Author
Professor Imogen Taylor, Dr Russell Whiting, Dr Elaine Sharland and Barry Luckock, University of Sussex
Core definition
Learning in preparation for integrated practice with children requires educators to develop students’ confidence and competence for outcome-focused, interprofessional practice with children, young people and their families, and an appreciation of how this knowledge relates to and complements professional roles and practice.
Alternative definitions
Integration: A set of processes and actions by which partners ensure outcome-focused front-line delivery of services for children and families. It means a holistic approach, within which needs can be identified and priorities (national and local) can be addressed. (Department for Education and Skill 2005, p.11).
Interprofessional education (IPE): Those occasions when members (or students) of two or more professions learn with, from and about one another to improve collaboration and the quality of care. It is an initiative to secure interprofessional learning and promote gains through interprofessional collaboration in professional practice (Hammick et al 2007, p. 7).
Interprofessional learning (IPL): Learning arising from interaction between members (or students) of two or more professions. This may be a product of IPE or happen spontaneously in the workplace or in education settings (Hammick et al 2007, p. 7).
Multi-professional education (MPE): When members (or students) of two or more professions learn alongside one another; in other words, parallel rather than interactive learning. (Hammick et al, 2007, p.7).
Shared learning: Students or professionals learn alongside each other but do not necessarily interact (Carpenter and Dickinson, 2008)
Common learning: A term preferred by the Department of Health which suggests that health and social care students should, in part, follow a common curriculum. (Carpenter and Dickinson, 2008).
Components of IPE: The application of adult learning principles to interactive, group-based learning, which relates collaborative learning to collaborative practice within a coherent rationale which is informed by understanding of interpersonal, group, organisational and inter-organisational relations and processes of professionalisation (Barr 2000, p. 233).
Multi-agency collaboration: Occurs at different levels: communication of individuals from different disciplines; co-operation and joint working on a case-by-case basis; co-ordination and formalised joint working; coalition at the level of joint structures; and integration of organisations merging to create a new identity (Horwath and Morrison, 2007).
Explanatory context
‘Building Brighter Futures’ sets out government plans to improve and develop the children’s workforce,
‘Together we want to build a system that provides opportunity and delivers services to meet the needs of children and young people, supports parents and carers, and intervenes early where additional support is needed to get a child or young person back onto the path to success. These services need to be delivered by skilled and motivated staff, who achieve excellence in their specialism and work to a shared ambition for the success of every child’ (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008, Introduction).
The workforce includes a wide range of occupational and professional groups from the public, private and voluntary sectors.
‘It is essential that everyone ... knows how they need to work with other professionals to ensure that services are integrated and personalised to respond to the needs and strengths of individual children and has the skills, knowledge and expertise to do their job to world class standards’ (ibid p.6).
Higher Education can play a significant role to appropriately align student learning with new ways of working and to support new ways of disciplines working together.
The ICS-HE project, established in July 2007, aimed to support the development of learning for integrated children’s services, co-ordinated by SWAP, the Higher Education Academy’s subject centre for Social Policy and Social Work in collaboration with the HEA’s subject centres for: Education (ESCalate), Health Sciences and Practice, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine (MEDEV) and Psychology.
Project partners included the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) and Children’s Workforce Network (CWN). The CWN brings together:
The ICS-HE project comprised:
What is known about the nature, contexts and participants in learning in HEIs for practice in integrated children’s services that includes students from at least one of the following areas: Education and Early Years, Health Sciences and Practice, Medicine and Dentistry, Psychology, Social Work, Youth and Community and staff from at least two of these areas?
The Knowledge Review aims were to:
- Identify approaches in Higher Education to developing interprofessional curricula and pedagogy for professional and integrated practice in children's services
- Clarify the discourse of interprofessional and integrated education and practice as it relates to practice with children, young people and their families
- Map key relevant policy initiatives and the involvement of key stakeholders
- Draw out key messages from the evidence and consider their implications for preparing professionals for integrated children’s services
It included a:
- Research Review
- Telephone Practice Survey in 2007 with 47 staff in 36 HEIs
Related terms and concepts
Children’s workforce: Those employed or volunteering in organisations established to develop and support practice with children, young people and their families.
Children’s Workforce Development Council: works closely with government, regulatory bodies and other sector skills councils to determine the direction of workforce reforms and identify skills shortages.
Department for Children, Schools and the Family: (DCSF) superseded the former Department for Education and Skills.
Employer engagement: The involvement of employers in the development and/or delivery of education and training.
Further Education: Part or full time education, often with a vocational emphasis, provided in colleges for students over the statutory school age
Organisational change: Any alteration in the form, nature, content, future courses etc of an organisation.
