Working For Children With Disabilities Social Work Essay

operative For Children With Disabilities Social Work Essaythither has been a spectacular increase in the survival rate of small fryren born with obscure health fearfulness leases (Carpenter 2003). There be get word concerns as a number (B privationburn, Spencer and Read 2010). According to the definition of the Disability Discrimination come (DDA) 7.3% (CI 6.9, 7.7) of peasantren in the UK atomic number 18 utter as having a disability. Disability patterns differ surrounded by sexes, with a higher rate overall in boys than girls and possibly much problematicaly with learning and remembering ability, chat, concentration and physical coordination in boys.Children with disabilities fancy themselves in dissimilar situations to those of non- alter concourse. This situation for incapacitate children exists in particular caboodle much(prenominal) as in minority ethnic stems, black/ motley marriages and single-parent families. These children demand support from unlik e professionals and agencies. It is vital for them to have effective multi-agency work. Currently, thither is little evidence around the effect of multiagency work with disable children and their families.(Sloper 1999) highlighted in her paper the unmet require for families who have children with disabilities counselling and support to have reading and guidance close to receiptss the condition of the child and how to deal with and champion the child equipment supply financial support with housing and transportation, and having breaks from fretfulness like respite lot as practical support.This paper will ingeminate the egresscome of an evaluation of both multidisciplinary and multiagency workss with handicapped children and their families.Background to Multiagency Working and Multidisciplinary WorkingMultiagency on the job(p) is eentially ab come in bringing in concert practiti iodinr with a frame of kill to work acro their traditional ervice boundarie. Thi i pres ently regarded a critical to the effective proviion of children ervice. A local anaesthetic authoritie re-organie to offer education, ocial care, and omemagazine health proviion,( Cronin 2005) within a ingle children ervice department or children trut, three sham for multiagency workss are emergingMultiagency panels or ne iirk the team well-nigh the child practitioner remain employed by their home agencie but if meet on a regular bai to dicu children and young community with additional necessity who would benefit from multi-agency input.Multiagency teams made up of practitioner econded or recruited into the team, making it a more formal sight than a multi-agency panel. The team work with univeral ervice to upport familie and chool a well a individual children and young people.Integrated ervice which bring together a range of proviion, uually under one roof, uch as in school or in an early years scarting. Staff work in a co-ordinated way to addre the bring of children, young people and familie providing ervice uch a all-year-round, incluive education care and peronal evolution opportunitie for children and young people and pecialit upport for children and families.The idea of profeional and agencie works together i non red-hot. There are some proviion in the Children Act of 1989 which require different authoritie to co-operate and to conult with one some another(prenominal) enchantment multi-agency upport i a feature of the pecial educational need framework, et up spare-time activity the Education Act of 1981, (Nelson 2002)particularly in sexual relation to tatutory aement and tatementing. ince the hollow political science came into power in 1997 a number of initiative uch a ure tart and Connexion have been put in place to labor effective joined up multi-agency working to upport vulnerable children.However, the recommendation which followed the Laming interrogation into the death of Victoria Climbi prompted a renewed determination to g et ervice working together and in 2004 a new Children Act established a duty on agencie to co-operate with each other to protect and meliorate the last of children. Thi ha reulted in ome of the following developmentThe introduction of major change to the children workforce a comprehenive curriculum for training all practitioner who work with children i currently being developed by government. part thi i not going to nark all profeional beledgeable roughly diabilitie uch a autim, they hould have the baic kill to recognie a poible developmental delay, be able to upport parent emotionally and, (McCarton 2006)crucially, to know when to ignpot parent on for more expert advice. Working with children i a mainstay component of the core curriculum which recognie, for example, that ome children do not communicate verbally and that practitioner need to adapt their discourse to the need and abilitie of the child or young peron.New way of haring culture are being developed to avoid gem ination, children lipping through the net and exceive bureaucracy. The government ha developed ContactPoint, a entropybae holding tuition on every child in England from birth to 18 year of age, poibly longer for children who are diabled or looked after. With greater electronic recording of peronal cultivation reulting in wider acce in ome cae, iue of confidentiality are of concern to diabled people. Cro-profeional legal guidance et out how information haring hould cash in ones chips and cover confidentiality in ome depth.The Common Aement Framework (CAF) which suffer to provide a more tandardied and