Based Practice And Teamwork In Patient Care

Introduction

Partnership working is related with promotion of choice as well as shared decision by the healthcare professionals and the patients. This is required to work together to chose effective way of management and care, treatment plans and health investigations based on the evidence and informed preferences of the patients. In this assignment, the partnership philosophies and relationships in health and social services are discussed and the way positive partnership at work in the health and social care can be built is explained. Lastly, the outcomes of working in partnership are discussed to inform about its importance.

1.1 Explaining the philosophies of working in partnership in the health and social care

There are various philosophies of working in partnership such as empowerment, autonomy, independence, respect, sharing power and making informed choices which allow the partners to work together. As mentioned by Acharya et al. (2017), empowerment in partnership in health and social care is required as they are the vital foundation towards developing an honest relationship between partners. The empowerment in partnership working in health and social care leads to let the partnering organisations and patients to effectively achieve the determined goals and objectives. In case of Mrs M, Simpkins require to empower M’s family to cooperate and assist him in identifying a suitable nursing home as early as possible instead of putting constant pressure only on him. Moreover, the District Nurse also require to empower the family regarding the way they can effectively take care of Mrs M in the situation where her permanent nursing placement is being delayed so that her health is not affected negatively.

The organisations who are working in partnership with the patients are required to make effective provision depending on each patient’s financial, economic and health status to offer effective support (Glasby and Dickinson, 2014). This is required to make the patient feel valued and understood regarding their needs and demands. According to this partnership philosophy, Simpkins require to ask the social services to raise their financial benchmark for helping for Mrs M under special condition as her health is serious and requires immediate hospital placement. The sharing of power in partnership is essential to let all the duties, as well as responsibilities, being equally abided (Cameron et al. 2014). Simpkins has already shared to the family of Mrs M that they require to raise the fees for accessing hospital bed for Mrs M as the raised fees cannot be paid by the social services. This is because it would be beyond their benchmark which may affect other needy patients.

The independence in partnership in the health and social care services is the ability for making decisions which will influence the person’s life without any control from others (Humphries, 2015). This is required so that the patient is given the autonomy to choose from choices of treatment which the person wishes to undergo that is not selected by the professional or the family. In case of Mrs M, Simpkins require to give autonomy to Mrs M to make decisions to make her family pay extra fees so that she can for the time being be admitted in the private hospital as her condition is serious as no beds are available. Moreover, Mrs M is also required to be given the independence to select whether she wishes to avail hospitals beyond the 40 miles radius of their home or not to get effective healthcare services. The other philosophy of effective partnership working in healthcare is making informed choices for which information is to be equally shared between the patients and healthcare professionals (Burwell, 2015). Simpkins to more effectively work in partnership with M’s family require informing them details about the urgent needs of raising the fees for M’s permanent nursing placement. The District Nurse also requires being more effective in providing support to M’s family to make informed choices in making the nursing placement of M to be done immediately.

1.2 Evaluating the partnership relation within services of health and social care

There are different natures of relationship between the health professionals, service users, family, professional organisation and others. In partnership working between the patient and their family with the social services, a professional relationship is usually maintained (Towle et al. 2016). This is because the social services have to take care of the public as a whole and they cannot form personal relationship as it may lead them to become partial towards one another in making decisions. In case of Mrs M, it is seen that Simpkins being a social service worker is maintaining a professional relationship with the Mrs M and her family by informing them without any discrimination or avoidance about the whereabouts of nursing placement process of M. However, the professional relationship has led to developing hindrance in making effective decision for the nursing placement of M as her family is unable or feeling discomfort to inform Simpkins the reason behind their problem of not raising the fees.

The relationship between the Nurse and the patient as well as the patient’s family is required to be personal in nature while working in partnership (Barnes, 2016). This is because personal relationship helps the nurse to more effectively understand the needs and demands of the patients to offer them better care. It is effective to make the patient feel valued as well as respected in turn showing progress in their health. However, in case of Mrs M, the District Nurse is seen to lack personal relation with the patient as well as their family. This is evident as the nurse is seen show resentment to offer them help and compassion when the nurse is confronted by the increasing depressed family of Mrs M regarding her permanent nursing placement.

