Partnership and Interprofessional Practice
Working in partnership is a negotiation to working together by different agencies with the intention to secure the delivery of benefits, or added value, which could not be provided by one agency alone (Glasby and Dickinson, 2008). Interprofessional practice it is the ability of professionals to work in collaboration, applying knowledge and skills, to improve the service users experience of the service provided. For the purpose of this essay it will be assumed that Marilyn has capacity under s.1 Mental Capacity Act 2005 as there is no indication that she lacks it. Being the primary partner, Marilyn she should be involved in the planning, delivery and evaluation of the services she will receive. For there to be a straight forward path between the different service to be offered, it is essential that that the professionals within the collaboration share information, clarify their respective roles and overcome barriers which may become apparent due to differences in status, culture, values, and organisational structures. The NHS and Community Care Act 1990, placed importance on effective interprofessional and partnership practice through giving local authorities the responsibility to assess individual needs in collaboration with health authority staff and publish community care plans through consulting with service users and independent sector to provide housing, training and employment (Leiba, 2003 in Weinstein, Whittington and Leiba, 2003). The Building Bridges Guidance (DoH, 1995), the Health Act 1999, Partnership In Action (DoH, 1998) and the National Service Framework for Mental Health (NSF) (DoH, 1999a) together clarify the responsibilities of the health and social services, giving them greater flexibility to facilitate cooperation, jointly plan care, make payment to each other and improve services by creating pooled budgets (Whittington, 2003 in Weinstein et al, 2003). The legislation and policies place a legal duty on the professionals to collaborate and provide timely interventions to mental health patients through a single assessment (Leiba, 2003 in Weinstein et al, 2003). However, differences in priorities, organisational styles and cultures within the two services had led to the reluctance to work together (Audit Commission, 1992 in Leathard, 2003). This resulted in scattered support, with each professional having its own bit of person to take care of (Tuner, Brough and Williams, 2003). Service users expressed that they needed services that were easy to negotiate and focused on their needs (Rose, 2001). Service users valued good communication (Townsley, Abbott and Watson, 2004) and expressed the important of knowing that professionals shared information between themselves, which they felt would give them a better understanding of their needs, viewing them as a whole person (Miller and Cook, 2007 in Newham and Clarke).
Marilyn was sectioned under s.3 Mental Health Act (MHA), therefore aftercare services should be provided under s.117 MHA, and under s.27.11 Mental Health Act 1893 Code of Practice (MHACP) (DoH, 2008), aftercare should be delivered within the Care Programme Approach (CPA) (DoH, 1990). The CPA highlighting that service user involvement is an essential part of the delivery of effective services and therefore should be planned with the patient, their family and carers looking at both health and social care needs.
Marilyn’s sister, Sandra, is her the nearest relative as defined under s.26 MHA but this does not automatically make her a career. However, Sandra cared for Marilyn in the past and should she wish to continuing to provide this care, Sandra will be entailed to a carers assessment under The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004. Together the Acts place a legal duty on the interprofessional team to work in partnership with Sandra and to inform Sandra of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document