Professional standards: Criteria established by a professional body to determine levels of competence.
Regulatory bodies: Statutory bodies that grant recognition to programmes which meet certain predetermined specified criteria in preparing individuals for practice in a designated profession.
Key research reports
1. Summary of research findings from ICS-HE Knowledge Review
HEI response to the ‘integrated children’s services’ agenda.
Faced with the absence of definitional and conceptual clarity, programmes developed a range of responses. The ICS-HE Project published in its Final Report 36 practice ‘exemplars’ which reflect the kind of activities HEIs are engaged in.
It was beyond the scope of ICS-HE to undertake a detailed content analysis of curricula designed to support learning for integrated practice. The focus was on structures and processes designed to support such learning in the classroom. The following typology organises responses into four main types:
Typology of HEI responses
|
Type of programme
|
Staff
|
Students
|
Format of classroom learning
|
Comment
|
|
IPE
|
Two or more disciplines
|
Two or more disciplines studying for a professional qualification.
|
Staff and students come together for shared modules from within the same HEI, or from different HEI’s in the same region.
|
Logistically challenging and resource intensive.
The logical outcome is a joint degree - as yet there are no examples nationally.
|
|
Partial IPE
|
Two or more disciplines
|
Single discipline studying for a professional qualification
|
Staff and practitioners from other disciplines invited to teach single discipline students.
|
Programmes reported purchasing services from other disciplines rather than negotiating barriers within the HEI.
|
|
Professional education
|
Single discipline
|
Single discipline studying for a professional qualification
|
Students learn about integrated practice through approaches such as problem-based learning which aim to replicate IP practice.
|
The ‘traditional’ model.
|
|
Generic, non-professional
education
|
Two or more disciplines
|
Generic - students may progress to professional programmes.
|
Undergraduate or foundation degree level programmes; or free standing modules available for work-based learning, with or without credit.
|
Disciplines host these initiatives but they are shaped by employers seeking work-based learning keen to qualify their unqualified workforce.
Initiatives require additional student numbers from HEI’s and funded students from employers.
|
Pedagogic innovation
Innovative structures challenge traditional HEI practice:
- Flexible modular learning, where the same module may be taken at different levels (2, 3 and M) or for CPD
- Accreditation of Local Authorities to deliver learning accredited by HEI’s
- Timetables where students may be on campus for one day per week; or in study for a full calendar year, primarily at weekends
- Teaching provided off HEI site in locations to suit employers
- Payment ‘in kind’ of fees where voluntary organisations cannot afford to sponsor its workforce
Interactive learning and assessment designed to encourage students to participate in social practices in the classroom and transform their views of themselves and others:
- Storytelling
- Problem-based learning
- A simulated child protection enquiry
- A simulated child protection case conference
E-learning was less developed than expected. Examples of innovative practice included the use of:
- A Virtual Learning Environment to map key teaching points
- An on-line module on child safety on the internet
- Free e-learning to support voluntary and community sector workers, often in remote and rural areas
The change agents
HEI profile
Change focusing on ICS is more likely to be initiated in the post-92 HEI’s with less development activity in the research intensive HEI’s. The former have strong local and regional links, particularly with employers, and are likely to be engaged with Further Education in developing foundation degrees, core to qualifying the unqualified workforce.
The disciplines
Interdisciplinary barriers within the HEI mirror those in interprofessional practice. Boundary crossing issues, reinforced by departmental administrative structures and budgetary systems present barriers to collaboration.
The main ‘disciplines’ leading ICS initiatives are: Early Years, Social Work, Children’s Nursing, and Youth and Community. There was minimal engagement of Education, Medicine, Physiotherapy, Occupational and Speech and Language Therapies and Psychology.
Particular disciplines ‘host’ interdisciplinary ICS-HE initiatives. From this base other disciplines may be engaged, but appointments are likely to be made from outside the HEI and ‘owned’ by the provider programme, rather than a product of negotiation with other disciplines.
HEI leaders
‘Transition drivers’ who act on a top-down call to initiate, develop and deliver IPE (Hammick et al 2007) were identified:
- ‘Senior’ leaders including the Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor or Dean have the power and influence to bring together interested groups from across the HEI. They attract key external stakeholders operating at a comparable senior level who crucially can make commitments of resource.
- Cross-HEI posts created to support development of the ICS agenda i.e. Head of Interprofessional Learning, ECM/Youth Matters Project Worker, Head of Enterprise and Partnership. These appointments circumvent the risk of one discipline being seen to take a lead over others.