preventive admission to identifying need and making proviion and which operate acro profeional boundarie has been developed. ome children may be identified a having a poible disability, such a cerebral Palsy, via this route (Eicher 2003). Every local authority (except the bet performing four-spot tar authoritie) ha to have a Children and Young mess Plan (CYPP) focued on give a way local integration of children ervice in location uch a protracted chool and children centre. Familie with children on the autim pectrum hould find it eaier to acce ervice a a reult and hould be conulted about ervice they would like to ee better and developed. The CYPP cover all local authority ervice affecting children and young people including early year and extended chool and out-of-chool child care, education, youth ervice, children ocial ervice. It alo include ervice provided by relevant youth jutice agencie and health ervice for children and young people, including child and adolecent mental health.Models of multiagency workingThree different models of joint working have been identified by Watson et al. 2002 multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary working. These categories are based on some(prenominal) experts working together effectively in a particular service context, linked with family requirements in a holistic approach (table 1).Multidisciplina ry working center single agencies made up of individual professionals (Watson et al. 2002). For instance, a health visitor, a physical therapist, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, and a hospital consultant may work together within a health agency. Professionals work separately to assess the child, and as a consequence they pee-pee separate documents so they do not share their goals and aims, which makes it very rocky to assess the child as a whole. Their care is think on the childs health care of necessity only without involving other needs such as educational, emotional and social needs. There is a low tantamount(predicate) partnership approach with the family and low parley with other agencies usually family members bewilder on this quality.The support model, interdisciplinary working, with different agencies and their professionals working together by assessing the child and his/her family needs separately and then meeting together to set goals according to their findings. This model is focused on the childs needs more than the familys needs.The one-third model is the more holistic approach and preferred by families, transdisciplinary working, where different agencies work together by sharing goals, knowledge, tasks and responsibilities. This model is focused on a primary provider, the find out worker, who is responsible for delivery of an unified class for the child, and family care. Moreover, for the most essential part is that families are treated equally.Both (Sloper 2004, and Carney 2009) agree that the transdisciplinary working model in the area of multiagency key working is the only way of integrated working which has favourable outcomes for disabled children and their families. However, thither is not so much evidence that could show what typewrite of model is employ in approach pattern. Sloper et al. 2004 also cited in her paper Cameron (2000) and Atkinson (2002) regarding other models most models focused on affinitys among professionals and how multiagency working was organised. This may contribute to better communication but does not necessarily result in the family receiving a twin(a) service.(Table 1 ,Watson et al. 2002)MethodElectronic resources (MedLine, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, PubMed, google Scholar) were used and the focus was on be appraises, in particular qualitative studies and good theatrical role reviews.Key courseThe seek terms were multidisciplinary working and disabled children, multiagency working and disabled children, and multiagency and multidisciplinary and disabled children.PROPOSED METHOD OF CRITICAL APPRAISALI have chosen twain qualitative studies (Watson, Abbott and Townsley 2007) which help to explore the mend of multiagency/multidisciplinary working on disabled children and their families.CRITICAL APPRAISALTo comminutedly adjudicate the evidence provided by these papers, which are qualitative studies, it is assume to use the critical appr aisal checklist provided by the critical appraisal programme, from the Public health Resource Unit, Institute of Health Science, Oxford which was accessed from http//www.phru.nhs.uk . The 10 questions are adapted from Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Users take on to medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994 272 (17) 1367-1371. The case for choosing this is be incur the two studies are qualitative studies.1st studyAuthorsWatson, D., D. Abbott R. TownsleyTitle produce care to me, too Lessons from involving children with compound healthcare needs in explore about multi-agency run.PublisherChild Care, Health Development, (2007) 33, 90-5.2nd studyAuthorsCarter, B., J. Cummings L. cooperTitleAn exploration of best put in multi-agency working and the have it offs of families of children with complex health needs. What works well and what needs to be done to cleanse practice for the future?PublisherJournal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 527-39. 