The relationship between the health professionals and the organisation in partnership working are professional in nature to ensure ethical principles and effective information are shared without manipulations (Torchia et al. 2015). The District Nurse visiting Mrs M is seen to maintain effective professional relationship with the Health Partnership Unit involved in taking care for the patient. This is evident as the nurse has informed on a regular basis with effective evidence regarding the immediate nursing placement requirement of Mrs M. Moreover, they have identified that communication, as well as effective understanding of the health situation of Mrs M, is being hindered due to which the patient is not getting effective care.

2.1 Analysing models of partnership across health and social care sector

The partnership in health and social care uses different models which determine the relationship and nature of partners involved in the partnership. According to the Health and Social Care Partnership model, the entire government is usually involved in the process with the governing bodies of the healthcare organisations which are being controlled and appointed by the authorities (www.nhsggc.org.uk, 2018). Thus, the application of the model often includes extensive funding as well as strict control from the government where the health professionals work under their authority. In case of Mrs M, it is seen that the Health and Social Care Partnership model is being implemented as the social care workers, District nurse and the care managers all are seen to work in partnership under the mentioned guidelines and directions by the government authorities and their organisations. The model was initially effective because the involvement of the government ensured that effective care provisions are being identified for Mrs M at the right time. However, the model failed to get effective arrangement for fulfilling the identified care provision for Mrs M which is leading to deteriorated health condition of the patient as well as distress of the family. This is because there are various benchmark and strict rules set by the government which is hard to be broken resulting in formation of hindered working in partnership for the healthcare of Mrs M.

According to the General Partnership model, each of the partners regardless of any number share the same role and responsibility for providing services to the patients (Nyström et al. 2018). In this model, all the partners are equally affected by the results received from taking care of the patients. The partners set the rules and regulation through collaborative decision-making and the rules are not strict in nature as they can be remade through collaborative decision if required. The model is effective in taking care of the patients as all the partners feel equally responsible for the results received at the end. This is because in case a single partner executes a wrong decisions all the partners are liable to face the negative consequence. Thus, to ensure better results the partners support each other top take quality care of the patient. In case the model is applied for Mrs M, then the financial benchmark set to assist the patients may have been increased on preview of the special health condition of Mrs M allowing her to get easy permanent nursing placement.

2.2 Reviewing present legislation and organisational policies and practices for working in partnership in health and social care

Various legislation and organisational policies are developed to support proper partnership working in the health and social care so that the patients are provided with effective care. The Care Act 2014 informs that all the members in health and social care are required to work in collaborative manner with the partner agencies and patients so that quality healthcare is delivered to the service users (www.legislation.gov.uk, 2014). In the given scenario, it is seen that the Act is not been effectively followed due to which proper partnership working could not be successfully established for Mrs M. This is evident from the delay in finance arrangement of healthcare for her that resulted in her deteriorated healthcare and increased distress to the family.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 promotes partnership working and offers guidelines to be abided by the authorities for working jointly with the partner commission groups to offer quality care to the service users (www.legislation.gov.uk, 2012). This Act helps to ensure positive partnership is built in taking care of the patients to protect from deteriorated health status. However, this Act was not also followed effectively in case of Mrs M. This is evident as the care manager even after informing the social care services to make arrangements for the financial expenses of M was not done with any initiative. This led in continuous delay in the making permanent nursing arrangement for her increasing her health distress.

The NMC Code of Practices informs that the nurses, as well as the care workers, are to work in partnership along with the patients and their family to offer the service users quality care as demanded (www.nmc.org.uk, 2018). In the given scenario, the nurses though initially worked in partnership with the family and Mrs M but later with the increased distress of the family show resentment to support them. This leads to the violation of the Codes of Practices which mentions that the nurses require supporting the patients and their family during the distressed situation so that the patients feel valued and able to get over the distress to have a better and healthy life.