In addition, ‘brokers’ (Wenger, 1998) were identified from within a discipline that make connections across communities, and open up new possibilities.
The external stakeholders
Regulators and Sector Skills Councils are actively responding to the ICS agenda. HEI staff reported some frustration with regulatory requirements which are perceived as either too stretched to accommodate additional requirements or too inflexible to accommodate pathways from generic programmes to professional qualifications.
An innovative development was the joint paper, ‘Working Together in Children’s Services: A Statement of Shared Values for Interprofessional Working’ developed by the General Social Care Council, the General Teaching Council for England and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Relations between Regulatory Bodies and Sector Skills Councils are perceived by HEI staff as at times competitive and divisive.
Professional bodies can play a facilitative role. The University Council for the Education of Teachers commissioned Kirk and Broadhead (2006) to develop a position paper on the implications of Every Child Matters for teacher education. They propose that learning for ICS is not simply a matter of ‘add and stir’ but presages a “transformation of educational provision at all levels” (p.1).
Employers, particularly Local Authorities and Children’s Trusts, are actively shaping the ICS-HE agenda. Employers need HEIs to ‘qualify the unqualified’ workforce and to provide leadership and management training. HEIs need employers to specify what is needed and to sponsor university places. HEIs report difficulties with developing robust business cases for new programmes due to the lack of Local Authority capacity to commit funding to training.
Typically HEIs work with several Local Authorities and in some regions, clusters of Local Authorities have been formalised. On Merseyside six Local Authorities came together to form the ‘Learn Together Partnership’ and commissioned (through open tender) Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) to work with the partnership. This was subsequently extended to the Local Authorities being accredited by LJMU to offer in-house training with a university credit.
Health Authorities are perceived as having more resource but there is less evidence of their engagement in ICS-HE, matched by the relatively low engagement across health disciplines. Voluntary and independent sector stakeholders are least visible in the ICS-HE agenda.
Further Education (FE) is perceived as having very different cultures to HE. There are examples of impressively planned and determined approaches to sustaining partnership but there is also evidence of fragmenting ‘partnerships’ where for example where over the first year of delivery of a Foundation Degree, almost all the FE staff had changed.
Children, young people and families: minimal participation by these groups was identified in ICS-HE. There were exceptions where innovative use had been made of local Barnardo’s expertise to support participation by children and young people.
Whole system change
In seven post-’92 HEIs there were examples of planning for whole systems change. ‘Whole’ may not refer to the entire HEI but rather vertical change across levels and a degree of horizontal change, engaging sections of the HEI. Characteristics include:
- Senior level leadership
- Active engagement with external stakeholders, particularly employers who support development by contributing to programme design and committing to the purchase of places
- Cross-faculty appointees who extend ownership of ICS initiatives across faculties and departments
- Seed funding from HEI funds to support innovation in teaching, learning and assessment
- University wide seminars and/or lectures to promote and disseminate ICS development within and external to the HEI
- Linkage to interdisciplinary research centres
Literature reviews
1. Hammick, M., Freeth, D., Koppel, I, Reeves, S. and Barr, H. (2007) A Best Evidence Systematic Review of Interprofessional Education.
Review aims were to:
- Identify the strongest evaluations of IPE in health and social care
- Classify the outcomes
- Develop a narrative about the mechanisms that underpin and inform positive and negative outcomes of IPE.
Search uncovered 21 evaluations
Findings
Key to effective IPE is:
- Staff development to enable competent and confident facilitation
- Authenticity and customisation of IPE so that it reflects appropriate and relevant service delivery settings
- Principles of adult learning
IPE is generally well received by participants and enables practitioners to learn the knowledge and skill for collaborative working.
IPE is less able to positively influence attitudes and perceptions towards others on the service delivery team.
2. Sharland, E. and Taylor, I. (2007) Interprofessional Education for Qualifying Social Work, London, Social Care Institute for Excellence.
Review questions
- What is known about the nature, contexts and participants in IPE in qualifying social work?
- What is known about the effectiveness of IPE in qualifying social work, and what promotes or hinders successful outcomes?
Search strategy: A systematic review undertaken to EPPI Centre standards. The initial search yielded 2196 unique citations; application of exclusion criteria resulted in inclusion of 42 separate studies; 13 examined in detail.
Findings
- A wide variation in IPE provision
- The primary aim concern is for collaborative practice rather than joint professionals or a flexible workforce
- A focus on collaboration with health re adult services; little attention paid to preparation of social workers for interprofessional practice with children
- Most IPE is constituted as a discrete module or part-module rather than integrated throughout a programme
- Experiential pedagogy is used to support IPE in the classroom
3. Taylor, I., Whiting, R. and Sharland, E. (2008) Integrated Children’s Services in Higher Education Project, Research Review, Higher Education Academy.
