Benefits of Multi-Agency Cooperation

Introduction

The working across organisations is required to deliver services and support to individuals with multiple needs. In this process, the multi-agency working is found to act as seamless response to the individuals for meeting their complex and multiple needs. For this purpose, in this assignment, the way multi-agency works is to be understood from the model suggested by Townsley. The benefits and challenges faced in multi-agency working are to be discussed along with the ways the challenges are to be resolved is to be explained.

Multi-agency working

The multi-agency working is referred to involvement of cooperation between different organisations so that care workers and professionals from different disciplines and expertise come together to provide care and support to people (Jasper et al. 2016). The multi-agency working can be described through the use of Townsley's Three-Level Typology model. According to the model, multi-agency working is accomplished through autonomous, coordinated and integrated working (Townsley et al. 2004). As mentioned by Solomon (2019), in multi-agency functioning autonomous working indicates that services and support are provided separately to the service users by each organisation. This is because they have their own goals of care to be accomplished for the concerned service user. This is evident from the instance of Victoria Climbie where in the first hospital admission the individual was treated by the paediatric doctors and was later referred for protection to the Brent police who separately took steps to ensure her safety (gov.uk, 2003).

The individual professional who belong from different work disciples working in separate organisation develop collaboration in multi-agency working for achieving specific care goals for the service users (Bregua, 2018). This is because it allows high-quality care to be delivered to the service user to ensure their well-being. In multi-agency working, while functioning autonomously the professionals are still found to deliver training and support to different staffs from other agencies (McClimens and Burns, 2016). This is to help the other staffs in the agencies improve their skills and learn ways to collaboratively work with others. However, the focus of the multi-agency working and funding for the services to be delivered to the people remains matters for separate agencies (Stanley et al. 2018).

As per Townsley’s model in coordinated working, in multi-agency functioning professionals from each of the agencies separately assess the needs and demands of the service users and families. However, the professionals in this nature of working collaboratively decide through discussion the findings and develop care goals. This multi-agency and coordination of services is managed with the help of a panel which is funded either singly or through multi-agency (Townsley et al. 2004). For example, in Climbie’s case, the health professionals from hospital, social care workers from local community and police from the local jurisdiction were involved in coordinated working with the key goal to ensure management of the individual (gov.uk, 2003). The Townsley’s model informs that integrated working is involved with multi-agency functioning in which service is coordinated and synthesised. It is considered being holistic approach in delivering care to the service user and a single person is considered to be linked with the service user and families who liaises with other professionals and agencies on their behalf to ensure effective care (Townsley et al. 2004).

Benefits of multi-agency working

The multi-agency working is considered to be resourceful and provide various benefits to the professionals, service users and organisations. As asserted by Souhami (2019), multi-agency working benefits health professionals to have increased professional confidence. This is because in multi-agency working discussion with experts from different fields are allowed which makes professionals gain increased knowledge and skills contributing them to have better confidence in delivering quality care services. As argued by Sawicka et al. (2017), multi-agency working benefit professionals to have opportunity to work autonomously and show creativity in accomplishing care goals. This is because in this nature of functioning the professionals are allowed to share and gather innovative ideas of working from other professionals in the agencies. Moreover, they are allowed to use the data accordingly on their own will to perform activities to delivery care in autonomous manner without intervention from other agencies. The benefit of multi-agency working for professionals is that it allows their roles to be expanded making them have opportunity to learn new role (Hodgson et al. 2019). This is because during multi-agency working the professionals are exposed to wider complex challenges and care support of the service users. It leads them to expand their expertise to accomplish the roles offering them opportunity to learn and manage something new in the roles.

