BTEC HND Level 5: Evaluating Partnership in Health & Social Care

This BTEC HND Level 5 report delves into the complexities of partnership working within the health and social care sector. It begins by examining the underlying philosophies of partnerships, such as independence, empowerment, autonomy, equity, and informed decision-making, using a case scenario to illustrate their practical application. The report further analyzes the benefits and barriers to partnership, including workload distribution, service user access, complexity, cultural issues, and conflicting stakeholder perspectives. Different partnership models, including care coordination, unified, coalition, and hybrid models, are discussed with reference to St. Martin’s hospital. The report also explores relevant legislations like the Health Act of 1999, Community Care Act of 1990, and the Health and Social Care Act of 2012, highlighting their impact on partnership governance. Finally, it addresses the differences between health and social care organizations, such as organizational type and policies, and evaluates the positive and negative outcomes of partnership working for both service users and healthcare professionals.

Running head- UNIT 5
Working in health and Social partnership
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

UNIT 5
Table of Contents
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................2
Task 1.1........................................................................................................................................2
Task 2.2........................................................................................................................................3
TASK 2............................................................................................................................................4
Task 2.1........................................................................................................................................4
Task 2.2........................................................................................................................................5
Task 2.3........................................................................................................................................6
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................7
Task 3.1........................................................................................................................................7
Task 3.2........................................................................................................................................8
Task 3.3........................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................11
1

UNIT 5
TASK 1
Task 1.1
The term health and social care is used to refer to a set of integrated services that are
utilized by healthcare service providers with the aim of providing assistance to their clients while
ensuring and preserving their safety and dignity. There are different philosophies that underlie
the concept of partnerships in the healthcare setting. The philosophies are based on
independence, empowerment, autonomy, equity and informed decision making.
Independence refers to a situation where the concerned organization or individual is free
from any orders, controls, influence or threats from other organizations. The independence level
is an essential philosophy in partnership as it determines whether the organization has the
discretionary power to make major decisions related to their patients, without being influenced
(Glasby and Dickinson 2014). Thus, the organization should not depend on the services of other
related organizations for formulating care plans for a patient. I found that in the case scenario,
the involved healthcare professionals did not display enough independent activity, which led in
poor health outcomes among the patients.
The philosophy of empowerment focuses on allowing the service providers and the
receiver to control the range of services that are bring delivered in the form of medical support.
This provides the patients equal rights to decide what treatment plans will be administered upon
them. The patients should have been empowered or given an upper hand to make important
clinical choices in the hospital to achieve an efficient partnership (Corinne Brown 2012).
Autonomy philosophy illustrates the presence of self governance that provides
individuals the freedom to control and govern the health activities. Thus, this philosophy states
that all relevant information must be provided to the partners to help them take self decisions.
This prevents use of any unethical means. I found that the patients and healthcare professionals
did not have autonomy, which resulted in adverse outcomes (Dowling, Powell and Glendinning
2004).
Equity promotes equal distribution of resources and opportunities to all people for
improving the overall wellbeing. All clients should get equal provisions of using the available
2

UNIT 5
health services. There was lack of equity in this case scenario that prevented proper health
maintenance.
Informed decision making allows the concerned organizations or individuals to inform
each other before any important decision is taken. Decisions that are related to altering health
parameters or diagnostic criteria should always be mentioned to all partners. There was lack of
informed decision making in this case.
Hence, I can state that the philosophies that govern partnership were not adequately
followed in the case.
Task 2.2
Most partners work towards a common goal of improving the health of their patients,
facilitating their quick recovery and reducing the length of hospital stays. The primary benefit of
partnership is based on equal distribution of workload between different practitioners according
to their clinical expertise. Another advantage lies in the fact that the service users or the patients
get the opportunity to utilize a combination of health services from the concerned organization.
This is most commonly observed among the elderly who are often provided services from both
the health organization and social care homes that form a partnership with the former
(Merrifield, Ford and Stephenson, 2017).
However, there are some disadvantages of such partnership as well. Complexity acts as
an important barrier. This can be attributed to the fact that partnership often involves two
organizations or groups that consist of several individuals. This increases the number of
healthcare professionals, staff and the service users (patients), each of whom may have different
perspectives. This adds to the complexity. The difference in opinion of the stakeholders also
creates conflicts. Thus, an effective collaboration and presence of a stringent administration s
required to manage all the stakeholders (Ford, 2017).
Another barrier related to partnership is the development of cultural issues among the
members involved. Cultural mismatch often leads to the failure of a prospective alliance. In the
case study, I observed that the local authorities and the healthcare organization were the major
partners. However, while the organization worked towards improving the short term health
3

