Multi-agency Leadership in Health & Social Care Case Study

Introduction : Leading Health And Social Care In Multi-agency Environment Component 1

The aim of this part is to identify two key policies that are considered to be important to lead and manage health and social care scenarios within a country. The key term “policy document” refers to a written document that includes a set of step-by-step instructions and regulative principles regarding how specific activity for managing and leading health and social care should be conducted, for example, administration of medicine to a patient based on his health and wellbeing. According to Keeble et al., (2019), policies and procedures are important in health and social care for protecting the people to whom the government of a country is offering care and support and to ensure the organisation is on the right side of the regulation and law. In the first part of the portfolio, focus will be given to the analysis of two key policy documents essential to managing and leading health and social care by highlighting what those documents contain, what are the key messages of those policy documents and why those policies are important in health and social care setup.

Rationale

The Care Act, 2014:

In England, the Care Act, of 2014 is considered as one of the important policy documents that has provided proper structure or shape to the health and social care environment of the United Kingdom. This policy was implemented in England on April 1, 2015, which focuses on the key message of promoting and strengthening person-centered care, protecting vulnerable persons, and advancing individual well-being (Burn et al., 2023). Most importantly, it emphasises integration and prevention to raise the standard of support offered. The Act ensures compliance and responsibility by offering managers and leaders in the health and social care sectors a defined framework for decision-making. In the end, it benefits both service consumers and providers since it gives them the ability to prioritise holistic care, streamline services, and cultivate a culture of decency and respect.

Mental Health Capacity Act, 2005:

The Mental Capacity Act, 2005 enacted in both Wales and England is considered as the fundamental law in health and social care setup. The Mental Capacity Act, 2005 ensures autonomy to those who might not have the mental capacity (Martin et al., 2015). It emphasises the least restrictive action, best interests, and presumption of capacity. This policy or Mental Capacity Act, 2005 came into force in October 2007, which provides managers and leaders in the health and social care sectors with a strong legal foundation to help them make difficult decisions regarding vulnerable people (Alghrani et al., 2016). It directs them to respect rights, avoid unjustified limitations, and advance person-centered care. This regulation encourages a culture of moral and compassionate practice in the fields of social care and mental health by giving leaders the ability to strike a balance between safeguarding and respecting autonomy.

Policy Discussion 

Policy 1: Care Act, 2014

The Care Act, of 2014 came into force or into effect in England on April 1, 2015. This act is considered to be a significant legislative act that influences the way in which health and social care services are provided. Its major ideas center on enhancing person-centered care, protecting vulnerable adults, and advancing individual well-being (Marczak et al., 2022). The Act also emphasises the significance of preserving dignity and respect in the delivery of care, as well as preventive and service integration. For leaders and managers in health and social care scenarios, the Care Act, of 2014 has paramount importance. This is because, this specific legislative policy or policy document includes a precise legal framework for making decisions, guaranteeing accountability and compliance of key healthcare principles and practices by both leaders or managers and service seekers at a healthcare setup (Tew et al., 2019). This Care Act, of 2014 also provides leaders and managers the ability to emphasise comprehensive care, simplify processes, and promote an environment of respect and decency, specifically when it comes to offering care and support to patients or people with specific needs. A study in 2020 carried out by The Government of the UK, showed that 77% of the population believed that the implementation of the Care Act 2014 has provided affluent scope or best-fit opportunities to avail health and social care support from care service providers, which indicates significant improvement in quality of care delivered in healthcare setup of the country (Burn et al., 2023). At the local level, The Care Act, 2015 can be managed through a collaborative approach by involving stakeholders in the practice. According to Feldon, (2023), to coordinate with community groups, volunteer organisations, and health partners, local authorities play a crucial role in its implementation. They assign resources, carry out evaluations, and keep an eye on the standard of care given. According to a survey in 2021, since the adaptation of this specific act in real-time practice in health and social care practice, 89% of the local healthcare authorities reported an improvement in joint working between health and social care setups in the UK (Marczak et al., 2022). furthermore, the Act encourages a proactive strategy that aims to attend to needs before they become more urgent. As a result, there have been fewer hospital admissions and later discharges. In reality, since the Care Act's implementation, there has been a 19% drop in delayed transfers of care, according to a 2019 Local Government Association report (Tew et al., 2019). Overall, the Care Act, of 2014 is considered as the cornerstone in the provision of health and social care practice in England. It can equip managers and leaders with essential tools to make them able to provide high-quality and person-centric care while fostering a culture of respect, mutual understanding, and accountability. 