Review question
What is known about the nature, contexts and participants in learning in HEIs for practice in integrated children’s services that includes students from at least one of the following areas: Education and Early Years, Health Sciences and Practice, Medicine and Dentistry, Psychology, Social Work, Youth and Community and staff from at least two of these areas?
Search strategy: Participating HEA Subject Centres nominated key journals; these were searched back to 1989 (Children Act); 51 titles and abstracts met inclusion criteria; 28 were selected for review; 12 focused on IPE and ICS and were examined in detail.
Key findings
- Learning for ICS is inadequately conceptualised and theorised
- There are significant logistical challenges to developing IPE for ICS
- There is a dearth of robust evidence about learning outcomes for students; and outcomes for children, young people and families are rarely discussed
4. Warmington, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Brown, S., Leadbetter, J., Martin, D. and Middleton, D. (2004) Interagency collaboration: a review of the literature, ESRC Teaching and learning Programme III
Review aims:
To inform the research team’s initial conceptualisation of learning in and for interagency working. The review focuses on analyses of practice that are informed by activity theory – selected to underpin the study.
Search strategy i) literature drawing on activity theory; ii) literature informed by other theoretical approaches, or a theoretical narrative or evaluative papers; iv) strategic or policy documents proposing models of ‘good practice’.
Findings
- The conceptualisation of interagency working is underdeveloped
- Learning processes within interagency settings that form a prerequisite to effective interagency collaboration are underexposed
- The prevalence of policy and strategic literature that emphasises ‘good practice’ models tends to perpetuate a notion of interagency working as a virtuous solution to problems and to underestimate interagency working as a site of tensions and contradictions
- Analyses tend to equate interagency developments with partnership ‘tools’ and systematic analyses of collaboration
Related Key Research Reports
1. Axford, N., Berry, V. Little, M. Morpeth, L. (2006) “Developing a common language in children's services through research-based inter-disciplinary training”. Social Work Education, Vol. 25, No. 2 March 2006 , pp. 161 - 176.
Abstract
Two sources of inertia to improving services for children in need include the difficulties of getting evidence into practice and the complications of inter-agency working. Current training arrangements in social work and disparities between children's services professions as regards training requirements are contributory factors. The Common Language project is a work in progress, adopting a research-based, inter-disciplinary approach to working with social workers and other children's services professionals. It comprises core ideas and methods to complement the more specialist knowledge and skills required in each profession. Underpinned by a child development perspective and a scientific development cycle, it rests on a conceptual framework including need, threshold, service and outcome. The approach has three components (each of which includes training): (1) the implementation of practice tools; (2) the planning and development of integrated services; and (3) supporting materials, including practitioner-orientated modules and a curriculum for PhD students. Distinguishing features include research utilisation, notably a focus on research-mindedness as opposed to imparting findings, and also collaborative professional working, in particular via practical connections between different agencies, stakeholders and countries. The project is being evaluated in terms of uptake, change in professional thinking and practice and effects on child well-being. Next steps relate to broader lessons for social work training emerging from research and development elsewhere.
2. Cameron, C., Mooney, A. and Moss, P. (2002) “The child care workforce: current conditions and future directions”. Critical Social Policy, Vol. 22, No. 4, 572- 595.
Abstract
At a time of major expansion in 'child care' services, the workforce becomes a major issue. Drawing on a number of linked studies of the child care workforce, the article first provides an analysis of the situation of the current workforce, including the highly gendered nature of the work, low pay and high job satisfaction, and how the work is understood. It then considers whether, at a time of increasing demand for workers in both childcare and social care work and increasing alternative job opportunities for women, the current situation is sustainable in the longer term. Finally, the article contrasts the reformatory approach of current government policy with a transformatory policy involving another way of understanding and structuring the work, and the emergence of a new 'core' early childhood worker to work with children from 0-6 years. This is discussed in the context of the recent integration of responsibility for childcare and early education within the education system, and in relation to workforces in other countries that have adopted this integrated approach to policy and provision.
3. Copperman, J and Newton, P.D. (2007) “Linking social work agency perspectives on interprofessional education into a school of nursing and midwifery”. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 21, No. 2 March 2007, pp. 141 – 154.
