Interprofessional And Interagency Working

Interprofessional And Interagency WorkingThis assignment willing critic all(prenominal) toldy analyse dickens posers of interprofessional and interagency practice using examples from my accredited practice couchment. Relevant literature will be utilize to identify what factors support or oblige interprofessional and interagency collaboration (IPIAC). IPIAC is often take ind as a holistic approach to an individuals adopts. When used hard-hittingly, a holistic approach allows for better helping delivery to the receipts user. Hammick et al (2009, p.10) states that being interprofessional is data and hold uping or working and learning with others as withdraw, when necessary and nightimes both. Interagency working concentrates more on the organisational roles and responsibilities of those affect in collaboration (http//www.scie.org.uk). Interprofessional is relationships between individuals and interagency is relationships between organisations.IPIAC was a modernisati on agenda introduced in public policy by the New weary political relation. Government recognition suggests that many social problems jakes non be effectively addressed by any given organisation acting in isolation from others. That is, when professionals work together effectively they provide a better attend to to the complex adopts of the most vulner adequate to(p) people in society. New Labour in addition specified that there was a Berlin Wall type form between agencies and professionals and that there was a barrier to co-operation and this barrier should be confronted so that services worked in partnership with service users. til now according to enquiry conducted by Hiscock and Pearson (2002, p.11) several government reports have criticised the lack of coordination between wellness and social services in the connection. So, in essence when professions work collaboratively the service user gets a better deal. Willing participation (Henneman et al, 1995, cited in Barrett et al, 2005, p.19) and a high level of motivation (Molyneux, 2001, cited in Barrett et al, p.19) have been stated as vital aspects of effective IPIAC.My current practice placement is within a voluntary organisation in a national abuse service. I am a project worker at a asylum for women and minorren who atomic number 18 escaping domestic abuse. My role is to co-link work with permanent Refuge lag and co-ordinate severally service users support take whilst maintaining links with hold statutory and voluntary sectors.INTERPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE ONEThe first example of IPIAC to be discussed and analysed within my practice placement will be a weekly bear uponing held between Refuge lag, health visitors and the play-worker from Womens Aid. The aim and purpose of these meetings is to function data so that identified needs of the families in the Refuge back tooth be addressed and where possible be signposted to other services as essential. The meetings atomic number 18 desi gned for professionals to share reading and knowledge near the familys lives nevertheless not make decisions on their behalf (except where there are child security measures issues). The meetings in like manner aim to provide support to families according to assessment of need using professional judgement. Within these meetings every peerless discusses and leaves the personal development and progress of the women and children in the Refuge so that all professions convolute are kept up to date with the familys circumstances and situation. This supports IPIAC and is effective in that it is a chance for everyone problematic to gain further advice and guidance from other professionals in relation to their current level of involvement with the families. This in turn supports the families and assists them with their future goals and plans. However these meetings could be interpreted to some as secretive as they are held can buoy closed doors and it is a meeting in which the famil ies are not involved in. This could be construed as an expert power relationship to some (Maclean and Harrison, 2011, p.31).For IPIAC and these meetings to be effective it is vital that all professionals involved support one some other(prenominal) and are not be seen as self-interested or see themselves as higher than another profession. This is when problems occur as there is not a logical distribution of power. Unequal power distribution can be oppressive (Payne, 2000, cited in Barrett et al, 2005, p.23) and can limit participation for some professionals. great power in IPIAC should be shared and distributed and no hierarchy of power should exist. If some professionals see themselves as more powerful than another they are not meeting the needs of the service user. Sharing of learning and knowledge rough the families in the Refuge is the purpose of these weekly meetings so as to give the best possible burden for the service user.A constraint of IPIAC is that some professional s are territorial and do not like to share tuition and knowledge. Molyneux (2001, cited in Barrett et al, 2005, p20) found that professionals who were confident in their admit role were able to work flexibly across professional boundaries without feeling jealous or threatened. Professional adulthood was an expression used by Laidler (1991, cited in Barrett et al, 2005, p.20) to describe professionals who were confident in their ingest role to share information and croak effectively with other professionals. These professionals do not feel territorial active relinquishing their knowledge and understanding to further enhance good IPIAC. Stapleton (1998, cited in Barrett et al, 2005, p.20) suggests that a combination of personal and professional confidence enables individuals to assert their own perspectives and challenge the viewpoints of others.Active compreh closure is an essential skill to maintain in order to achieve effective IPIAC. To be able to recognise and serve to wh at is being communicated is fundamental. Professionals working collaboratively should be able to demonstrate this verbally and non-verbally to individually other. This is greatly helped if all concerned put aside the typical stereotyping of separately others professions in order to hear and listen to what is being said. rough-and-ready clear and honest parley is vital and probably one of the most consequential aspects