Policy 2: Mental Health Capacity Act, 2005

Enacted on October 1, 2007, in both England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is an important healthcare policy or legislation that safeguards the rights of people who might not be mentally capable of making decisions for themselves. According to Sashidharan et al., (2019), the presumption of capacity, best interests, and least restrictive involvement are the fundamental ideas of this legislative policy or principle. The Mental Capacity Act is largely implemented by managers and leaders in the health and social care sectors. Fusar-Poli et al., (2020) has mentioned that the main responsibility of managers or leaders in health and social care setup is to check that their personnel are well-versed in the terms of the Act and have received proper training. This legislation also includes the practice of conducting capacity assessment, making sound decisions in the best interest of the individuals both service seekers and providers, and regularly reviewing and updating the care plans based on the needs of people (Martin et al., 2015). This act also places responsibilities on the managers and leaders to promote a culture of respect, understanding, and accountability for the autonomy of individuals and maintain dignity in the workplace setup. At the local level, implementation of the Mental Capacity Act is overseen by the collaboration between health and social care authorities at local, state, and federal levels. Local authorities can work in collaboration with healthcare professionals, advocacy services, and legal experts to ensure the rightful implementation and compliance of the key principles associated with this Act. In 2020, the UK government released a report stating that 81% of those involved in putting the Mental Capacity Act into practice were certain they were complying with its provisions (Alghrani et al., 2016). Moreover, this Act also stresses the significance of including people in decision-making processes, along with their families and designated representatives. In the event that the person is unable to communicate or make decisions for themselves, this guarantees that their desires and preferences will be taken into account. So, as a whole, the Mental Capacity Act, of 2005 is considered as the fundamental policy document that safeguards the rights and interests of vulnerable individuals (Fusar-Poli et al., 2020). This policy document provides significant responsibilities on the leaders and managers in health and social care sectors to lead the implementation and practice of this specific policy to ensure that the best interest of policy users is being prioritized while respecting their autonomy and dignity.

Get Extra 10% OFF on your WhatsApp order!

use my discount

Conclusion 

To conclude this part of the portfolio, it can be stated that policy documents include the overall attitude and approaches of implementing and practicing the key legislation to manage and lead healthcare practices in the care setup. In this part, focus has been given to the in-depth analysis of two key policy documents: the Care Act, 2014, and the Mental Capacity Act, 2005. Both policies are considered to be important in the provision of health and social care in England and Wales. These policy documents include clear legal frameworks that can guide the leaders and managers to make sound decisions for practice, can ensure compliance with laws, and uphold the rights and dignity of the people in their care. 

References 

Alghrani, A., Case, P. and Fanning, J., (2016). The mental capacity act 2005—Ten years on. Medical Law Review, 24(3), pp.311-317.https://academic.oup.com/medlaw/article-abstract/24/3/311/2733268 Burn, E., Redgate, S., Needham, C. and Peckham, S., (2023). Implementing England’s Care Act 2014: was the Act a success and when will we know?. International Journal of Care and Caring, pp.1-17.https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/ijcc/aop/article-10.1332-239788221X16916503736939/article-10.1332-239788221X16916503736939.xml Feldon, P., (2023). The Social Worker's Guide to the Care Act 2014. Critical Publishing.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HFC_EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Care+Act,+2014&ots=wKWdAIrJxz&sig=UYZkKSYvq11fWhWeKbeLtRhdqvU Fusar-Poli, P., de Pablo, G.S., De Micheli, A., Nieman, D.H., Correll, C.U., Kessing, L.V., Pfennig, A., Bechdolf, A., Borgwardt, S., Arango, C. and van Amelsvoort, T., (2020). What is good mental health? A scoping review. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 31, pp.33-46.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X19318693 Keeble, M., Burgoine, T., White, M., Summerbell, C., Cummins, S. and Adams, J., (2019). How does local government use the planning system to regulate hot food takeaway outlets? A census of current practice in England using document review. Health & place, 57, pp.171-178.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829218310414 Marczak, J., Fernandez, J.L., Manthorpe, J., Brimblecombe, N., Moriarty, J., Knapp, M. and Snell, T., (2022). How have the Care Act 2014 ambitions to support carers translated into local practice? Findings from a process evaluation study of local stakeholders' perceptions of Care Act implementation. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(5), pp.e1711-e1720.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/hsc.13599 Martin, D., Barber, P. and Brown, R.A., (2015). The Mental Capacity Act 2005: A Guide for Practice. The Mental Capacity Act 2005, pp.1-320.https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5018700&publisher=FZP550 Sashidharan, S.P., Mezzina, R. and Puras, D., (2019). Reducing coercion in mental healthcare. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 28(6), pp.605-612.https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-psychiatric-sciences/article/reducing-coercion-in-mental-healthcare/E3C2160E711833FFB6836713EF389CD2 Tew, J., Duggal, S., Carr, S., Ercolani, M., Glasby, J., Kinghorn, P., Miller, R., Newbigging, K., Tanner, D. and Afentou, N., (2019). Implementing the Care Act 2014: Building social resources to prevent, reduce or delay needs for care and support in adult social care in England. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.[Google Scholar].https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/publications/prp-prevention-pdf-121219-acc.pdf