Abstract
Recent policy documents have highlighted the importance of developing interprofessional education to support interprofessional practice. In particular improving communication between health and social care agencies has been highlighted as an educational and practice priority. This study set out to explore the interprofessional training needs of social work practitioners with social work agencies in North East London to ensure that the interprofessional courses were relevant to social work. Findings from 15 qualitative interviews with key health and social care professionals in eight London boroughs are presented. The findings suggest that there is great diversity in the budgets, resources and approaches taken to post qualifying training across the boroughs and between agencies and that training needs analysis for experienced practitioners is at an early stage of development. Social work services identified bespoke training and the accreditation of their existing programmes as important. Responding to rapid organisational change and immediate training needs was a key priority in the services interviewed. However, limited funding to release social workers to take up interprofessional post-qualifying training remains a constraint for training officers, and how training was planned and organised by both practitioners and providers was considered important.
4. Hafford-Letchfield, T. and Spatcher, P. (2007) “Getting to know You: social work students' experiences of direct work with children” in education settings”. Social Work Education, Vol. 26, No. 3 April 2007 , p. 311 - 317.
Abstract
This article examines a practice learning initiative placing social work students in primary and secondary schools. Consideration is given to how far this contemporary model of learning offers an optimum and emancipatory framework, which takes account of the well-being and holistic needs of individual children. There is a pressing need to offer more accessible services to socially excluded children. Social workers in training offer an opportunity to engage in practice contemporary with organisational changes being implemented through the government's policy of social inclusion and programme of legislation. This paper identifies some of the practical and innovative responses from students during their practice learning placements in school environments, which highlights their success in developing initial communication skills with children as an essential foundation for future interventions. Resources that students bring to such placements can increase the capacity of inter-professional collaboration to improve outcomes for troubled children, and build trust in the social work profession subsequently. On a personal level, in order to improve their relationships with children, students worked through their own feelings to gain insight into a child's individual needs. This provided students with an appreciation of issues, problems and strategies required to be effective within the education environment.
5. Leadbetter, J., Daniels, H., Brown, S., Edwards, A., Middleton, D., Popova, A., Apostolov, A., and Warmington P. (2007) Professional learning within multi-agency children's services: researching into practice Educational Research, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 83 - 98
This paper describes early stages of a national research project ‘Learning in and for interagency working’ which is investigating new ways of learning that develop, while teams of professionals work together around children and young people who are at risk of social exclusion. The project draws on socio-cultural and activity theory to understand the practices that develop within the different agencies involved. The research uses activity theory to structure developmental work research workshops with members of multi-agency teams. Ethnographic data collected from observations and interviews form the subject matter of the workshops where participants discuss their working practices and plan changes. Early themes emerging from the study include: issues around co-location and co-working, evolving of professional identities, discussions of divisions of labour and professional expertise.
Although the study was not complete, the authors conclude that new ways of thinking about professional working with children and families is necessary as old ways of working do not necessarily provide better outcomes for children.
6. Magrab, P.R., Evans, P. and Hurrell. P (1997) “Integrated services for children and youth at risk: an international study of multidisciplinary training”. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 11. No.1 pp. 99-108.
Abstract
This study addresses the interprofessional training of professionals necessary to function in an integrated service delivery system for children and youth at risk. Information was collected in seven OECD member countries on current multidisciplinary training capacities, including country information and exemplary program descriptions. A number of significant findings were identified from the study regarding national policies, effects of decentralization, organizing mechanisms, training components, implementation strategies and financing. Clear policy implications emerged from the study, including the need to incorporate national policies on training in the policy framework for serving children and youth at risk, encouraging universities to develop curricula relevant to co-ordinated systems of care for their children and youth and establishing national mechanisms for supporting and linking local training initiatives.
7. Marsh, P. (2006) “Promoting children's welfare by inter-professional practice and learning in social work and primary care”. Social Work Education, Vol. 25, No. 2 March 2006 pp. 148 - 160.
Abstract
Social work in the United Kingdom is an activity that benefits from, and often requires, co-operation between different staff and across different professions. How this is to be achieved has been a central dilemma for practice and policy for many years. Primary care health services often play a key role. New policy and practice developments are designed to promote inter-professional working with children, where research has shown significant problems in the community-based health care of looked after children, children leaving care, and children at serious risk. There is, however, little evidence from research that supports current developments in inter-professional practice; analysis of the particular nature of the inter-professional problems is lacking, as are therefore the relevant inter-professional solutions. A framework for better analysis, linked to developments in practice-based research, one that would yield significant improvements for children's welfare, is presented here.
8. Shardlow, S., Davis, C., Johnson, Long, T., M., Murphy, M., Race, D., (2006) "Education and Training for inter-agency working: new standards", Salford Centre for Social Work Research and Salford Centre for Nursing and Midwifery and Collaborative Research, University of Salford.