2.3 Explaining the way differences in working policies and practices influence collaborative working

The differences in working practices and policies are seen to create conflict between healthcare professionals while working in a collaborative environment (Snape et al. 2014). This is because different healthcare workers act in a different way according to the different working policies and practices are followed by their organisation. Thus, the services providers of one organisation could not understand the way role and responsibilities are to be executed to making a collaborative working environment with the partner organisation. This confusion leads to conflict at work disrupting the collaborative nature of executing care services as a result of disputes between partners. As mentioned by Brett et al. (2014), differences in working practices and policies make the service providers in the parent as well as the partner organisations to face hindrance in mutual decision making for executing collaborative working. This is because the service providers in the parent organisation try to follow the rules set by their organisation whereas the service providers in the partner organisation follow their policies creating conflicts leading to non-mutual support in making collaborative decision-making.

The differences in the working practices lead to reduced access to information that is held by the partners leading to hindered collaboration at work (Gradinger et al. 2015). This is because the holding of the information results in development of suspicion between the partner and the parent service providers that they are being cheated. This results in conflict between the partners leading to hindered collaborative working. The differences in the working policies and practices also lead to different monitoring and evaluation techniques for examining the success of operation of partnership (Greenhalgh et al. 2016). This may lead to hindered achievements as the mutual way to effectively monitor and evaluate the success of partnership is not accomplished. The differences also lead to unclear definition of roles and responsibilities of the partners that leads to develop confusion resulting in hindered collaboration at work. This similar thing may have happened in case of Mrs M due to which there is lack of partnership working between the care manager, district nurse and M’s family to arrange effective care for M.

3.1 Evaluating the possible outcomes of partnership working for service users, organisations and professionals

The partnership working has various positive and negative outcomes for the service users, organisations and professionals. As mentioned by Mason et al. (2015), the partnership working for service users leads them to experience informed decision-making and autonomy. This is because in this nature of working the service users are thoroughly informed about the way they are to be given care and all their queries regarding their treatment are solved. This leads the service users to understand what is good and bad for them allowing them to be autonomous to choose the best treatment for improved health. As argued by Heiman and Artiga (2015), partnership working may lead to duplication of services for the service users. This is because one partner may not know what nature and type of care being offered by the other partner to the service users leading in duplication of services.

The partnership working helps the professionals to prevent mistakes in executing treatment of the patient by taking assistance and accessing information from the partners who are experts in the field the patient requires care. As commented by Karazivan et al. (2015), partnership working allows professionals to efficiently use resources and offer care to service users within minimised time. This is because in partnership working the partner shares the role and responsibilities to be met to offer effective and quality care to the patient within less time. Moreover, the professional partners suggest each other the way to use resources by wasting it in minimum quantity through collaborative decision to offer potential care services to service users. As criticised by Ward-Griffin (2016), the partnership working in case of professionals may create miscommunication. This often leads the professionals to offer hindered care which may lead to negatively affect their reputation and quality of care services. Moreover, professional rivalry is often seen to be a key negative outcome experienced in case of professional while working in partnership.

The partnership working leads the organisations to develop shared principles in offering better care to the service users that meet their demands and needs. Moreover, it leads the organisation to implement best working practices in offering care to the service users. However, the partnership working often leads the organisations to face disjointed service provision due to lack of mutual support between staffs. Moreover, the partnership working leads the organisations to face hindrances in communication breakdown in offering effective care to the service users (Garg et al. 2016). This is because the communication styles effectively used in the parent organisation may not be effective for communicating with the partner organisation. It results in communication breakdown and lack of collaboration at work between the partners.