Part 2: Case Study Evaluation

Introduction 

The purpose of the second part of the portfolio is to evaluate the case study of Baby P in the UK. The evaluation of this case study will be carried out in reference to the roles and implications of key healthcare legislation for leadership and management in the healthcare scenario of the country. This part will include two sections, one is the evaluation of the case study by including the methodology, the process of investigation, and the evaluation of the procedures and the outcome of the case investigation. This part or section will also include the argument and counterargument related to the process of investigation and the outcome of the case study with its point of view. Lastly, this part will include a thorough discussion of what the managers and leaders can learn from the chosen case study and how they might implement the recommendation.

Case Study-Justification of Choosing

Baby P case study indicates the brutality of abuse at healthcare setup and by healthcare providers in the UK. Baby P or Peter Connelly was born in March 2006 and died at Tottenham home after suffering from a catalogue of injuries on August 3, 2007 (Purcell, 2020). As per the case scenario, after two months of birth, Peter’s mother Tracey Connelly started a relationship with Steven Barer at whose hands the tot had suffered appalling abuse. In the Hospital, the social workers and nurses missed the signs that could have saved the life of Baby P. The case scenario of Baby P in the UK can be considered as a tragic, and compelling example of the significance of policy documents in leading and managing the health and social care setup. This case can be justified by using several evidences, like: Systematic failure: This case exposed pervasive institutional shortcomings within the child welfare framework. Baby P's care was provided by several agencies, including the police, social workers, and medical staff (McPherson et al., 2022). This case also indicated the failure of coordination and communication effectively within society and healthcare setup. Policy and Procedure Neglect: this case study also indicates to the widespread institutional flaws in the child welfare framework (Purcell, 2020). This case study includes the failure of coordination between several organisations in health and social care setup which includes the role and responsibilities of social workers, and medical personnel, society workers who were involved in the care and support of Baby P. Legal Implications: The legal implications of policy compliance were brought to light by the ensuing court cases and investigations after the death of Baby P. It illustrated how professionals must follow rules to maintain accountability and stop similar things from happening again. Reforms and policy development: the case study of Baby P also indicates the importance of policy reformation and development along with its real-time implication in the UK child protection system. This revision will include a change in the assessment process, communication protocols, and accountability measures.

Methodology

Considering the case scenario of Baby P, it can be seen that multiple stages and agencies were involved in the investigation process. Initially, SCR, or Serious Case Review was conducted which was a statutory process in the UK to review cases like child abuse or neglect that can lead to child death or serious injury. The SCR included the experts and agencies like police, social workers, and medical staff (Elliott, 2020). The SCR scrutinized the actions and decisions made at each stage of contact of Baby P with the health and social care system. It revealed significant deficiencies in assessment, intervention, and communication that led to the sad result. The assessment also emphasised structural problems with the child protection system. In addition, legal actions were taken against those who had direct responsibility for Baby P's care; as a result, those deemed guilty of his death were charged with crimes and found guilty. These court cases offered more information about the particular choices and actions taken by experts (McPherson et al., 2022). So, overall the investigation of the Baby P case was in-depth and multi-faceted, which involved both SCR or Serious Case Review and Legal Proceedings which can comprehensively assess the circumstances that led to the tragic death of Baby P. 