(http://www.ihscr.salford.ac.uk/SCSWR/interagencyexec.pdf)
This Department of Health funded project (managed by the General Social Care Council and undertaken by the Salford Centre for Social Work Research and Salford Centre for Nursing and Midwifery and Collaborative Research, University of Salford) was undertaken in relation to Doctors, Health Visitors, Nurses (including Midwives) Police, Social Workers and Teachers.
The Project comprised two stages:
- Stage 1 mapped existing material about standards in relation to education and training for interagency working
- Stage 2 engaged in an extensive consultation through which a model of standards and a set of proposed standards were developed.
The model of standards, key features:
- Developed in relation to safeguarding children but designed to be widely applicable to interagency work
- Same standards are applicable to each occupation and profession
- Standards are designed so they may be audited by separate bodies for each occupational and professional group
- There is a clear role for a national co-ordinating framework across the occupational and professional groups
- Organisations should be individually responsible for meeting the proposed standards
Recommendations include:
- All relevant educational bodies should explore the possibility of offering joint interagency training on basic practitioner courses
- A core curriculum should be mandatory at each professional level on interagency working
- At specialist and advanced levels the core curriculum should take place with practitioners from other organisations.
Policy Implications
Policy and legal context
The Laming Inquiry (2003) into the death of Victoria Climbie recommended that,
‘The national agencies for children and families should require each of the training bodies covering the services provided by doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, officers working in housing departments, and social workers to demonstrate that effective joint working between each of these professional groups features in their national training programme’ (Recommendation 14)
Since 2003 there have been far-reaching policy changes to improve services for children, young people and families. These include:
The Green Paper, Every Child Matters (2003) called for urgent and comprehensive change to improve outcomes for children in England. Similar outcomes are advocated in other UK jurisdictions. It launched a series of Every Child Matters policies.
The Children Act (2004) places a Duty on Local Authorities in England to foster co-operation between agencies, obliging key agencies to safeguard and promote the well-being of children under the leadership of a Director of Children’s Services.
The Children’s Plan: Building brighter futures (2007) sets out plans to deliver high quality, personalised and integrated services.
Building Brighter Futures: Next Steps for the Children's Workforce (2008)
establishes an Expert Group who will report in Autumn 2008 on a long term strategy for development of a world class workforce.
New structures
The Department for Children, Schools and the Family (DCSF) superseded the former Department for Education and Skills.
The Children’s Workforce Development Council, works closely with government, regulatory bodies and other sector skills councils to determine the direction of workforce reforms and identify skills shortages.
New collaborative tools include
The Lead Professional
The Common Assessment Framework
The Integrated Children’s System
The Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children’s Workforce
The Integrated Qualifications Framework
Implications for stakeholder groups
Exemplars of stakeholder involvement illustrate the breadth, nature and degree of engagement by stakeholders.
1. Local Authorities
a) Employers and Liverpool John Mores University (LJMU) ‘Learn Together Partnership’
6 Local Authorities (with a combined children’s workforce of 30,000) invited HEIs to tender to deliver programmes to improve the children’s workforce. This was won by LJMU.
Students: social workers, health visitors, children’s nurses, educational psychologists, education welfare officers, teaching assistants, youth workers, extended school officers and voluntary sector service providers.
By November 2007, 120 students were awarded CPD with university credits.
Structure: delivered at Levels 2, 3 and M.
In 2007, the Partnership was revalidated to enable members to deliver the programme in-house and provide university accredited learning.
b) BA Children’s Interprofessional Studies, University of Hull.
This BA, launched in 2007, was initiated in meetings between senior level academics, including the Vice Chancellor and local Directors of Services concerned to upskill the children’s workforce. The BA is designed to meet the Every Child Matters agenda in its focus and structure, which is flexible to enable work-based students to access it on a full or part-time basis. Modules may be taken on a CPD basis and act as ‘taster sessions’ for potential students.
2. Voluntary and independent sector stakeholders and LJMU collaborated to develop an accredited training programme for volunteers working for the NSPCC ChildLine. Free or subsidised places are offered in exchange for NSPCC staff contributing to teaching.
3. Health Authorities
A Primary Care Trust purchased places in a Liverpool John Moores Safeguarding Children Module;
The Health Sector Skills Council gave £50,000 between the Universities of Wolverhampton and Worcester to develop leadership and management teaching.
4. Further Education Colleges
University of Sunderland, Foundation Degree in Youth and Community Studies represents a strategic approach to building and sustaining partnership.
Start: 2007
Partnership with 5 FE Colleges accredited to offer the degree, builds on long-standing HE/FE partnership work locally. The planning group included representatives from each FE College who met monthly until validation.
