care delivery point but receive a diverse range of benefits. The fact that different organisations work together, service users benefit from an open channel of communication between different service providers. Service users also pay less, but benefit immensely because of the collaborations. Many studies have served to provide evidence that partnerships are more cost-effective. In the case of professionals, higher levels of satisfactions are evident. When experts from different field work together and recognize the clinical outcomes of their services, they are more likely to be satisfied (Cramm, Phaff, & Nieboer 2013, p. 213). Working together creates a new platform for overcoming challenges that would otherwise compromise the level of satisfaction. As long as there is clarity in job description within the partnership, the professionals are more likely to be satisfied. Additionally, professionals in partnerships have an opportunity to share ideas and knowledge. Partnerships also present a new platform for teamwork, fostering communication and interpersonal skills of the professionals (Millar & Hall 2013, p. 936). Organizations that form such partnerships are more likely to achieve their goals. For example, the active collaboration of the NHS as well as the social services sector organizations has served to promote the achievement of goals for all the organizations involved. Worth noting is the fact that the organizations involved incur lesser costs when working in partnerships. Potential Barriers to Partnership Working in Health and Social Care Services Although partnerships are intended to be successful, they face certain barriers that limit the level of efficiency. One of the outstanding barriers emanates from organizational issues. Notably, the different organizations coming together have different objectives. Therefore, the differences in objectives may prevent any positive collaboration as the professionals are pursuing different goals. Organizational visions, missions, and agenda may also introduce a new set of barriers. With different strategies, the organizations may be compelled to pursue different interests (McPherson et al., 2004, p. 1540). For example, when organizations are funding care delivery together, they may face difficulties when prioritizing different aspects of care because of their varying visions. In many cases, partnerships may fail because of the lack of a proper description of roles and responsibilities. Partnerships also face communication barriers. Notably, the partnerships comprise of professionals from different organizations who need to foster open and two-way communication channels if they are to function effectively. In many cases, there are delays in the formation of such communication channels a factor that leads to negative outcomes in care delivery (Cooke, Ariss, Smith, & Read 2015, p. 10). The level of information sharing between the professionals also introduces certain barriers. In a multidisciplinary team, information sharing determines the speed at which care is delivered. If the professional hold back critical information from each other, service users may suffer. In other cases, failure to actively involve the professional sin partnership formation introduces new barriers. The lack of proper management of the partnership leads to numerous conflicts delaying care delivery (Marmot, Allen, Bell, Bloomer, & Goldblatt 2012, p. 1020). The differences in practices, policies, and professional philosophies also limit the efficiency of partnerships. Failure to carry out joint training of all the professionals may also limit the level of efficiency. Strategies to Improve Outcomes for Partnership Working in Health and Social Care Services If partnerships in care delivery by both healthcare providers and social care experts are to be effective, several strategies need to be implemented. The partners need to define with clarity the objectives of the partnerships as well as the roles and responsibilities of all the professionals involved. Such a strategy will serve to eliminate organizational barriers. Moreover, the partners should develop an effective communication strategy in the early stages of partnership formation. The proactive move of developing an effective communication strategy has the potential to promote efficiency (Lymbery 2006, p. 1126). The partners should also allocate adequate resources for the partnership in the early stages of planning to promote constant care delivery. There is also a salient need to develop information sharing mechanisms between the organizations involved and the professionals forming the multidisciplinary team. Implementing a proper management strategy of the partnership will serve to minimize conflicts and promote a faster process of problem-solving (Lester et al., 2008, p. 494). Organizations forming partnerships should understand their different professional issues and focus on utilizing them for the benefit of service users. These strategies can serve to ensure that partnerships register outcomes that are more positive. Conclusion and Recommendations Evidently, partnerships in healthcare delivery by the NHS Boards and social care organizations can have positive outcomes for service users, the professionals, as well as he organizations. However, the partners need to take proactive measures of overcoming the potential barriers that may limit the functionality of partnerships (Collins & McCray 2012, p. 138). Therefore, it is recommended that organisations that need to form partnerships should develop mutual understanding and a culture of honesty and transparency with the primary goal of