Interagency collaboration creates a sense of community ownership for supporting children and families and addressing their needs and strengths. Children and families come to the child welfare system with multiple needs requiring the assistance of multiple agencies. Often, when multiple services are required, the effectiveness of any one service is related to the availability and effectiveness of the other services needed by the family.
Interagency collaboration reduces duplication of services and allows for greater efficiency in use of public resources. Collaboration creates a fuller understanding among community partners of the policies and statutes that drive funding and practice issues, while maximizing funding and programmatic resources available to children and families.
Another feature that was identified as an essential component for success was joint decision making. In some cases, participants described the overriding of consortium decisions by the Medicare Local. In other cases there was a perception that partners were excluded from decision making once funding had been received. A respondent from Northern Territory stated:. Clinical governance is a fourth feature of successful PIR programs.
A feature of successful programs was the designation of a network manager team leader who could be based either within the Medicare Local or within partner organisations. Brophy et al. A senior manager from New South Wales identified the impact that one of the network managers had in coordinating services.
Where this role was lacking, respondents identified a leadership vacuum in which services developed individual programs and information was not shared. There has been nowhere to take information.
This paper has presented data from stakeholder consultations and interviews with senior executives in Medicare Locals about the features of successful collaboration in Partners in Recovery. PIR was established to improve service access for the people with severe and persistent mental illness. Lorant et al. The bringing together of clinical and social services under the banner of PIR was identified as a strength of the program.
Our respondents viewed successful consortia as breaking down silos between social and clinical services and enhancing horizontal integration through creating links between Medicare Locals, general practice and the NGOs providing social services to the mentally ill.
The governance of the network is also important. Nicaise et al. Successful collaboration was an important part of successful PIR programs. The allocation of dedicated funding to form consortia enabled joint service planning and overcame difficulties arising from disconnect between Commonwealth and State funding sources.
Successful consortia also had a designated network manager to build relationships and facilitate communication. Successful PIR programs were identified as having an identified leader who undertook project management functions through ensuring decisions made at meetings were communicated and acted upon. Successful consortia were based on collaboration and effective collaboration was based upon a shared understanding of the purpose of the collaboration and respect for the views of service providers.
PIR consortia were required to respond to guidelines established by the Australian Government in bidding to host PIR and communication of these goals to partner members by the Medicare Locals facilitated relationship development. Dissemination of information about program goals; community consultation upon establishment of the consortia; and transparency and joint decision making once the consortia were established facilitated a shared understanding of service goals and promoted normative integration [ 17 ].
A shared understanding of program goals was also facilitated by Medicare Locals by the employment of people with knowledge and experience of working in mental health. Relationship building and effective communication were also identified as features of successful PIR programs.
Communication is facilitated by a common language and the development of relationships between key personnel in the participating agencies [ 18 ]. Our participants described successful programs as having links across all levels of the participating organizations and scope for discussion and joint planning by consortia increasing commitment to consortia goals. Milward et al. Participants were also asked to comment upon the lessons learnt from PIR for primary mental health service delivery in PHNs.
One issue raised was service continuity, with concern that the move from service provision to commissioning may cause disruption and changes in what services were funded. PIR was based upon sharing of clients and collaboration between health and social services to improve outcomes for people with severe and persistent mental illness.
The focus of primary mental health care in PHNs is upon improving access to clinical services through a stepped care model, with PHNs receiving targeted funding for existing programs such as headspace and psychological services. Clinical services for people with severe and persistent mental illness are the responsibility of psychiatric services and general practice supported by mental health nurses employed through the mental health nurse incentive program to provide day-to-day management of clinical issues [ 33 ].
This change was associated by our participants with the potential loss of social services. Social services for people with serious and persistent mental illness that are currently delivered through PIR are transitioning to the NDIS which provides disability services, supplemented by state and Commonwealth funding for people who are ineligible for NDIS services. Smith-Merry et al. Further, reliance upon Mental Health Nurse Incentive Programs may be problematic as PIR was designed to target a population who traditionally have poor access to services.
Reliance upon mental health nurses working within general or psychiatric practices potentially limits service provision to those already seeking medical help. Furthermore, uptake of the mental health nurse incentive program is poor in Western and South Australia and the Northern Territory leading to gaps in service delivery [ 36 ]. Data for this paper were drawn from interviews and focus groups exploring the role of population health planning in Medicare Locals.
People with mental illness were identified as a priority group and questions were asked about management of mental health in general.
As a consequence, participants were not questioned specifically about PIR leading to lack of information about specific programs and difficulties in differentiating on the basis of consortia characteristics.
