L Gray1, J Gibbs2, N Jolleff3, J Williams4, H McConachie5, J R Parr1. 1. Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2. Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, UK. 3. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 4. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 5. Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine whether UK child development teams (CDTs) have implemented good practice recommendations for the co-ordinated assessment and support of children with neurodisability and to explore some of the factors associated with variations in good practice implementation. DESIGN: Surveys were sent to every UK CDT in 2009/2010. Responses about CDT provision and ways of working were compared with good practice recommendations from national policy documents and professional organizations. The extent to which CDTs in England and Wales met 11 selected good practice recommendations was scored; teams in Scotland and Northern Ireland were given a score out of 9 to reflect the optional use of the common assessment framework and early support materials in these countries. RESULTS: Responses were received from 225/240 (94%) UK CDTs. Thirty-seven per cent of CDTs in England and Wales had implemented nine or more of the 11 recommendations. Fifty-nine per cent of teams in Scotland and 78% of teams in Northern Ireland met between six and nine recommendations of good working practice. Higher levels of implementation of recommendations were found when the CDT had a Child Development Centre base and for teams who had received increased funding in the 5 years preceding the survey. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in the degree to which CDTs implemented good practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of children with neurodisability. Evidence about child and parent satisfaction, and the effectiveness of CDT practices and provision, is required, so policymakers, healthcare commissioners and clinicians can provide the most appropriate services to children with neurodisability and their families.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine whether UK child development teams (CDTs) have implemented good practice recommendations for the co-ordinated assessment and support of children with neurodisability and to explore some of the factors associated with variations in good practice implementation. DESIGN: Surveys were sent to every UK CDT in 2009/2010. Responses about CDT provision and ways of working were compared with good practice recommendations from national policy documents and professional organizations. The extent to which CDTs in England and Wales met 11 selected good practice recommendations was scored; teams in Scotland and Northern Ireland were given a score out of 9 to reflect the optional use of the common assessment framework and early support materials in these countries. RESULTS: Responses were received from 225/240 (94%) UK CDTs. Thirty-seven per cent of CDTs in England and Wales had implemented nine or more of the 11 recommendations. Fifty-nine per cent of teams in Scotland and 78% of teams in Northern Ireland met between six and nine recommendations of good working practice. Higher levels of implementation of recommendations were found when the CDT had a Child Development Centre base and for teams who had received increased funding in the 5 years preceding the survey. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in the degree to which CDTs implemented good practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of children with neurodisability. Evidence about child and parent satisfaction, and the effectiveness of CDT practices and provision, is required, so policymakers, healthcare commissioners and clinicians can provide the most appropriate services to children with neurodisability and their families.
Authors: Oliver D Howes; Maria Rogdaki; James L Findon; Robert H Wichers; Tony Charman; Bryan H King; Eva Loth; Gráinne M McAlonan; James T McCracken; Jeremy R Parr; Carol Povey; Paramala Santosh; Simon Wallace; Emily Simonoff; Declan G Murphy Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Vanessa Abrahamson; Wenjing Zhang; Patricia M Wilson; William Farr; Venkat Reddy; Jeremy Parr; Anna Peckham; Ian Male Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jeremy R Parr; Emma Todhunter; Lindsay Pennington; Deborah Stocken; Jill Cadwgan; Anne E O'Hare; Catherine Tuffrey; Jane Williams; Mike Cole; Allan F Colver Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.791