Evaluation

Considering the investigation report, it can be seen that the UK's child protection system underwent significant changes and advancements as a result of the Baby P case investigation. It prompted a thorough revision of rules and processes by drawing attention to systemic flaws. Professionals working in child welfare are now held to higher standards of responsibility as a result of the Serious Case Review (SCR), which revealed specific shortcomings (Elliott, 2020). Legal action taken against the individuals who were directly in charge of Baby P's care acted as a warning and a deterrent to others about the seriousness of failing to uphold one's duty of care (Chandan et al., 2020). However, in the counter-argument of the investigated outcome of the Baby P case scenario, it can be stated that the probe might come under fire for failing to address more general systemic problems that go beyond Baby P's specific instance. The outcome showcased that there was a significant mislead that led to professional burnout and subpar care, like a lack of staff, heavy caseloads, and insufficient funding. Furthermore, the outcome also lacked of significant indication of personal accountability overshadowed the necessity of organisational changes and shared accountability in the health and social care industries (Briggs, 2020). Therefore, to modify the outcome of the Baby P case study, a broader systematic thinking approach can be employed. This could entail looking at structural elements that affect the standard of care given, such as staffing numbers, educational attainment, and resource distribution.

Lessons for Meaders/Managers

The healthcare manager and leaders gleaned several lessons from the case scenario of Baby P. First of all, they acknowledged how crucial it is for diverse teams to collaborate and communicate well (Hine et al., 2022). To protect vulnerable people's safety and well-being, social workers, law enforcement, and healthcare providers must have open lines of contact. The case also demonstrated the value of comprehensive and reliable evaluations. Leaders and managers in the healthcare industry have realised the value of thorough risk assessments and ongoing case monitoring pertaining to child welfare. This case scenario indicated the importance of practicing and implementing the Child Care Act 2014 in a real tie in the UK. Through this case scenario, the managers and leaders in the healthcare setup have learned about the importance of making a sound decision and it is their responsibility to ensure the child’s best interest and welfare have been practiced in society and within the workplace setup (Briggs, 2018). This involves advocating for integrated care, individual-centered methods, and preventative actions. This case scenario also indicated that healthcare managers and executives should cultivate a culture of responsibility, openness, and compliance by putting the Child Care Act 2014 into practice together with other pertinent policy guidelines (Briggs, 2020). Furthermore, this case scenario indicates that it is the major role of managers in healthcare to provide consistent training and ongoing professional development initiatives that can support the reinforcement of these policies in day-to-day operations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be stated that in this part, an in-depth analysis of the Baby P case scenario has been carried out. This case serves as a poignant reminder of the profound impact that leads to the policy implementation and the implementation of policies to safeguard vulnerable individuals. In this part, the focus has been given to the methodology being used to investigate the case scenario of Baby P and a thorough argument and counter-argument to evaluate the outcome of the chosen case study.

References  Briggs, F., (2018). Child protection: The essential guide for teachers and other professionals whose work involves children. Woodslane Press.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FQZzDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=related:SCtHqJFfrAoJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=MBp00c48Hm&sig=i0avRGKPefEAbdrY29Jkhhg31pg
Briggs, F., (2020). Child protection: A guide for teachers and child care professionals. Routledge.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_SX5DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=role+of+healthcare+manager+to+protect+children+in+UK+from+abuse+&ots=ycYn0IkRCp&sig=xdNNjZ_2QRtqCxbiE1Ef6UlBOfQ
Chandan, J.S., Gokhale, K.M., Bradbury-Jones, C., Nirantharakumar, K., Bandyopadhyay, S. and Taylor, J., (2020). Exploration of trends in the incidence and prevalence of childhood maltreatment and domestic abuse recording in UK primary care: a retrospective cohort study using ‘the health improvement network’database. BMJ open, 10(6), p.e036949.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/6/e036949.abstract
Elliott, M., (2020). Child welfare inequalities in a time of rising numbers of children entering out-of-home care. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(2), pp.581-597.https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article-abstract/50/2/581/5681458
Hine, B., Wallace, S. and Bates, E.A., (2022). Understanding the profile and needs of abused men: Exploring call data from a male domestic violence charity in the United Kingdom. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(17-18), pp.NP16992-NP17022.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08862605211028014
McPherson, K.E., Wiseman, K., Jasilek, A., McAloney-Kocaman, K., Morawska, A. and Haig, C., (2022). Baby Triple P: A Randomized Controlled Trial Testing the Efficacy in First-Time Parent Couples. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(8), pp.2156-2174.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10826-022-02345-7
Purcell, C., (2020). The Children’s Plan,‘Broken Britain’and Baby P. In The Politics of Children’s Services Reform (pp. 89-106). Policy Press.https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/book/9781447348788/ch006.xml