This is rendered less problematic by a focus upon enablers and barriers to integration rather than network type. The methodology also precludes the collection of data about the 4 PIR consortia that do not have Medicare Local involvement which may be quite different. This paper has outlined barriers and enablers of successful collaboration in PIR programs involving Medicare Locals. PIR programs used consortia to coordinate care for people with severe and persistent mental illness.
PIR consortia were designed to provide coordinated care for people with severe and persistent mental illness who may fall through service gaps due to the complexity of their needs. Participants argued that PIR consortia overcame barriers arising from fragmented responsibility and funding for mental health.
Program success was associated with successful collaboration based upon mutual respect, communication and effective network leadership. The involvement of Medicare Locals improved service planning through service mapping and need analysis. The transition from Medicare Locals has been associated with renewed separation of clinical and social care for people with severe and persistent mental illness.
We argue that this change may reduce service access for the most vulnerable population through reintroducing the siloing that PIR programs addressed. Benny Hill is an English comedian suggesting that this group experienced not being taken seriously. Challenges and opportunities for integration in health systems: an Australian perspective. J Integr Care. Article Google Scholar. Moving toward being analytical: a framework to evaluate the impact of influential factors on interagency collaboration.
Child Youth Serv Rev. CAS Google Scholar. Factors that promote and hinder joint and integrated working between health and social care services: a review of research literature.
Health Soc Care Community. Aust Health Rev. Formal and informal support for older adults with severe mental illness. Aging Mental Health. J Health Soc Behav. Am J Sociol. Analysis of social networks supporting the self-management of type 2 diabetes for people with mental illness.
Smith-Merry J, Gillespie J. Embodying policy-making in mental health: the implementation of Partners in Recovery. Health Sociol Rev. Coordination of care in Australian mental health policy. Grand challenges in global mental health: integration in research, policy, and practice. PLoS Med. Australian Government Department of Health. List of funded PIR organisations. Pooled, collective resources : in a collaborative relationship participating agencies pool their resources in order to achieve their shared goals.
For example, agencies may pool their funds to implement a program that, alone, they could not afford see for example ARACY, b. Negotiated shared goals : sustainable collaborations require participating agencies to adopt a shared vision and commit to collective goals ARACY, a. Interagency collaborative activities could include: cross-training of staff; multi-agency working groups; common financial arrangements e.
Why and when is interagency collaboration needed? Box 1: What are the benefits and risks of involving families in interagency collaborations? Baum, Sanderson, and Jolley argued that if marginalised groups are involved in partnership work they will require support: Participation [in partnerships], particularly if it is to involve those who are the least powerful and most marginalised in our society, requires substantial input of resources to support the process of providing people with the resources and skills they require to participate effectively.
Supporting interagency collaborations. Supporting interagency collaborations Collaborations are high intensity, high commitment relationships and as such, require resources and support.
Discussion The increasing expectations upon agencies to work in collaboration with one another is founded upon an acknowledgement that traditional ways of working e. Further resources For additional information about interagency collaboration that is specific to Indigenous communities, please refer to the forthcoming publication by the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse: Effective Practices for Service Delivery Coordination in Indigenous Communities Resource Sheet No.
Fact Sheet 1. Key elements of collaboration Fact Sheet 5. Power and collaboration Fact Sheet Canberra: Australian Government. Health Promotion International, 12 2 , — Bickman, L.
Long-term effects of a system of care on children and adolescents. Bromfield, L. Issues for the safety and wellbeing of children in families with multiple and complex problems: The co-occurrence of domestic violence, parental substance misuse, and mental health problems NCPC Issues Paper No.
Breaking Cyles, Building Futures. Promoting inclusion of vulnerable families in antenatal and universal early childhood services: A report on the first three stages of the project.
Melbourne: Brotherhood of St Laurence. Centre for Community Child Health. Melbourne: Centre for Community Child Health. Conceptualising successful partnerships.
Health and Social Care in the Community, 12 4 , — El Ansari, W. Interprofessional collaboration: a stakeholder approach to evaluation of voluntary participation in community partnerships. Journal of Interprofessional Care , 15 4 , — Flaxman, S. Indigenous families and children: Coordination and provision of services. Foster-Fishman, P. Facilitating interorganizational collaboration: The Contributions of interorganizational alliances.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 6 , — Glisson, C. Huxham, C. Advantage or inertia? Making collaboration work. Paton, G. Clarke, J. Quantis Eds. London: Routledge. They develop brand strategy, brand identity, product design, user interfaces and user experiences. Their clients are growing, adapting, innovating and evolving. They have the courage to challenge a market and differentiate.
For more information, visit www. The Benefits of Inter-Agency Collaboration Specialized marketing solutions that meet or exceed the quality standards that many full service agencies deliver December 6, Eli Gerson , Ben Gust ,.
Related Posts. Should Colorado adopt California's energy policies? Being kind to those who show up.
0コメント