UNIT 5
benefits, the local authority focused more on social outcomes among the patients (Rycroft-
Malone et al. 2016).
TASK 2
Task 2.1
The different partnership models present in the health and social care sector are mentioned
below-
 Care coordination model- Care coordination model encompasses organizing activities
related to patient care between the major stakeholders. This facilitates proper delivery of
healthcare services. Medical services are often integrated with long term support and this
result in positive health outcomes. This model intends to provide optimal healthcare to a
variety of clients having different health and social needs (Varda, Shoup and Miller
2012).
 Unified model- This model involves an amalgamation of several members with different
expertise, from the management. Collaboration is generally formed between social
workers, therapists, and mental and nursing health teams (Kendall et al. 2012). Thus, the
operations in the separate sectors that exist within the healthcare setting become closely
unified. In this case scenario, it can be deduced that the hospital follows this unified
model owing to the involvement of medical doctors and consultants, radiologists,
pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, specialist diabetic and respiratory
nurses, dieticians, hospital transport, support agencies such as help the aged and social
workers in delivering patient care.
 Coalition model- It encompasses collaboration between two or more organisations that
are independent of each other. It acts as a good temporary framework that helps in
combining the staff structure, training and management within a limited time span.
Adoption of this model increases cost effectiveness, focuses on clarity and creates
provisions for autonomy (Rao and Mant 2012). This model is not being followed in the
hospital, thereby contributing to adverse health outcomes.
 Hybrid model- This is a blended model of partnership that mixes private and public
stakeholders, thereby creating challenges for polarity between the sectors involved in the
4

UNIT 5
partnership. Thus, the boundaries between the sectors get blurred. The presence of this
model can be identified within the healthcare system when patients are given the option
of receiving free care from public organizations or faster and costly care from private
hospitals (Hncweb.com 2017). Although, the model is not followed at St. Martin’s
hospital, lack of unlimited funding and ever increasing healthcare costs can be
counteracted by adoption of this model.
In addition, the health and social care sector must follow some basic principles for an
effective partnership. They should focus on trust, openness, honesty and agreement to
collectively achieve the intended objectives and goals. A regular exchange of ideas will help in
fostering partnership.
Task 2.2
Legislations refer to laws that have been imposed by a governing body. Current
legislations that govern partnership between health and social care sectors focus on active
participation and involvement of the stakeholders, seeking informed consent from patients
suffering from life-threatening conditions, and regularly monitoring the services that are being
provided. The Health Act of 1999 and Community Care Act of 1990 were implemented to put a
control on the health and social care service provisions. They advocated for mutual benefit gains
of the involved organizations (Legislation.gov.uk 2017).
The Care Standards Act, 2000 emphasized on the establishment of working standards in
the health and social care sector. Prior to the formulation of this act, the mental health
commission, healthcare commission, and the commission for social care inspections maintained
the quality of the health services that were provide. This act was successful in forming a
partnership between the involved organizations (Legislation.gov.uk 2017). The Care Quality
Commission was eventually developed that focuses on audit and maintenance of the service
quality (Atkins et al. 2014).
The Health, Social Care and Well-Being Regulations, 2003 authorized the local
authorities for formulation and implementation of policies that improved the quality of the
services being delivered (Legislation.gov.uk 2017).
5

