Editorial
Educating for collaboration in community care collaborative community care depends S uccessful upon all agencies respecting and valuing each other.
The key — according to Sheila Roy (former Director of Nursing Management and Research, North West Thames Regional Health Authority), a speaker at the recent conference held at CAIPE (Centre for the Ad vancement of Interprofessional Education in Primary Health Care) — is education and training throughout organizations at every level. ‘Working together or pulling apart’ was the theme of the CAIPE conference held in London in June 1992. Keynote speaker Sir Roy Griffiths reminded delegates of the monopolistic and bureaucratic characteristics of community care in the 1980s. Sir Roy acknowledged the complexity of community services and how, despite the endeavours of committed practitioners, the nature of community care policy and practice at that time re sulted in agencies not working together in ways that would be beneficial to service users. Interprofessional collaboration is the prerequisite to reforms in community care, with a team approach that has a real community identity and a capacity to identify the stated needs. Terry Bamford (Executive Director, Social Services and Housing, Royal Borough of Ken sington and Chelsea) identified the traditional obstacles to collaborative community care as longstanding differ ent budgets, different planning horizons, different deci sion-making structures, disciplinary territorialism and professional rivalry. Possible post-Griffiths advances in clude structures that facilitate shared professional focus, shared user involvement, agreed frameworks of care with joint assessment procedures and care models. Above all, the value base of different professionals should be acknowledged and audit protocols developed to measure outcomes. How far has the community care journey progressed? It appears that responses to developments have been patchy. There is a risk that traditional obstacles to col laboration may be replaced by new obstacles if too much energy is invested in structures that do not take account of the most important resource of all, i.e. the frontline staff such as community health nurses, social workers and other health and social care professionals. Structures
Am 324
are made but people make structures work. Coupled with this is a recognition of the potential invasion of professionals into informal care systems and the import ance of acknowledging the strengths of users and carers. Professor Jane Lewis (Department of Social Adminis tration and Social Science, The London School of Econ omics) suggested that there is no logical sequence of steps towards the realization of community care: a lot of balls are in the air at the same time, and this is particu larly relevant to social services departments, health auth orities/trusts, family health service authorities and GPs. Current attitudes towards multidisciplinary training are half-hearted. Changes are needed to bring about ef fective collaborative community care and thus the entry gate to a common-core curriculum must be unlocked. Professor Olive Stevenson (School of Social Studies, Nottingham University) raised the issue of whether in terdisciplinary learning should be aimed at both pre qualifying and post-qualifying levels. The dialogue be tween educationalists and service providers should con tinue to explore and identify the important core compo nents in common for education and training. In order to facilitate interdisciplinary learning at post-qualifying level, an environment is needed that enables reflective analysis of practice and policy for qualified practitioners and managers from a variety of backgrounds and work foci. An approach should be encouraged that acknowl edges not only the primacy of practice but also the strengths and concerns of learners coming from different occupational cultures. There is an urgent need to explore each other’s roles, values and philosophies of care within the process of interdisciplinary education and training. One way of re warding professionalism is to encourage faith in its worth, for example, by publishing successes and in meeting users’ needs more effectively. It will not happen on its own; working together instead of pulling apart is central to successful collaborative community care. l^j^i Liz Walker/Helen Gorman Lecturers Faculty of Health and Social Sciences University of Central England in Birmingham
BJN CLASSIFIED SECTIO N Just the job for BJN readers! Are you looking for a job? — Or are you interested in going on a course? Turn to our new classified section starting on page 364
Ag|
Downloaded from magonlinelibrary.com British Journalbyof144.173.006.094 Nursing, 1992, on VolMay 1, No6,72020.
Educating for collaboration in community care collaborative community care depends S uccessful upon all agencies respecting and valuing each other.
The key — according to Sheila Roy (former Director of Nursing Management and Research, North West Thames Regional Health Authority), a speaker at the recent conference held at CAIPE (Centre for the Ad vancement of Interprofessional Education in Primary Health Care) — is education and training throughout organizations at every level. ‘Working together or pulling apart’ was the theme of the CAIPE conference held in London in June 1992. Keynote speaker Sir Roy Griffiths reminded delegates of the monopolistic and bureaucratic characteristics of community care in the 1980s. Sir Roy acknowledged the complexity of community services and how, despite the endeavours of committed practitioners, the nature of community care policy and practice at that time re sulted in agencies not working together in ways that would be beneficial to service users. Interprofessional collaboration is the prerequisite to reforms in community care, with a team approach that has a real community identity and a capacity to identify the stated needs. Terry Bamford (Executive Director, Social Services and Housing, Royal Borough of Ken sington and Chelsea) identified the traditional obstacles to collaborative community care as longstanding differ ent budgets, different planning horizons, different deci sion-making structures, disciplinary territorialism and professional rivalry. Possible post-Griffiths advances in clude structures that facilitate shared professional focus, shared user involvement, agreed frameworks of care with joint assessment procedures and care models. Above all, the value base of different professionals should be acknowledged and audit protocols developed to measure outcomes. How far has the community care journey progressed? It appears that responses to developments have been patchy. There is a risk that traditional obstacles to col laboration may be replaced by new obstacles if too much energy is invested in structures that do not take account of the most important resource of all, i.e. the frontline staff such as community health nurses, social workers and other health and social care professionals. Structures
Am 324
are made but people make structures work. Coupled with this is a recognition of the potential invasion of professionals into informal care systems and the import ance of acknowledging the strengths of users and carers. Professor Jane Lewis (Department of Social Adminis tration and Social Science, The London School of Econ omics) suggested that there is no logical sequence of steps towards the realization of community care: a lot of balls are in the air at the same time, and this is particu larly relevant to social services departments, health auth orities/trusts, family health service authorities and GPs. Current attitudes towards multidisciplinary training are half-hearted. Changes are needed to bring about ef fective collaborative community care and thus the entry gate to a common-core curriculum must be unlocked. Professor Olive Stevenson (School of Social Studies, Nottingham University) raised the issue of whether in terdisciplinary learning should be aimed at both pre qualifying and post-qualifying levels. The dialogue be tween educationalists and service providers should con tinue to explore and identify the important core compo nents in common for education and training. In order to facilitate interdisciplinary learning at post-qualifying level, an environment is needed that enables reflective analysis of practice and policy for qualified practitioners and managers from a variety of backgrounds and work foci. An approach should be encouraged that acknowl edges not only the primacy of practice but also the strengths and concerns of learners coming from different occupational cultures. There is an urgent need to explore each other’s roles, values and philosophies of care within the process of interdisciplinary education and training. One way of re warding professionalism is to encourage faith in its worth, for example, by publishing successes and in meeting users’ needs more effectively. It will not happen on its own; working together instead of pulling apart is central to successful collaborative community care. l^j^i Liz Walker/Helen Gorman Lecturers Faculty of Health and Social Sciences University of Central England in Birmingham
BJN CLASSIFIED SECTIO N Just the job for BJN readers! Are you looking for a job? — Or are you interested in going on a course? Turn to our new classified section starting on page 364
Ag|
Downloaded from magonlinelibrary.com British Journalbyof144.173.006.094 Nursing, 1992, on VolMay 1, No6,72020.