3.2 Analysing the potential barriers to partnership working in health and social care

There are various barriers being faced in executing partnership working in health and social care out of which the most prominent one is lack of communication. As commented by Cameron et al. (2014), lack of communication is one of the key barriers in partnership working because diverse individuals of different perspective are present in partnership. The people with diverse thought and perspective have different communication styles and they cannot effectively get accustomed to the common communication style between partners which results in miscommunication. As argued by Gagliardi et al. (2015), the negative attitude of the service providers towards one another and personal rivalry is one of the barriers in developing partnership working. This is because the barrier does not allow mutual relations to be developed while working in partnership leading to the development of conflicts at work.

The lack of understanding of roles and responsibility is another barrier in partnership working. This is because without clarified roles and responsibility the service providers cannot understand what the task to be executed by whom leading to duplication and lack of collaboration at work (Busse et al. 2014). As asserted by Delany‐Moretlwe et al. (2015), the lack of sharing of common goals and information leads to act as a barrier in partnership working. This is because the partners do not understand what they require to accomplish to ensure success at work. The different values and attitudes of the different partners lead to develop conflict among them. This is because which one partner thinks to be effective to offer quality care service to the service users may not be deemed important by the others (Gibson et al. 2015). This difference leads to act as barriers in partnership working at health and social care as the service providers acting as partners thinks they are not being respected and treated partially by others leading to lack of collaboration at work.

3.3 Devising strategies for improving outcomes for working in partnership in health and social care services

The key towards effective partnership working in health and social care is development of efficient communication between the partners. This is to be done by analysing the best suitable communication style and language through collaborative decision of the partners (Chen et al. 2016). The communication is important to shared goals, roles and responsibilities and developing mutual respect to work collaboratively. The working in partnership can be successful is proper negotiations are made between partners (Lönnroth and Raviglione, 2016). This is because the negotiations make the partners believe their decision is being valued which leads them to develop zeal to work collaboratively to develop successful partnership at work. The conflicts at work are to be strategically dealt with in order to ensure effective partnership working at health and social care industry (Bowling, 2014). In order to resolve conflict, both the partners are to be allowed to present their opinions without any biases. Later, the decision to resolve the conflict is to be made mutually so that both the partners feel that they are being equally treated and no discrimination is made. This is going to make them develop zeal to work in partnership.

Conclusion

The above discussion informs that autonomy, independence, respect, sharing power and making informed choices are the key philosophies related to ensuring effective partnership working in health and social care. The professional, as well as personal relationship is to be maintained according to situations and code of conduct in health and social care. The Care Act 2014, Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the NMC Code of Practices are required to be effectively abided by to ensure effective partnership working in case of Mrs M. The positive outcomes of partnership working include better quality for the service users and the negative outcomes include disjointed service provision, miscommunication, conflicts and others.

Dig deeper into Awareness About Banking with our selection of articles.

