| Literature DB >> 34434080 |
Perrin Moss1, Rebecca O'Callaghan2, Andrea Fisher3, Craig Kennedy4, Frank Tracey5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Three peak organisations in Queensland, Australia partnered with consumers and other health and social sector partners to co-design and pilot the first known integrated, health navigation model to improve outcomes for children and young people in care in Australia. DESCRIPTION: An Organisational Learning theoretical lens has been used to present a narrative case study of findings structured as key learnings from the Navigate Your Health pilot to inform quality improvement, scalability and program sustainability. A developmental evaluation was completed whereby semi-structured interviews, focus groups, surveys, chart reviews, database excerpts and economic modelling was completed alongside project documentation analyses to create an evaluation framework. DISCUSSION: Findings highlighted the agency partners' drive to foster a more integrated and person-centred approach to care. The pilot's aim of improving health outcomes for a vulnerable population were achieved through a co-designed process which provided additional insights regarding partnerships, improvement, scalability and sustainability.Entities:
Keywords: Queensland; child protection; child safety; integration; navigation; paediatrics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34434080 PMCID: PMC8362630 DOI: 10.5334/ijic.5659
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Integr Care Impact factor: 5.120
NYH Model overview.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| HEALTH SCREENING | REFERRAL COORDINATION | HEALTHCARE COORDINATION |
|
| ||
| Children and young people would receive a preliminary health check, followed by a comprehensive health and developmental assessment covering the domains of physical, developmental and mental/emotional health. | The most appropriate pathways for the child/young person would be determined – dependent on the outcome of the preliminary and comprehensive assessments, age, cultural status, disability status, care and health history. Referrals to required services or additional assessments would be progressed and be monitored to ensure the timeliness of follow up and the development of a Health Management Plan. | Children and young peoples’ healthcare would continue to progress in an integrated way, and in line with the recommendations of their Health Management Plan. A higher emphasis and priority for meeting their healthcare needs would be in place. The child’s Child Safety Officer and other roles in the child’s support network would be provided with education to build their health literacy in supporting healthcare coordination. |
|
| ||
Organisational Learnings.
|
| |
|---|---|
| APPROACH EXAMPLES | ORGANISATIONAL LEARNINGS |
|
| |
|
Young people and foster carers consulted in role description development for Health Navigator roles; Young people with lived experience in care involved in recruitment shortlisting and interview panels for Health Navigator roles; Representatives from each partner agency involved in recruitment shortlisting and interviewing for Health Navigator roles. |
Central focus on what characteristics young people value in health workforce; Role modelling of co-design process to interview candidates; Mindfulness of the importance of incorporating the consumer’s voice in decision-making processes. |
|
| |
|
Bespoke program consent forms developed; Routine referralprocesses and documentation processes agreed by both agencies; Ongoing quality improvements madethroughout the pilot where required to facilitate and sustain changemanagement activity. |
Iterative process to consult with both agencies’ legalservices teams, health and child safety staff to develop consentform; Mindfulness of incorporating relevant legislation from both Child Safetyand Health sectors; Consistent referral documentation collation and submission processesto initiate and complete a successful referral into the pilot. |
|
| |
|
Information flyers co-branded with all agencies’ logos to showcase partnership, written in low health literacy language; Joint media and engagement opportunities to promote the pilot, joint presentations delivered in partnership by agency partners. |
Ability to raiseprofile of pilot across multiple stakeholder forums to socialise thebenefits to children and young people; Mindfulness of communicating thebenefits of the pilot to stakeholders with low literacy levelsto ensure their understanding and avoiding jargon; Public displays ofunity and commitment to improve. |
|
| |
|
Strategicand Operational Governance Committees; Frontline culture and workforce change agentin Child Safety and Health systems; Active seeking of eligiblereferrals from across in-scope Child Safety Service Centres to maintaintraction in referring children and young people to the pilot; and a developmental evaluation of the pilot. |
Shared governance meant key decisions were consulted upon and discussed in open forums with relevant stakeholders providing subject matter expertise, and executive sponsors’ endorsement; Supported change amongst health providers to prioritise this vulnerable population for care above general triage ratings; Dedicated project resources were essential to sustain practice change and referral momentum in Child Safety; Developmental evaluation was essential to document and analyse the pilot’s outcomes and identify recommendations for ongoing improvements throughout the pilot. |
|
| |
|
Project Management roles – in-kind; Health Navigators – jointly-funded. |
Project resourcing was essential to facilitate and navigate organisational complexitiesbetween partner agencies; Shared financial investment sustained each partner agency’sexecutive sponsorship and championing throughout the pilot; Set a precedentand role modelled successful approach for future opportunities to jointlyinvest in improvement initiatives. |
|
| |
Prioritisation Criteria for referral to the NYH pilot.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| NEW TO CARE | ALREADY IN CARE | SUBSEQUENT PRIORITY CRITERIA FOR REFERRAL |
|
| ||
|
Child or young person entered care for the first time, during the pilot period 2018–2019 (prospective control group) |
Child or young person has already been residing in care prior to pilot commencing (retrospective comparison group) |
Identify as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin; Are under six years of age – to support earlier intervention; Are aged 15 years and over – to support earlier transition for adolescent and young adult services; Entered out-of-home care due to neglect concerns; Are in contact with the youth justice system; Are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; Have not seen a General Practitioner in the previous 6–12 months; Have unaddressed or poorly understood health or development concerns as recognised by Child Safety staff; Are not up to date with immunisations; and/or Are siblings of the above cohort. |
|
| ||
Demographic Profile of Children and Young People referred during the pilot.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| 0–5 years | 254 | 44.64% |
|
| ||
| 6–12 years | 214 | 37.61% |
|
| ||
| 13+ years | 101 | 17.75% |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Female | 282 | 49.56% |
|
| ||
| Male | 287 | 50.44% |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander | 152 | 26.71% |
|
| ||
| Non-Indigenous | 401 | 70.47% |
|
| ||
| Unknown | 16 | 2.82% |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Already in care | 356 | 62.57% |
|
| ||
| New to care | 213 | 37.43% |
|
| ||