UKCBC 2017 Academic Year Assignment front sheet Qualification Unit number and title Pearson BTEC Level 4 and 5 HN C /HND in Health and Social Care Unit 5 : Working in Partnership in Health and Social Care Student name Assess ors: HSC Teaching Team Dudley Ofori Date issued Submission date Date work submitted 1 st or 2 nd week of teaching block D By week 37 of the academic year Assignment title Working in Partnership in Health and Social Care Pass Date: Merit Date: Distinction Date: Refer: Date: UKCBC 2017 Academic Year LO Learning outcome Assessment Criteria In this assessment you will have the opportunity to present evidence that shows you are able to: Task no. Evidence (Page no) 1 LO1 : Understand partnership philosophies and relationships in health and social care services 1.1 ; 1.2 1.1 Explain the philosophy of working in partnership in health and social care . 1.2 Evaluate partnership relationships within health and social care services . 1 UKCBC 2017 Academic Year 2 L02 : Understand how to promote positive partnership working with users of services, professionals and organisations in health and Social care services . 2.1 ; 2.2 ; 2.3. 2.1 Analyse models of partnership working across the health and social care sector . 2.2 Review current legislation and organisational practices and policies for partnership working in health and social care . 2.3 Explain how differences in working practices and policies affect collaborative working . 2 UKCBC 2017 Academic Year 3 LO3 : Be able to evaluate the outcomes of partnership working for users of services, professionals and organisations in health and social care services 3.1; 3.2; 3.3 3.1 Evaluate possible outcomes of partnership working for users of services, professionals and organisations . 3.2 Analyse the potential barriers to partnership working in health and social care services . 3.3 Devise strategies to improve outcomes for partnership working in health and social care services. 3 Learner declaration I certify that the work submitted for this assignment is my own and all research sources are fully acknowledged. Student signature: Date: UKCBC 2017 Academic Year In addition to the ab ove criteria, which are PASS criteria, this assignment gives you the opportunity to submit evidence in order to achieve the following MERIT and DISTINCTION grades . You should refer to the qualification specification for further information in the essential indicative characteristics. Grade Descriptor Indicative characteristic/s Contextualisation M1 . Identify and apply strategies to find appropriate solution Effective judgments have been made. To achieve the merit descriptor M1, you must m ake effective judgments when applying your answers to the philosophy of working in partnership AC 1.1 and to the outcomes of working in partnership among service users, pro fessional and organisations AC 3.1. Also devise strategies to improve outcomes for partnership working in health and social care services AC 3.3. M2 Select/design and apply appropriate methods/techniques . A range of sources of information have been used. To achieve merit descriptor M2, you must ensure that a range of sources of information have been used when applying the given case study to your answers in each of the assessment criteria in C hapters 1, 2 and 3. M3 Present and communicate appropriate findings The appropriate structure and approach has been used To achieve the Merit Descriptor M3, you must ensure that the appropriate structure and approach has been used when applying the given case study to your answers in each of the assessment criteria in Chapters 1, 2 and 3. D1 Dem onstrate convergent /lateral/ creative thinking Effective thinking has taken place in unfamiliar contexts . To achieve Distinction Descriptor D1, you must ensure that conclusions have been arrived at through synthesis of ideas and conclusions have been justified when applying the given case study to your answers in Chapter 2 - AC 2.1 and Chapter 3 - AC 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. D2 Take responsibility for managing and organising activities . Autonomy/independence has been demonstrated To achieve Distinction Descriptor D2, you must ensure that you have d emonstrated your own autonomy/ independence of thought when applying the given case study to your answers in Chapter 2 - AC 2.2 and C hapter 3 - AC’S 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. UKCBC 2017 Academic Year D3 Demonstrate convergent /lateral/creative thinking. Conclusions have been arrived at and problems has been solved. To achieve Distinction Descriptor D3, you must demonstrate that problems have been solved when applying the given case study to your answers in Chapters 1 - AC 1.2: Chapter 3 - AC 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. UKCBC 2017 Academic Year What brought about this awful state of affairs? The Trust Board was weak. It did not listen sufficiently to its patients and staff or ensure the correction of deficiencies brought to the Trust’s attention. It did not tackle the tolerance of poor standards and the disengagement of senior clinical staff from managerial and leadership responsibilities. These failures were in part due to a focus on reaching targets, achieving financial balance and seeking foundation trust s tatus at the cost of delivering acceptable standards of care. The purpose of this inquiry was to work out why these problems many of which should have been evident over a period of years, were not discovered earlier. Regretta bly there was a failure of the NHS system at every level to detect and take the action patients and the public were entitled to expect. The patient voice was not heard or listened to, either by the Trust Board or local organisations which were meant to re present their interests. Complaints were made but often nothing effective was done about them. The local medical community did not raise concerns until it was too late. Local scrutiny groups were not equipped to understand or represent patient concerns or to challenge reassuring statements issued by the Trust. The Primary Care Trusts which were under a duty to arrange for the provision of safe and effective care were not set up for and did not effectively ensure the quality of the health services they were buying; they did not have the tools to do the job properly . The Strategic Health Authority was the regional representatives of the NHS and the Department of Health. It did not put patient safety and wellbeing at the forefront of its work. It defended trus ts rather than holding them to account on behalf of patients. It was uncritical in its support of Foundation trust status for the Trust. It preferred to explain away concerns such as those about high mortality rates rather than root out matters which would concern any patient. Monitor’s duty was to ensure that trusts were fit to be granted the independence of Foundation Trust status. It focussed on corporate governance and financial control without properly considering whether there were issues of patient safety and poor care. The Department of Health did not ensure that ministers were given the full picture when advising that the Trust’s application for Foundation Trust status should be supported. It was remote from the reality of the service at the front line. The Healthcare Commission was required to assess trusts against standards which did not adequately test the quality of care being provided to patients, but it was its painstaking investigation by a team of skilled inspectors that eventually brought t he truth to light. Even then there was a reluctance by those who had the power to do so to intervene urgently to protect patients. UKCBC 2017 Academic Year Assignment Feedback Formative Feedback: Assessor to Student Action Plan Summative feedback Feedback: Student to Assessor Assessor Signature Date Student Signature Date Internal Verification: Internal Verifier Date IV Signature Agreed grade