of IPIAC. It requires professionals to take into account each others views, be respectful, dignified and to listen to each other without being highly critical of one another. Constructive feedback about the family needs to be undertaken alongside constructive suggestions and encouragement and should take place at a time when other professionals are undefendable. However, being receptive to what is being said does not always occur during these meetings. At times, one professional does not like what another is conveying and this can realise conflict within the pr ofessions. However the need here is to remember that it is the service user that is central to the process and that the goal is to achieve the best outcome for them and their family.There are elements within this example that both support and constrain IPIAC. To achieve the goal and not result in a forgetful outcome for the service user it is important for all professionals involved to communicate honestly and openly and for there to not be a substantive power imbalance between the professions.INTERPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE TWOThe second example of IPIAC to be discussed and analysed within my practice placement will be a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). A member of the Refuge staff attends these meetings on a fortnightly basis. A MARAC meeting is a community response to domestic abuse. Cases are referred to a MARAC by the Refuge as a result of completing a CAADA-DASH risk identification checklist (RIC) (see supplement one) with the victim of the domestic abuse. This c hecklist determines the victims level of risk/need. If the risk identification get to is 14 or more on the RIC, the MARAC threshold for high-risk has been meet and a referral to a MARAC meeting is made. Cases can also be referred to the MARAC all as a result of a high risk domestic crime/incident recorded by the police or by a direct referral from a participating agency. Participating agencies attending the meetings can include representatives of statutory services such as the police, criminal justice, health, child protection, housing practitioners and Independent Domestic rage Advocates (IDVAs). The purpose of the meetings is for professionals to implement a risk management plan that provides professional support to all those at risk and which reduces the risk of harm. The aim is then to produce a safety plan for each victim of domestic abuse.The MARACs aim is to share information to increase the safety, health and well-being of victims/survivors of domestic abuse. They can det ermine whether the assert perpetrator poses a significant risk to any particular individual or to the general community. According to Bowen (2011, chapter 5.) MARAC functions through meetings designed to facilitate multi-agency information sharing, with a view to implementing an agreed-upon risk management and victim safety plan. Effective confabulation and information sharing supports IPIAC as it can assist to induce relationships between agencies across a much broader range. A MARAC with effective communication and information sharing between agencies can also promote IPIAC in developing much stronger relationships between the voluntary and statutory sector. Barrett et el (2008, p.21) states that communication competence contributes to effective interprofessional working and enables those involved to articulate their own perspectives, listen to the views of others and negotiate outcomes. An effective MARAC meeting which supports IPIAC is when professionals work collaboratively to ensure that victims/survivors and/or their children are safeguarded from further abuse. The governments action plan Call to End All Violence Against Women and Girls states that we all have to work together to achieve our goal of ending violence against women and girls. It is not a task for central government alone. It suggests that agencies need to work together to meet the needs of their local communities and that agencies are held accountable.However, a constraint of a MARAC meeting that I witnessed was that not all professionals brought the appropriate information to the meetings which lead to an inefficiency and delay of the case which frustrated others professionals attending. Poor timekeeping was another avenue that at times would frustrate other professionals attending the meetings. This seemed to relinquish them as I would hear comments such as we are all professionals here and should act as such and as professionals attending important meetings like this, we should alwa ys strive to be on time. I also found at the MARAC that some agencies only had snippets of information that on their own did not raise any particular concern. It was only when the jigsaw of information was pieced together that the risk factors could begin to be understood.This example shows that when MARAC meetings support and intone interagency working and is effective, it is IPIAC at its best. This approach to working more collaboratively is beneficial as all organisations are coming together for the purpose of a everyday goal, with that goal being the best possible outcome for the service user. However some of the MARAC meetings that I had attended were not always that effective referable to the fact that not all key agencies or organisations attended the meetings when required to do so or did not have the appropriate information to relegate. It is beneficial that all agencies have as much information to hand as possible to facilitate IPIAC and have a profound unequivocal im pact on the outcome for the service user.In conclusion, IPIAC has many elements and all these distinguishable elements require that the different professions adopt them so that effective outcomes are achieved for the service user. Although IPIAC has been around for many years and is not new, it still needs to be continued, developed and incorporated into the daily work of all professions. When organisations and professions from different disciplines truly understand each others roles, responsibilities and challenges, the potential of IPIAC could be fully realise and many of the barriers alleviated. This in turn will contribute to a more successful outcome to the service user which of course is central to effective IPIAC. If IPIAC is ineffective it can limit choice for the service user and also increase risk.Word Count 1966