The multi-agency working benefits the service users to gain improved support to avoid being harmed and abuse in the society (Best and Myers, 2019). This is because different agencies collaboratively work to ensure issues raising problems for the service users are holistically resolved. The fact is evident from Every Child Matters policy where the government mentions that multi-agency working is to be performed where each agency and professionals are to work collaboratively for ensuring safety, health, show positive contribution, ensure economic well-being and enhance enjoyment for the children (workingwithkids.co.uk, 2020). The benefit of multi-agency working on patients is that it helps them to avail quick and appropriate services as well as referral to proper services for ensuring their well-being. Moreover, it leads the service users to avail support within their locality (Heyman et al. 2016). This is evident from the Children Act 2004 where it is mentioned that through multi-agency working children under threat of abuse are to be managed with immediate intervention from local authorities and clinical commissioning groups as well as are to be referred to police in the local area to ensure their protection (legislation.gov.uk, 2004).

The benefit of multi-agency working for service users is that it offers them opportunity to face lower stigma related to the care services such as police and social services (Matheson and Jennings, 2017). This is because the multi-agency functioning leads the agencies to enhance approachability of families towards them by avoiding their fears and stigma if any. The multi-agency working benefits the organisations to develop improved communication with other agencies in delivering efficient services that ensure savings (Lundie, 2018). This is because during interaction with other agencies various innovative ideas are shared in which agencies work to ensure quality care is provided within fewer funds so that existing savings can be used for better enhancement of care services for future. The multi-agency working promotes positive relationship with other agencies which leads to better care delivery towards the service users (Ramessur-Williams et al. 2019).

Challenges in Multi-agency working

In multi-agency working, challenges are faced between agencies which lead to hinder the activity and efficiency of their working to ensure well-being of people. As commented by Butt et al. (2019), conflict of interest is one of the challenges faced in multi-agency working. This is because in this nature of working within healthcare different agencies have their own personal interest and aim to be fulfilled to work autonomously yet with collaboration. It leads the different organisations to at times experience incompatibility with other agencies to work making them develop conflict at work. For instance, in case of Victoria Climbie, Ackah who was nurse at the hospital on assessing Victoria Climbie determined that she may be facing abuse due to which she alerted the Brent Social Services as her key concern is to ensure Climbie's good health. However, the Brent Social Services was keen to believe in the facts presented by Climbie’s guardian making them ensure she was not abused and properly taken care. This conflict of interest in caring for Climbie between the two agencies led to hindered care and later death of the individual (gov.uk, 2003). As argued by Winstone (2019), lack of professional trust and respect between different agencies acts as a challenge for multi-agency working. This is because without trust and respect no rapport or collaborative relationship is built between agencies making them unable to work together to delivery care.

The delivery of hindered data by agencies in multi-agency working leads to create challenge in its effective functioning (Samele et al. 2016). This is because based on the wrong data mentioned by one agency the other agencies believe it and work accordingly that leads to deliver wrong services in the end. For example, in case of Victoria Climbie, it was seen that in first hospital admission reports mentioned that she was suffering from scabies and mentioned there are no instances of child abuse according to them. The report was actually wrong as proved later because it was not formed by communicating with Climbie to know how she got the bruises. However, based on the report one of the Brent social service officer who has initiated to investigate Climbie’s case avoiding to proceed further indicating it is medical issue and not child abuse concern (gov.uk, 2003). This indicates that wrong information shared by one of the agencies (hospital) lead to hinder working nature of other agencies (social services) in turn leading to delivered hindered care to service user.

The lack of skills and confidence gaps leads to develop challenge in multi-agency working (Christopher and Horsley, 2016). This is because the professionals are unable to ensure which steps are effective to be taken to ensure improved health of the service users. For instance, in case of Victoria Climbie, it was seen that the doctors irrespective of experience had knowledge gap to differentiate between scabies and abuse marks on Climbie. Moreover, the social workers are found to have confidence gap to ensure Climbie is being abused which led to wrong care to the individual leading her to face death out of violence (gov.uk, 2003). The presence of confusion and muddle process leads to create challenge for multi-agency working. This is because exact approaches to be made for delivering care to the service users is not identified effectively (Noga et al. 2016). As criticised by Barton et al. (2018), lack of effective communication between the agencies creates challenges in multi-agency working. This is because hindered flow of information is established which leads the agencies unable to efficiently monitor the health and needs of services users. This is evident from Victoria Climbie’s case where huge miscommunication between different agencies is reported which led to her hindered health condition and death in the end out of improper intervention (gov.uk, 2003). Moreover, hindered communication in multi-agency working leads them to face duplication of services as professionals do not know what are the roles and services being already performed and provided for the service users (McGregor et al. 2017).