2007)10 questions of qua litative look CASP tool(Watson et al. 2007)(Carter et al.2007)Was in that respect a ready statement of the aims of the search?Yes, there was a take a leak statement of the aimsto discover the positivistic impact of multiagency working on families with children who have complex health care needs.to examine the involvement of complex health care needs children in multiagency serve.Yes, there was a clear statement of the aimsto create a connection mingled with children, families and people who work with complex needs children.To discover best multiagency working practice with families and people who work with complex needs children, to find out what is good practice.Generate opportunities, joinings and guidance plans which will improve multiagency working practice in the future.Is a qualitative methodology set aside?Yes, there was appropriate methodology disabled children who are dependent on medical technology and their carer or families.Yes, there was appropriate methodol ogy20 Families were targeted (mothers fathers children with complex needs).People working with complex needs children from different agencies.Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? period spent with 18 children young people antique between 2 -15 yrs, 7 girls and 11 boys (from 6 multiagency run in the UK).Interviews with 115 professionals in the 6 multiagency services about their experience in multiagency services.25 families visited with parents/carers interviewed about their experience with multiagency services.Appreciative interviews with participants lasted between (40 transactions 3 hours)IndividualFace to faceAudio- tapedNarrative interviews depleted group workshops (dreaming design). every participants were invited.Workshops of consent (design and destiny).All participants were invited to attend 5 consensus workshops across 2 counties.Final synthesis.Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?The authors targe ted6 services chosen from 26 which presented the highest components of multiagency working.18 children young people aged between 2 -15 yrs, 7 girls and 11 boys with a range of cognitive abilities, from severe to no learning difficulties.The majority had cognitive impairment.3 children without open learning difficulties.The explanation of chosen participants is explained above.18 parents/carers agreed to take part.2 young people were recruited, one male and one female to help the authors with their meetings and email communication.The authorsTargeted 20 families 10 families from Burnley / East Lancashire, and 10 from the southeasterly Lakes area, to reflect two different health economies within the area served by Cumbria and Lancashire Workforce Development Confederation (WDC), UK.Recruited people working with complex needs children from different agencies as much as possible.Used purposive sample distribution (families), and sampling of snowballing (professionals).All the targete d population completed the interviews.Also agencies and disciplines were targeted.Were the entropy pile up in a way that addressed the research issue?Time spent / interviews / disposable camera for the purpose of taking photos of all the important people.Informal, adapted, enjoyable and relaxed sessions to meet the needs of each child, lasting for an hour.Small gifts + a 10 pound voucher for taking part.Developed topic guide which coveredThings I like, liaisons I dislike, who lives at home with me, school, friends, adults who helped me, short breaks, difficult things to do, and happiness moments.Drawing on big paper (the child interviewer sometimes). cover a sheet of simple faces showing different expressions, to choose which one is closest to the child or young person.Asking about sightedness professionals, also about having a designated worker, referring to key worker by number depending on the childs cognitive ability.Attride-Stirlings approach to data collection is to codew hat is said in the interviews.( this was used instead of Appreciative research)Each interview was coded line by line, and codes were assigned to words, phrases and any interesting views relevant to the research aims noted.The researchers used this information to create the 56 statements on a flip charts. they then showed approve to the people theyd interviewed. These people then chose statements which were relevant and meaningful to them, in relation to the research.Small group workshops (dreaming design)All participants were invited.Workshops of consent (design and destiny)All participants were invited to attend 5 agreement workshops across 2 counties.Has the kin between researcher and participants been adequately considered?Yes it has.A lot of care is interpreted to create a more equal relationship between the researcher and the complex care needs children and their families.Design method is flexible, non intrusive and responsive to childrens communication styles.The construct ion of this relationship and the methodology have estimable implications which are discussed below.Yes it has.Flexible and dynamic approach by involving and overlap between the participant and researcher.Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?Yes, ethical issues have been taken into consideration.There were plenty of exposit about how researchers contacted the participants by obtaining consent from young people and some ethical dilemmas were presented.The project was approved by two ethics committeesThe Faculty of Health ethics committee.Morecambe Bay Local Research ethics committee (LREC).All the LRECs were covered by Locality Agreements in Cumbria and Lancashire.For the duration of the study, all research team had Honorary Contracts with Morecambe Bay Primary Care Trust (PCT). all-around(prenominal) information was received by the participants and they had opportunities to discuss their involvement.At no time was there any pressure to participate.24 hours were given as a minimum to make participation decision in the project to participants.Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?Yes it was.There was no comprehensive backchat about the method used for data analysis.The authors created data sets using four broad categories and they provided descriptive tables on childrens age, education, use of health technology and communication style.Yes it was.(figure 1) showed how rigorous the data analysis was, thematic analysis using Attride-Stirlings approach of basic themes grouped into organizing themes and then global themes.Is there a clear statement of findings?Yes, there was a clear statement of findings, there was a discussion of the evidence, but no discussion about the credibility of their findings. Findings were discussed in relation to the childrens communication in multi agency services.Yes there was a clear statement of findings.Their findings were explicit.There was a discussion of the evidence.There was a credibility discussion about t heir findings.The authors discussed findings in relation to the original research question.10-How important is the research?Yes, the study does make a contribution to sympathy the mention of children with complex care needs used in multiagency services.The authors didnt discuss new areas of research.There was a considerable contribution on involving disabled children in service delivery and research but there is still a gap about involving complex care needs children.The project was worth(predicate) because it provided families with a better understanding of how practice should be, and provided opportunities for a mutual relationship between professionals through the exchange of information.The research identified new areas where research is necessary in the future. There was a greater impact on practice by this study and it lead to a better quality of life for both children and their families.Limitations of (Watson et al. 2007)The major restriction in this study is that there w as not comprehensive discussion about methods used for data analysis. Moreover, the authors created data sets using four broad categories friendship and communication, relationships with professionals, school life, and the things that children like and dislike. With such a small sample size, 18 children and adolescents with complex health care needs, between 2-15 years old, it is very difficult to address the effect on the result of bias.Limitations of (Carter et al. 2007)There are some limitations in this qualitative research. The commencement ceremony one is in methods the authors tried to carry out Appreciative Inquiry but then used Attride-Stirlings approach. Moreover, methods were combined into three stages as another shift in method. Each agency / discipline was not to the full represented. There was an absence of involvement of general practitioners. There was a limitation in the appreciative interviews because of they were interviews at a particular point in time. Furtherm ore, one child was included in the study due to other children being too young to participate or having severe disabilities. become but not least, the study failed to recruit ethnic minority group parents and children.DiscussionThe main focus of these two papers was to find out the impact of multidisciplinary or multiagency working on disabled children and their families. Regarding the two studies findings in relation to multiagency working (Watson et al.2007) authors reported that eyesight many professionals did not cause any difficulties for the majority of children in the study. However, difficulties did appear when professionals attempted to talk to the child directly. Communication between the key worker and the child was reported as weak or limited. One child expressed their feeling of seeing many professional as a silly and boring thing to do, while another child showed a close relationship with their key worker by recognising their get. In general, this study did attempt the challenge of involving children with complex health care needs, but it is not a reliable study because it used a small sample number of children.As regards the findings of the second paper (Carter et al.2007), they chose two areas from the guidance plans, the 10 statements, as they felt that they reflected the two core areas of guidance which were the most important As a consequence, authors stated the importance of making children and parents more satisfied and less isolated, and the crucial role of support and voluntary groups. Moreover, families and people from different agencies have to be accommodative when choosing the important role of coordinator for the long term, as this is where parents will seek help. opine 1Evidence from disabled children with their families in multiagency and multidisciplinary workingAtkinson, Wilkin, Stott, Doherty and Kindel (2002) as cited by (Carney 2009) stated that multiagency working benefits organisations and individuals it gives a broader perspective by providing enhanced understanding of the matters and improved connections with other agencies, and constructive experience on the whole, respectively. Moving towards better outcomes over the past decade, government has adopted integration of services for children and their families. integration has taken various appearances such as, putting different types of proficiency together.There are some affirmatory