UNIT 5
Furthermore, the Disability Discrimination Act, 2005 made discrimination against
disabled people illegal, with respect to employment, and providing care services
(Legislation.gov.uk 2017).
Another major legislation in this context is the Health and Social Care Act, 2012 that
controlled the partnership in the health sector. It led to the establishment of boards and agencies
that took the responsibility of working in partnership. The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)
was considered as the statutory body that was held accountable for management of the health
policies. It focused on making an audit of the trusts and organizations that were involved in the
partnership and also monitored medication errors, infection rates and the quality of services that
were delivered to the patients.
Task 2.3
There are a plethora of differences that exist in partnership between the health and social
care organizations. These differences primarily originate from the type of organization, and the
policies and practices that are followed there. Eventually they create an impact on the partnership
and affect the collaboration between the key stakeholders.
The type of the organization is a major contributing factor that acts as a barrier and
creates differences for partnered or collaborative work. Several organizations such as,
government health agencies or hospitals, specialist organizations, and third sector organization
are involved in the process of improving patient outcomes by providing them high quality care
services. There are striking variations between health and social care organizations that are
regulated by the government and those that have a private ownership (Radcliffe et al. 2017). The
prime difference lies in the fact that public healthcare organizations run on the findings from the
government.
While, the private ones are managed by personal finances. This accounts for the high
healthcare costs in private organizations. Contrast also exists in the type of patient record
systems, hospital administration and management of basic operations (Schadewaldt et al. 2014).
Furthermore, private hospitals have modern equipments and software package that have
increased longevity. In addition, the presence of large number of patients in public hospital
6

UNIT 5
makes it difficult for all the doctors to provide optimal health services. Longer waiting time in
public organizations also acts as a major difference.
Disparities also exist between the policies and healthcare practices that are followed in
the organizations involved. The methods of employee practice, employee qualification and their
clinical knowledge often vary across the partner organizations. Linguistic and cultural diversity
also act as major barriers (Granger et al. 2012). These differences or barriers create negative
impact on healthcare delivery and often prevents information flow, shared decision making,
taking informed consent and interpersonal communication. These eventually result in poor
partnership and collaboration.
TASK 3
Task 3.1
Working in partnership with service users has the following positive outcomes-
 The quality of health service increases
 Better health outcomes are obtained than before (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2016)
 Healthcare professionals use the empowerment approach to make patients responsible for
their own life.
 The patients acquire decision making skills and autonomy to select the best care plan
Partnership with service users demonstrates the following negative outcomes-
 Language barriers create miscommunication that affects the patient care
 Cultural barriers often lead to manifestation of hatred and anger.
 Differences in opinion may lead to frustration
 Different linguistic backgrounds of the professionals creates difficulties in transfer of
accurate clinical information to the patients
 Chances of duplicate data delivery increases (Dickinson and O'Flynn 2016)
7

UNIT 5
The positive outcomes associated with partnership with healthcare professionals is mentioned
below-
 They become capable of adopting a professional approach towards delivering care
services, which in turn creates desired health outcomes
 Collaboration or partnership helps in development of educated and trained professionals
who strive to maintain the partnership while providing quality care
 It makes a clear mention of the responsibilities and roles of the involved members
 It facilitates organized and effective communication (Keleher 2015)
 Minimizes chances of duplication
 Promotes effective use of clinical resources
The negative outcomes are as follows-
 Rivalry may arise between the professionals due to differences in clinical expertise and
experience
 Linguistic and cultural diversity results in miscommunication and use of inappropriate
languages that may affect the respect and dignity of the individuals (Keleher 2015)
 Opinion differences may lead to problems in fundraising
 Conflicts between the individual while deciding an appropriate care plan will eventually
fail to safeguard the patient
Task 3.2
The potential barriers that can arise during my tenure at St. Martin’s hospital are as
follows-
Procedural barrier- Most often, it is found that different healthcare organizations rely on
a specific procedure, exclusive to their institution that is followed to deliver patient centered care
plans. The health delivery services are customized based on the procedures that have been
followed in the organization for many years. The case scenario suggests that such procedures
8