Ways to overcome challenges in Multi-agency working

The development of trustful and respectful working relationship is the key to overcome challenges related to multi-agency working. This is because trust and respect lead professionals in the different agencies develop sense of safety and value to work with other in collaborative and friendly way to ensure the care goals are effectively met to deliver quality care (Joseph et al. 2019). The roles of services and support are to be shared between professionals in multi-agency working on the basis of assessment of experience, skill and knowledge of professionals (Thomson et al. 2018). This is because it would lead to allocate responsibilities to professionals who are efficient to work in the multi-agency working to deliver successful care. The establishment of effective and detailed communication between agencies is important to resolve challenges of wrong care and duplication in multi-agency working. This is because clear and authenticated communication avoid development of any confusion regarding data shared making the multi-agency professional has well-directed pathway and information to further effectively progress their activities of delivering care (Tovey et al. 2018).

The presence of training delivery to all professionals in the multi-agency working is required to resolve challenges related to professional gaps faced in the working. This is because training enhances the skills and knowledge of the professionals making them aware and well-educated about the steps to be taken in their professional roles to accomplish the care goal offered to them (Butt et al. 2019). The development of clarified and realistic aims along with roles are required to be developed in multi-agency working to resolve challenges faced in the approach. The aims are to be properly understood by all agencies and they are to develop a shared vision on joint values regarding the way to accomplish it (Pycroft and Gough, 2019). In order to avoid challenges regarding information exchanges in multi-agency working, the establishment of clarified protocols for sharing updated information and data are to be developed. This is because it would avoid influence of personal beliefs and customs in presenting data that hinders the understanding of its real meaning (Joseph et al. 2019).

Conclusion

The above discussion mention that multi-agency working is collaborative working of different agencies where each has the autonomy to function but they execute it by working together. According to Twonsley's model, the three aspects of multi-agency working are autonomous, coordinated and integrated functioning. The benefits of multi-agency working include better professional working, enhanced quality and timely care for services users, better performance by organisations and others. However, challenges of multi-agency working are lack of trust, hindered communication, skill gap and others. The training of professionals, establishment of communication and information sharing protocol along with other steps are to be taken to cope with the challenges related to multi-agency working.

References

Barton, E.R., Meredith, Z., Newbury, A. and Roberts, J., 2018. Evaluation of a structured multi-agency, early intervention approach to vulnerability with neighbourhood policing teams. Public Health Wales.

Best, S. and Myers, J., 2019. Prudence or speed: Health and social care innovation in rural Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 70, pp.198-206.

Bregua, E., 2018. Dimensions of Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Child Protection Work—A Collection and Analysis of Practices in Southeast Europe. Sociology, 8(3), pp.112-122.

Butt, M.F., Salmon, L., Mulamehic, F., Hixon, A., Moodambail, A.R. and Gupta, S., 2019. Integrating Refugee Healthcare Professionals In The UK National Health Service: Experience From A Multi-Agency Collaboration. Advances in medical education and practice, 10, p.891.

Christopher, R. and Horsley, S., 2016. An evaluation of a behavioural support team for adults with a learning disability and behaviours that challenge from a multi‐agency perspective. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), pp.194-203.

Heyman, I., Innes, G. and Goodhand, K., 2016. Collaborative Outcomes Learning Tool (COLT)–A Multi-agency Educational Resource to Support Complex Public Protection Understanding and Practice. Journal of perspectives in applied academic practice, 4(3).pp.34-56.