outcomes that have been identified in the review of multidisciplinary team working as a model of multiagency working in health care. (Borrill et al.) came to the conclusion that there was a reduction in hospitalisation and cost in terms of primary health care teams development in the provision of services growth in health care access treatment, follow-up and detection are improved, and patient and lag delight and motivation are enhancedFew studies have focused on the impact of multiagency working and multidisciplinary approaches with disabled children and their families (Carter et al. 2007, Townsley, Abbott and Watson 2004, Watson et al. 2002, Watson et al. 2007). The majority of these studies carried out qualitative research methods to find out the key features of successful multiagency working practice and how to make children and parents more satisfied and not isolated, improved and enhanced their quality of life, and the crucial role of support and voluntary groups.Many studies have focused on the positive impact of key worker systems in multiagency services for disabled children and their families (Greco and Sloper 2003, Greco et al. 2005, Greco et al. 2006, Liabo et al. 2001, Sloper et al. 2006). These studies have included comparisons between families with and without key workers. This model stated positive outcomes for families having key workers like enhanced quality of life, less isolation and feelings of strain, better relationships with services, and quicker access to services and reduced levels of stress. (Greco et al. 2005) a uthors have stated many advantages of having a key worker service in multiagency working for parents and children, as they can relate their concerns to one person who can then ascertain the familys needs are met and coordinate services. Having a key worker avoids duplication of telling the same story to professionals, and families received better information. Also, having a key worker enhanced the relationship between the child and their family by providing them with a mediating role and through building relationships with disabled children.Key working is a service, involving two or more agencies, that provides disabled children and young people and their families with a system whereby services from different agencies are co-ordinated. It encompasses individual tailoring of services based on assessment of need, inter-agency collaboration at strategic and practice levels and a named key worker for the child and family (Care Coordination Network UK, 2004).Also there was a range of st udies which have mainly focused on staff views (Tait and Dejnega 2001, Presler 1998, Abbott, Townsley and Watson 2005). These studies illustrate the positive impact on staff when they use multiagency working for disabled children. For instance, there was enhanced communication and improved relationships with complex health-care need children, development in their work lives and their professional skills, enhanced teamwork with collaborators and more triumph in their role.Two studies have discussed two services (Young et al. 2008, Robson and Beattie 2004). The former talked about an Early Support programme to improve integrated services for disabled children and their families between 0 and 3 years old. The aim of this study was to improve and enhance outcomes for disabled children and their families, and to find out the relationship between integrated services and the impact of ES in terms of cost metier and their benefits.The other study (Robson and Beattie 2004) is a coordinatio n project by Diana Childrens Community attend to and multiagency services using qualitative methods e.g. interviews, questioner , focus group to name but a few. The results were effective collaboration within and between the services for disabled children and their families by enhanced and improved family support and satisfaction a sense of control and a feeling of empowerment equivalent partnerships between families and professionals, with duplication and service gaps reduced.Sloper 2004 identified many negative outcomes of multiagency or multidisciplinary working on disabled children and their families when there are barriers to facilitating the integrating of services such as when there are unclear roles and responsibilities aims and roles are not shared among agencies there is disagreement on aims there is low quality of charge including ongoing training, weak leadership and communication, and sharing of information myopic IT systems, and poor relationships with professionals. ConclusionMany studies have focused on the advantages of facilitating multiagency working in general as the most holistic approach for disabled children and their families and on multidisciplinary working specifically in terms of team working. However, there was a lack of studies which concentrated on the drawbacks of the two working models. This results in a need to address more focus on the negatives for future studies for both multidisciplinary and multiagency working with disabled children and their families. In my opinion, from my prospective experience in the disabled children association in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, I have identified what type of model my organization followed multidisciplinary working alone which recognises that all professionals are working separately. My recommendation is to implement the holistic approach or transdisciplinary working which focuses on integrating services and adopting the key worker system to gain positive outcomes for the services in DCA.