Care Planning and the Role of the Independent Reviewing Officer: Research Report, October 2015
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Grimshaw and Sinclair concluded that the new regulations and guidance had led to improvements in social work planning for children in care, and participation of children and parents, but there was still room for improvement (1997: 242).In particular, they thought that there was an over-focus on the review meeting, and there should be a shift to thinking of review as a process, ending with a final child-centred meeting and completion of the necessary records (1997: 250).They recommended a clearer conceptualisation of care plans, that they should consist of two elements, the overall objectives and the steps that should be taken to achieve them (1997: 245).They also recommended a clearer conceptualisation of participation, awareness of its various levels and forms, and a proactive approach to achieving it (1997: 248).Finally, they recommended that 'Local authorities should clarify the decision-making role of reviews in relation to other decision-making bodies and to the responsibilities of senior management ' (1997: 251).Grimshaw and Sinclair's points about understanding the review as a process not just a meeting, and the two parts of the care plan, have proved influential.The relationship between the decisions made in reviews and through other managerial and organisational processes has proved harder to clarify, as the empirical data from this study will show; and their messages about the role of specialist officers to chair the reviews (discussed below) have perhaps been unfairly forgotten. The 1990s: other key developmentsKey developments in the 1990s included a) high profile programmes to ensure safety and improve outcomes for children in care, notably the introduction of the Looking After Children materials (1995 on) and the Quality Protects programme (1998 on); b) growing understanding of the importance of hearing children's views and promoting their participation; c) continuing debates about the proper role of the court in reviewing the progress of care plans after a care order had been made, and d) the evolution of local authority systems for reviewing cases.The Looking After Children materials were developed as part of an initiative to introduce the idea of 'outcomes' to social work thinking and, through that, to improve social work practice and care planning for children in care, inter-agency working, and the quality of care that the children received in their placements (Ward, 1995; for a critique, Bell, 1998).The project identified seven key dimensions for considering a child's needs and progress, and the help they required (health, education, emotional and behavioural development, identity, family and social relationships, social presentation, and self-care skills).It introduced a set of documents to assess, record and review these.The forms were initially designed as research instruments but a number of local authorities began to use them as ways of meeting the new planning and review requirements under the Children Act 1989.They were developed into practice tools over the period 1991-95, and then implemented nationally.By 1998 they were being used by nearly all local authorities in England (Bell, 1998).(They have been adopted in other countries too, notably Canada and Australia.)As noted in Chapter 1, the seven dimensions are now specified in the 2010 Regulations as matters which the care plan must address.Widespread concerns in the 1990s about the ill-treatment of children in care came to a head with the investigation into child abuse in children's homes in North Wales (Jillings, 1996(Jillings, , not made public until 2013;;Waterhouse, 2000).They led to the Utting report (1997) on the importance of proper safeguards for children in care.The Quality Protects programme, led by the Department of Health under the Labour government, aimed to ensure that local authorities provided 'safe, effective and
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».