Hodgson, E., Stuart, J.R., Train, C., Foster, M. and Lloyd, L., 2019. A qualitative study of an employment scheme for mentors with lived experience of offending within a multi-agency mental health project for excluded young people. The journal of behavioral health services & research, 46(1), pp.140-150.

Jasper, R., Wilberforce, M., Verbeek, H. and Challis, D.J., 2016. Multi-agency working and implications for care managers. Journal of Integrated Care, 24(2), p.56.

Joseph, S., Klein, S., Woolnough, P., McCluskey, S. and Diack, L., 2019. Inter-agency adult support and protection practice: a realistic evaluation with police, health and social care professionals. Journal of integrated care, 27(1).

Joseph, S., Klein, S., Woolnough, P., McCluskey, S. and Diack, L., 2019. Inter-agency adult support and protection practice: a realistic evaluation with police, health and social care professionals. Journal of integrated care, 27(1).pp.34-76.

Lundie, D., 2018. Multi-agency Prevent work: A whole-curriculum approach. British Journal of School Nursing, 13(2), pp.92-93.

Matheson, C. and Jennings, P., 2017. Multi-agency pilot intervention for high intensity service users of emergency public services: the Isle of Wight Integrated Recovery Programme. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 3(2), pp.105-118.

McClimens, A. and Burns, S., 2016. Looking after service users part two: nursing versus social work. Learning Disability Practice, 19(2).pp.23-45.

McGregor, K., Niblo, E., Council, N.L. and Preston-Shoot, M., 2017. Multi-disciplinary Working: Moving Beyond Rhetoric. Safeguarding Adults: Key Themes and Issues, p.71.

Noga, H., Foreman, A., Walsh, E., Shaw, J. and Senior, J., 2016. Multi-agency action learning: Challenging institutional barriers in policing and mental health services. Action Research, 14(2), pp.132-150.

Pycroft, A. and Gough, D. eds., 2019. Multi-Agency Working in Criminal Justice 2e: Theory, Policy and Practice. Policy Press.

Ramessur-Williams, J., Newbury, A., McManus, M.A. and Rivers, S.A., 2019. Benefits of delivering Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) training to police: An individual perspective. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 4(2), pp.32-36.

Samele, C., Forrester, A., Urquía, N. and Hopkin, G., 2016. Key successes and challenges in providing mental health care in an urban male remand prison: a qualitative study. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 51(4), pp.589-596.

Sawicka, Z., Holt, R. and Carver, L., 2017. New models of care for frail older people in Wakefield–the Future Hospital Programme and NHS England Vanguards new models of care. Future Healthcare Journal, 4(Suppl 2), p.s16.

Solomon, M., 2019. Becoming comfortable with chaos: making collaborative multi-agency working work. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 24(4), pp.391-404.

Souhami, A., 2019. Multi-agency practice and professional identity. Critical Practice with Children and Young People 2nd edition, p.179.

Stanley, T., Guru, S. and Gupta, A., 2018. Working with prevent: Social work options for cases of ‘radicalisation risk’. Practice, 30(2), pp.131-146.

Thomson, L., Goethals, K., Nitschke, J. and Nedopil, N., 2018. Multi-agency Working. In Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology in Europe (pp. 143-153). Springer, Cham.

Tovey, O., Tolson, J. and Vinand, A., 2018. Communication in a crisis in UK ambulance services: What is needed to improve incident communication?. Journal of business continuity & emergency planning, 11(4), pp.309-316.

Townsley, R., Abbott, D. and Watson, D., 2004. Making a difference?: exploring the impact of multi-agency working on disabled children with complex health care needs, their families and the professionals who support them. Policy Press.

Winstone, J., 2019. Offenders with mental health needs in the criminal justice system: the multi-agency challenge to provide solution-focused responses. Multi-Agency Working in Criminal Justice 2e: Theory, Policy and Practice, p.237.