References

• Acharya, B., Maru, D., Schwarz, R., Citrin, D., Tenpa, J., Hirachan, S., Basnet, M., Thapa, P., Swar, S., Halliday, S. and Kohrt, B., 2017. Partnerships in mental health care service delivery in low-resource settings: developing an innovative network in rural Nepal. Globalization and health, 13(1), p.2.
• Barnes, J., 2016. Short-term health and social care benefits of the Family Nurse Partnership lack evidence in the UK context but there is promise for child developmental outcomes. Evidence Based Medicine, 21(4), pp.145-145.
• Bowling, A., 2014. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C. and Suleman, R., 2014. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expectations, 17(5), pp.637-650.
• Burwell, S.M., 2015. Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve US health care. N Engl J Med, 372(10), pp.897-899.
• Busse, H., Aboneh, E.A. and Tefera, G., 2014. Learning from developing countries in strengthening health systems: an evaluation of personal and professional impact among global health volunteers at Addis Ababa University’s Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (Ethiopia). Globalization and health, 10(1), p.64.
• Cameron, A., Lart, R., Bostock, L. and Coomber, C., 2014. Factors that promote and hinder joint and integrated working between health and social care services: a review of research literature. Health & social care in the community, 22(3), pp.225-233.
• Chen, J., Mullins, C.D., Novak, P. and Thomas, S.B., 2016. Personalized strategies to activate and empower patients in health care and reduce health disparities. Health Education & Behavior, 43(1), pp.25-34.
• Delany‐Moretlwe, S., Cowan, F.M., Busza, J., Bolton‐Moore, C., Kelley, K. and Fairlie, L., 2015. Providing comprehensive health services for young key populations: needs, barriers and gaps. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 18, p.19833.
• Gagliardi, A.R., Berta, W., Kothari, A., Boyko, J. and Urquhart, R., 2015. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implementation Science, 11(1), p.38.
• Garg, A., Boynton-Jarrett, R. and Dworkin, P.H., 2016. Avoiding the unintended consequences of screening for social determinants of health. Jama, 316(8), pp.813-814.
• Gibson, O., Lisy, K., Davy, C., Aromataris, E., Kite, E., Lockwood, C., Riitano, D., McBride, K. and Brown, A., 2015. Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 10(1), p.71.
• Glasby, J. and Dickinson, H., 2014. Partnership working in health and social care: what is integrated care and how can we deliver it?. Policy Press.
• Gradinger, F., Britten, N., Wyatt, K., Froggatt, K., Gibson, A., Jacoby, A., Lobban, F., Mayes, D., Snape, D., Rawcliffe, T. and Popay, J., 2015. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expectations, 18(5), pp.661-675.
• Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S. and Janamian, T., 2016. Achieving research impact through co‐creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2), pp.392-429.
• Heiman, H.J. and Artiga, S., 2015. Beyond health care: the role of social determinants in promoting health and health equity. Health, 20(10), pp.1-10.
• Humphries, R., 2015. Integrated health and social care in England–progress and prospects. Health Policy, 119(7), pp.856-859.
• Karazivan, P., Dumez, V., Flora, L., Pomey, M.P., Del Grande, C., Ghadiri, D.P., Fernandez, N., Jouet, E., Las Vergnas, O. and Lebel, P., 2015. The patient-as-partner approach in health care: a conceptual framework for a necessary transition. Academic Medicine, 90(4), pp.437-441.
• Lönnroth, K. and Raviglione, M., 2016. The WHO's new End TB Strategy in the post-2015 era of the Sustainable Development Goals. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 110(3), pp.148-150.
• Mason, A., Goddard, M., Weatherly, H. and Chalkley, M., 2015. Integrating funds for health and social care: an evidence review. Journal of health services research & policy, 20(3), pp.177-188.
• Nyström, M.E., Karltun, J., Keller, C. and Gäre, B.A., 2018. Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects. Health research policy and systems, 16(1), p.46.
• Snape, D., Kirkham, J., Preston, J., Popay, J., Britten, N., Collins, M., Froggatt, K., Gibson, A., Lobban, F., Wyatt, K. and Jacoby, A., 2014. Exploring areas of consensus and conflict around values underpinning public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ open, 4(1), p.e004217.
• Torchia, M., Calabrò, A. and Morner, M., 2015. Public–private partnerships in the health care sector: A systematic review of the literature. Public Management Review, 17(2), pp.236-261.
• Towle, A., Farrell, C., Gaines, M.E., Godolphin, W., John, G., Kline, C., Lown, B., Morris, P., Symons, J. and Thistlethwaite, J., 2016. The patient's voice in health and social care professional education: The Vancouver Statement. International Journal of Health Governance, 21(1), pp.18-25.
• Ward-Griffin, C., 2016. Negotiating care of frail elders: relationships between community nurses and family caregivers. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive, 33(2).pp.99-122.
• www.legislation.gov.uk 2012, Health and Social Care Act 2012, Available at:
• www.legislation.gov.uk 2014, Care Act 2014, Available at:
• www.nhsggc.org.uk 2018, Health and Social Care Partnerships, Available at:
• www.nmc.org.uk 2018, NMC Code of Practices, Available at: [Accessed on: 25 September 2018]