Transcript Document

The Personalisation Agenda:
The Service User Role in
Practice Learning
Jane McLenachan
Head of Division of Social Work & Health
Studies
School of Applied Social Sciences
Personalisation: implications
for social work
• New types of worker roles
 organisational & professional context
• Emergence of brokerage role
 knowledge & skills needed: social model of
disability, safeguarding, advocacy,
negotiation , communication, commissioning
• Resource issues – provides a ‘contradictory
mix of empowerment & disempowerment?’
(Sang 2009 p32)
• What students need to learn?
Project Aims
• Enhance student understanding of policy
context of adult care & personalisation
agenda (DH 2006)
• Build upon well established service user and
carer involvement in social work degree
• Explore practice learning opportunities with
individual service users and carers as part of
personalisation agenda
• Produce good practice guide for development
of future service user led practice learning
Project Overview
• 2nd year Social Work students at Sheffield
Hallam University
• 60 days practice learning, March - July 2009
• 3 students
• 6 service users and carers - all adults
• Inclusive Living Sheffield (ILS) – service user
organisation
• Each student matched with 2 service
users/carers and with ILS
• Service users trained as work based
supervisors
Preparation & Planning
• Mapping of learning opportunities
against NOS for Social Work (TOPSS 2002)
• CRB checks on service users
• Audit of health & safety & insurance
requirements
• Payment arrangements
• Preparation of students
• Training for service users
Project Evaluation
• Pre-project questionnaire completed by service
users/carers and students addressing their:
 prior experience of practice learning
 concerns & expectations of project
• Post-project questionnaires & interviews with
students, service users/carers and university
staff to examine:
 perspectives & experiences of all involved
• Evaluation report produced with
recommendations for future practice
Evaluation Outcomes
• Students gained insight into ‘daily realities’ of service
users or carers - from a perspective not always seen
by professionals, saw "both sides of the coin"
• Experience of inter-professional working in practice
• Enhanced understanding of social model of disability
& impact of disabling environments
• Insight into budget management and service
commissioning
• Enhanced communication & assessment skills
• Developed knowledge of personalisation and adult
care law
• Opportunity to see disabled people as active &
contributing and not "defined by our disability"
Evaluation Outcomes (2)
• Experience had "broadened the students' horizons"
• Students brought a different perspective to the service
user/carer's own situation
• Work undertaken by student "left a legacy" for the service
user/carer through concrete outcomes
• Learned about benefits & challenges of personalisation
• Service user role as supervisor challenging for both
• Importance of clarifying boundaries & personal space
• Flexibility & intensity of placement – both strength &
challenge
• Worthwhile experience for all involved. On scale of 1-10,
mean score was 8 for success of placement
Recommendations
• Clarity about purpose & expectations of placement –
for both student & service user
• Co-ordination - convened by host agency to address
sense of distinct parts to placement
• Co-ordinated approach to tutor role
• Off-site practice educator acting as lead person
providing consistent supervision & assessment
• Length of placement – sufficient learning
opportunities V intensity for service user
• Need tangible, concrete outcomes and clear
assessment arrangements
Recommendations (2)
• Training & preparation
 spread out over more, but shorter days
 utilise creative ways of introducing the
documentation
 use experienced service users/carers in future
training.
 early initial meeting between students and service
users/carers
• Mentoring & support
 peer support arrangements for students
 use of social networking sites
 mentor role for service users
Recommendations (3)
• Confidentiality – issues to address in practice report
& assessment process
• Need for coherent programme of learning but that
also allows for flexibility
• Proactive & engaged students – implications for
placement allocation process
• Practicalities – minimum bureaucracy BUT:
 Funding arrangements that don’t compromise
benefits – needs national response
 CRB checks
 Health & safety assessments & insurance
arrangements
Next Steps
• Training of further group of service
users & carers
• Development of placements with new
group of service users at SHU
• Service user placement project
established at DMU with Leicester City
Council
• SfC funded project supporting service
user completion of Enabling Learning
module at DMU
Acknowledgements
This project was completed at Sheffield Hallam
University and the involvement of the following people
is acknowledged:
• Mark Doel, Research Professor of Social Work;
Deborah Develin, Senior Lecturer Practice Education;
Elaine Flynn, Practice Learning Co-ordinator; Beverley
Murphy, Practice Learning Coordinator
• Students: Charlene Bennett; Jenny Holroyd; Brett
Howarth
• Service users & carers: Christine Barton; Muriel
Crookes; Viv Lowndes Smith; Geoff Pick; Gill Price;
Marjorie Quine; Jacqui Stubbs, Inclusive Living
Sheffield
References
DH (2006) Our health, our care, our say: A new
direction for community services London The Stationery
Office
HM Govt. (2007) Putting People First London HM
Government
Sang B (2009) Personalisation: Consumer Power or
Social Co-Production? Journal of Integrated Care Vol 17
No 4 p 31-37
SfC et al (2009) Quality Assurance Benchmark
Statement & Guidance on the Monitoring of Practice
Learning Opportunities www.skillsforcare.org.uk
TOPSS (2002) The National Occupational Standards for
Social Work www.skillsforcare.org.uk