UNIT 5
may not be adequate to meet the care demands of all patients who have been admitted to St.
Martin’s hospital (Supper et al. 2015). This procedural difference will worsen the delivery of
health services and can be avoided by bringing about changes in the organization policies and
procedures related to working needs.
Structural barriers- Structural difference will arise during collaboration of the hospital
with other private or public healthcare agencies that operate on a separate structure. This will
result in troubles in implementation of an effective partnership (Rider et al. 2014). It will also
arise if the management of St. Martin’s hospital is not ready to take the responsibility for
delivering a complex healthcare service.
Financial barriers- The organizations and agencies that are in collaboration with the
hospital do not have similar kind of financial resources. There exist differences in the type of
funding that this hospital and its partners are receiving. A government health agency does not
have adequate health resource funding when compared to private organizations. This difference
in financial resource is also responsible for generating partnership problems (Supper et al. 2015).
Professional barriers- The processes and beliefs are central to each organization.
Developing a partnership or collaboration may get affected if the involved partners operate on
values and beliefs that are not consistent with those of St. Martin’s hospital. This in turn gives
rise to professional barriers (Brett et al. 2014).
Task 3.3
I discussed the different positive and negative outcomes and barriers that might arise in
the context of this case scenario. It is quite evident that there was lack of demonstration of proper
partnership skills. However, there are certain strategies that can be adopted, which will help in
improving the overall patient outcomes at St. Martin’s hospital by fostering a successful
partnership.
 The hospital should recruit a health administrator who displays excellent leadership
qualities and has good decision making and communication skills.
 The hospital authorities should ensure empowerment of both the staff and the patients, to
achieve easy decision making in clinical emergency cases.
9

UNIT 5
 Steps should be taken to make the key stakeholders aware of shared decision making and
the existing policies that govern implementation of healthcare services (Chong, Aslani
and Chen 2013).
 The doctors and nurses should be given adequate responsibility to evaluate their patients
before proposing an intervention. This will enhance their clinical expertise and avoid
conflicts (Prybil et al. 2014).
 The hospital should arrange for provisions that would provide training to professionals
who fail to demonstrate the necessary skills. Thus, medication errors or adverse health
outcomes can be prevented (Perreault et al. 2017).
 A risk assessment should also be conducted to monitor and identify the issues that arise
in the partnership. This assessment will help in eliminating the barriers that contribute to
these issues. This would ensure effective functioning of the hospital and would reduce
the occurence of adverse health outcomes among its patients.
Therefore, it can be stated that adoption of these strategies will help in preventing all kinds of
partnership conflicts at St. Martin’s hospital and will safeguard the health and dignity of its
patients.
10

UNIT 5
References
Atkins, D., Heller, S.M., DeBartolo, E. and Sandel, M., 2014. Medical-Legal Partnership and
Healthy Start: integrating civil legal aid services into public health advocacy. Journal of Legal
Medicine, 35(1), pp.195-209.
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.
Chong, W.W., Aslani, P. and Chen, T.F., 2013. Shared decision-making and interprofessional
collaboration in mental healthcare: a qualitative study exploring perceptions of barriers and
facilitators. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(5), pp.373-379.
Corinne Brown, R.N., 2012. Partnership and empowerment program: a model for patient-
centered, comprehensive, and cost-effective care. Clinical journal of oncology nursing, 16(1),
p.15.
Dickinson, H. and O'Flynn, J., 2016. Evaluating outcomes in health and social care. Policy
Press, pp.29-58.
Dowling, B., Powell, M. and Glendinning, C., 2004. Conceptualising successful
partnerships. Health & social care in the community, 12(4), pp.309-317.
Ford, S. (2017). ‘Working in partnership with families must form part of mental health nurse
training’. [online] Nursing Times. Available at: https://www.nursingtimes.net/working-in-
partnership-with-families-must-form-part-of-mental-health-nurse-training/1879342.article
[Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
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, pp.1-26.
Granger, B.B., Prvu‐Bettger, J., Aucoin, J., Fuchs, M.A., Mitchell, P.H., Holditch‐Davis, D.,
Roth, D., Califf, R.M. and Gilliss, C.L., 2012. An Academic‐Health Service Partnership in
Nursing: Lessons From the Field. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(1), pp.71-79.
11