Plans to support ongoing partnership include:
- A philosophy of exchange and dialogue
- A buddy system whereby each FE partner has a designated University of Sunderland linked tutor
- Staff from each FE College on the Board of Studies
- A virtual Children, Young People and Family Centre at the University of Sunderland which disseminates research
Students: 33 registered
Structure: work-based learning.
Progression: to Year 3 BA (Hons) Youth and Community.
5. Children, young people and familiesLeeds Metropolitan University has been working with Barnardo’s to develop participation by children and young people in teaching for ICS since 2004.
Module ‘Children, Young People and their Families’.
Core team: Social Work, Nursing;
Students: postgraduate Health Visitors, School Nurses, Community Children’s Nurses; Social Work BA and MA.
Structure: Six full day workshops
Focus: The case study builds in complexity from a focus on vulnerable children, to children in need, child protection and looked after children. Young people participate in teaching at each stage and contribute to programme design.
Practical applications
Practice innovation is presented in the following exemplars of practice.
1. Foundation Degree
Newman University College, Working with Children, Young People and Families. Start 2007.
Staff: Teacher Education, Early Years, Youth Work.
Students: 42, FT/PT split. PT students: inclusion workers, learning mentors, and staff in children’s social care.
Curriculum: Placements in each of three years (100, 200, 200 hrs)
Progression to professional routes: Awaiting the Integrated Qualifications Framework for direction.
2. Undergraduate level
University of Hull BA Children’s Interprofessional Studies. Start 2007.
Core staff: Children’s Nursing, Social Work, Education.
Students: 50 HEFCE funded places; FT and PT.
Structure: Full programme; discrete modules also available as CPD.
Placements One day per week; Year 1 placed in three settings from Health, Education and Social Care, Years 2 and 3 placed in two settings. Focus on learning interprofessional work
Progression: Having obtained a Diploma in Children's Interprofessional Studies, students may transfer to the second year of a nursing degree; having obtained the BA, students may progress to Masters programmes in teaching, social work or youth and community work.
3. Pre-Qualifying level
Learning from the Common Learning Programme: Sheffield Combined Universities Interprofessional Learning Unit (CUILU)
Staff: Nursing, Social Work, Medicine, Health Studies.
Task: CUILU were commissioned by the local Children’s Trust to facilitate interprofessional developments for ICS.
2006-7 Pilot: inquiry-based learning activity, with 56 volunteer students and five staff. An introductory workshop followed by two weeks’ on-line teamwork and a final workshop.
2008-9 Plans to integrate IPE for ICS into core programmes in Social Work, Nursing, Medicine and Health Studies e.g. a three-week module at Levels 2 or 3 (Level 4 for Medical and MA Social Work students), including face-to-face and on-line engagement with a problem-based focus.
University of Sussex: After Every Child Matters: An interprofessional conference for pre-qualifying teachers and social workers. Start 2006.
Staff: teacher education and social work.
Students: 230-250 students; in 2008-9 plan to extend to Levels 3 and 4 Medical Students.
Structure: A day long conference includes large group presentations (by practitioners) and small group discussion followed by option for placement shadowing.
4. Leadership and management
University of Worcester, PG Cert. Integrated Children’s Services. Start 2005.
Core staff: Education, Health and Social Care,
Students: Ten to 20 per year, 50 per cent of whom interested in Masters mostly from Children’s Centres, Sure Start, Local Authority. Also Police, Housing, Schools.
Structure: modular approach; Friday/Saturday model.
Curriculum: Policy and Management of Change: Leadership for Effective Integration and Collaboration; Changing Childhood, Changing Policies
Progression: to a Masters in different professional areas (Education; Health and Social Care; Early Childhood; Leadership and Management).
5. Continuing Professional Development
University of Southampton, Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for Interprofessional Learning Across the Public Sector (CETL:IPPS)
Students: Children and Families Services staff from one Local Authority.
Structure: Six full and half day sessions over a six month period. Does not carry university credits: i) different professions have different credit requirements; ii) employers do not have the capacity to provide staff time to undertake assessed work.
Pedagogy: Facilitated collaborative learning and a problem-based approach
Events
This conference brought together 200 delegates, including educators and training providers from across higher education, practitioner and service user educators and representatives from employer, regulatory, service and professional organisations. The conference provided opportunities to discuss issues and innovative educational practices for the integrated children's services agenda.