delivering quality healthcare. Bibliography Brett, J, Staniszewska, S, Mockford, C, Herron-Marx, S, Hughes, J, Tysall, C, & Suleman, R 2014, Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review, Health Expectations, 17, 5, pp. 637-650, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Carnwell, R, & Buchanan, J 2009, Effective Practice In Health, Social Care And Criminal Justice : A Partnership Approach, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Collins, F, & McCray, J 2012, Partnership working in services for children: use of the common assessment framework, Journal Of Interprofessional Care, 26, 2, pp. 134-140, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Cooke, J, Ariss, S, Smith, C, & Read, J 2015, On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap, Health Research Policy & Systems, 13, 1, pp. 1-11, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Cramm, J, Phaff, S, & Nieboer, A 2013, The role of partnership functioning and synergy in achieving sustainability of innovative programmes in community care, Health & Social Care In The Community, 21, 2, pp. 209-215, Consumer Health Complete - EBSCOhost, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Ehrlich, C, Kendall, E, Frey, N, Denton, M, & Kisely, S 2015, Consensus building to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness: a qualitative outcome mapping study, BMC Health Services Research, 15, p. 83, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Farrell, G 2001, From tall poppies to squashed weeds: why dont nurses pull together more?, Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 35, 1, pp. 26-33, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Ford, D, & Stepney, P 2003, Hospital discharge and the citizenship rights of older people: will the UK become a test-bed for Eastern Europe?, European Journal Of Social Work, 6, 3, pp. 257-272, Social Work Abstracts, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Haywood, KS 2015, Patient and public engagement in health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research: what is important and why should we care? Findings from the first ISOQOL patient engagement symposium, Quality Of Life Research, 24, 5, pp. 1069-1076, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Jagosh, J, Macaulay, A, Pluye, P, Salsberg, J, Bush, P, Henderson, J, Sirett, E, Wong, G, Cargo, M, Herbert, C, Seifer, S, Green, L, & Greenhalgh, T 2012, Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice, The Milbank Quarterly, 90, 2, pp. 311-346, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Larkin, M, Richardson, E, & Tabreman, J 2012, New partnerships in health and social care for an era of public spending cuts, Health & Social Care In The Community, 20, 2, pp. 199-207, Consumer Health Complete - EBSCOhost, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Lester, H, Birchwood, M, Tait, L, Shah, S, England, E, & Smith, J 2008, Barriers and facilitators to partnership working between Early Intervention Services and the voluntary and community sector, Health & Social Care In The Community, 16, 5, pp. 493-500, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Lymbery, M 2006, United We Stand? Partnership Working in Health and Social Care and the Role of Social Work in Services for Older People, British Journal Of Social Work, 36, 7, pp. 1119-1134, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Marmot, M, Allen, J, Bell, R, Bloomer, E, & Goldblatt, P 2012, WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide, Lancet (London, England), 380, 9846, pp. 1011-1029, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. McPherson, M, Weissman, G, Strickland, B, van Dyck, P, Blumberg, S, & Newacheck, P 2004, Implementing community-based systems of services for children and youths with special health care needs: how well are we doing?, Pediatrics, 113, 5 Part 2, pp. 1538-1544, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Millar, R, & Hall, K 2013, Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance Measurement, Public Management Review, 15, 6, pp. 923-941, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Miller, E, Whoriskey, M, & Cook, A 2008, Outcomes for users and carers in the context of health and social care partnership working: from research to practice, Journal Of Integrated Care, 16, 2, pp. 21-28, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Petch, A, Cook, A, & Miller, E 2013, Partnership working and outcomes: do health and social care partnerships deliver for users and carers?, Health & Social Care In The Community, 21, 6, pp. 623-633, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Rummery, K, & Coleman, A 2003, Primary health and social care services in the UK: progress towards partnership?, Social Science & Medicine, 56, pp. 1773-1782, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Valentijn, P, Vrijhoef, H, Ruwaard, D, de Bont, A, Arends, R, & Bruijnzeels, M 2015, Exploring the success of an integrated primary care partnership: a longitudinal study of collaboration processes, BMC Health Services Research, 15, 1, pp. 1-18, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Walshe, C, Caress, A, Chew-Graham, C, & Todd, C 2007, Evaluating partnership working: lessons for palliative care, European Journal Of Cancer Care, 16, 1, pp. 48-54, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Weissman, M, Olfson, M, Gameroff, M, Feder, A, & Fuentes, M 2001, A comparison of three scales for assessing social functioning in primary care, The American Journal Of Psychiatry, 158, 3, pp. 460-466, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 July 2015. Read More