UNIT 5
Hncweb.com (2017). Hybrid model of partnership – PROMOTING POSITIVE PARTNERSHIP
WORKING. [online] Hncweb.com. Available at: https://hncweb.com/tag/hybrid-model-of-
partnership/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
Keleher, H., 2015. The value of partnership and collaboration in primary health. Health Voices,
(16), p.13.
Kendall, E., Muenchberger, H., Sunderland, N., Harris, M. and Cowan, D., 2012. Collaborative
capacity building in complex community-based health partnerships: a model for translating
knowledge into action. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 18(5), pp.E1-E13.
Legislation.gov.uk (2017). Care Standards Act 2000. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/14/contents [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
Legislation.gov.uk (2017). Health Act 1999. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/8/contents [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
Legislation.gov.uk (2017). Health and Social Care Act 2012. [online] Legislation.gov.uk.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted [Accessed 8 Dec.
2017].
Legislation.gov.uk (2017). The Health, Social Care and Well-being Strategies (Wales)
Regulations 2003. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2003/154/contents/made [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
Merrifield, N., Ford, S. and Stephenson, J. (2017). Successful partnership working. [online]
Nursing Times. Available at:
https://www.nursingtimes.net/successful-partnership-working/215212.article [Accessed 8 Dec.
2017].
Perreault, K., Pineault, R., Da Silva, R.B., Provost, S. and Feldman, D.E., 2017. What can
organizations do to improve family physicians’ interprofessional collaboration?: Results of a
survey of primary care in Quebec. Canadian Family Physician, 63(9), pp.e381-e388.
12

UNIT 5
Prybil, L., Scutchfield, F.D., Killian, R., Kelly, A., Mays, G.P., Carman, A., Levey, S.,
McGeorge, A. and Fardo, D.W., 2014. Improving community health through hospital-public
health collaboration: Insights and lessons learned from successful partnerships.
Radcliffe, M., Ford, S., Ford, S., Ford, S. and Ford, S. (2017). Managers must give nurses the
freedom to learn. [online] Nursing Times. Available at:
https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/national-organisations/managers-must-give-nurses-the-
freedom-to-learn/5012654.article [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017].
Rao, M. and Mant, D., 2012. Strengthening primary healthcare in India: white paper on
opportunities for partnership. BMJ, 344, p.e3151.
Rider, E.A., Kurtz, S., Slade, D., Longmaid, H.E., Ho, M.J., Pun, J.K.H., Eggins, S. and Branch,
W.T., 2014. The International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare: an interprofessional
global collaboration to enhance values and communication in healthcare. Patient education and
counseling, 96(3), pp.273-280.
Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C.R., Bucknall, T., Graham, I.D., Hutchinson, A.M. and Stacey, D.,
2016. Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and
challenges. International journal of health policy and management, 5(4), p.221.
Schadewaldt, V., McInnes, E., Hiller, J.E. and Gardner, A., 2014. Investigating characteristics of
collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners in primary healthcare: a
mixed methods multiple case study protocol. Journal of advanced nursing, 70(5), pp.1184-1193.
Supper, I., Catala, O., Lustman, M., Chemla, C., Bourgueil, Y. and Letrilliart, L., 2015.
Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers
perceived by involved actors. Journal of Public Health, 37(4), pp.716-727.
Varda, D., Shoup, J.A. and Miller, S., 2012. A systematic review of collaboration and network
research in the public affairs literature: implications for public health practice and
research. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), pp.564-571.
13