The conference heard from keynote speakers from the Department of Children, Schools and Families and West Sussex County Council. Delegates also had a preview of the Knowledge Report being prepared for the ICS-HE project by researchers at the University of Sussex, that identifies the opportunities and challenges for HE in promoting initiatives to address the integrated children’s services agenda. Lessons from a long-standing HE project on interprofessional learning were given from a speaker from the University of Southampton. The conference was chaired by representatives from the Higher Education Academy and the Training and Development Agency for Schools.
Workshops provided opportunities for showcasing a wide range of initiatives in HE for ICS at all levels including foundation degrees, undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and CPD. These included examples of revised curricula, new ventures in interprofessional learning, new programmes and also some examples of larger-scale ‘whole-system’ organisational development in some HEIs. There were opportunities for questions to be answered by a panel comprising representatives from a range of disciplines and organisations.
The conference report is available on the website (http://icshe.escalate.ac.uk/1579)
http://icshe.escalate.ac.uk/1458
Bibliography
Axford, N., Berry, V. Little, M. Morpeth, L. (2006) “Developing a common language in children's services through research-based inter-disciplinary training”. Social Work Education, Vol. 25, No. 2 March 2006 , pp. 161 - 176.
Barr, H. (2000) Working together to learn together: learning together to work together, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 14, pp. 177-9
Cameron, C., Mooney, A. and Moss, P. (2002) “The child care workforce: current conditions and future directions”. Critical Social Policy, Vol. 22, No. 4, 572- 595.
Carpenter, J. and Dickinson, H. (2008) Interprofessional Education and Training, Bristol, Policy Press.
Copperman, J and Newton, P.D. (2007) “Linking social work agency perspectives on interprofessional education into a school of nursing and midwifery”. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 21, No. 2 March 2007, pp. 141 – 154.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Every Child Matters, Green Paper, Cm 5860. The Stationery Office, London.
DfES (2005) Statutory Guidance on inter-agency collaboration to improve the well-being of children, London, HMSO.
Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Reeves, S., Koppel, I., and Barr, H (2005) Effective
Interprofessional Education: Development, Delivery, Evaluation, Oxford. Blackwell
Hafford-Letchfield, T. and Spatcher, P. (2007) “Getting to know You: social work students' experiences of direct work with children” in education settings”. Social Work Education, Vol. 26, No. 3 April 2007 , p. 311 - 317.
Hammick, M., Freeth, D., Koppel, I, Reeves, S. and Barr, H. (2007) A Best Evidence Systematic Review of Interprofessional Education, BEME Guide No. 9, http://www.bemecollaboration.org/beme/pages/published.html
Horwath, J. and Morrison, T. (2007) Collaboration, integration and change in children’s services: Critical issues and key ingredients, Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 55-69.
Kirk, G. and Broadhead, P. (2007) Every Child Matters and Teacher Education: Towards a UCET Position Paper, Universities Council for the Education of Teachers. www.ucet.ac.uk/cagpaper4ecmjun07.pdf
Laming, Lord (2003) The Victoria Climbie Inquiry, Stationery Office, London.
Leadbetter, J., Daniels, H., Brown, S., Edwards, A., Middleton, D., Popova, A., Apostolov, A., and Warmington P. (2007) Professional learning within multi-agency children's services: researching into practice Educational Research, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 83 - 98
Magrab, P.R., Evans, P. and Hurrell. P (1997) “Integrated services for children and youth at risk: an international study of multidisciplinary training”. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 11. No.1 pp. 99-108.
Marsh, P. (2006) “Promoting children's welfare by inter-professional practice and learning in social work and primary care”. Social Work Education, Vol. 25 , No. 2 March 2006 pp. 148 - 160.
Moran, P., Jacobs, C., Bunn, A. and Bifulco, A. (2006) Multi-agency working: implications for an early intervention social work team, Child and Family Social Work, 12, 143-151.
Long, T., Davis, C., Johnson, M., Murphy, M., Race, D. and Shardlow, S. (2005) Standards for education and training for interagency working in child protection in the UK: Implications for nurses, midwives and health visitors, Nurse Education Today, 26, 11-22.
Shardlow, S., Davis, C., Johnson, Long, T., M., Murphy, M., Race, D., (2006)
Education and Training for inter-agency working: new standards, Salford Centre for Social Work Research and Salford Centre for Nursing and Midwifery and Collaborative Research, University of Salford.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Other relevant portals or websites
Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education
http://www.caipe.org.uk/
Children’s Workforce Development Council
http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/
Children’s Workforce Network
http://www.childrensworkforce.org.uk/
European Interprofessional Education Network
http://www.eipen.org/
Every Child Matters
http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/
Learning in and for Interagency Working
http://www.education.bham.ac.uk/research/projects1/liw/index.shtml
Social Care Institute for Excellence
http://www.scie.org.uk/
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.