Agenda för samverkan eller verksamhetens agenda? Om professionellas erfarenheter av samverkan enligt samordnad individuell plan (SIP)

Agenda for collaboration or an agency agenda? Professionals’ experiences of colla­boration according to a coordinated individual plan (CIP) An increasing number of children and adolescents develop complex needs that require simultaneous action by different professionals. Several reports state that efforts for these children and adolescents have become increasingly specialized and fragmented. Since 2010, there are statutory requirements for collaboration according to a coordinated individual plan (SIP) between health care and social services. Pre-school and school can after regional agreement be involved in the co-ordination as equal partner. Collaboration in line with CIP is expected to offset the fragmentation for benefit of the service users’ ability to monitor and comprehend interventions. The aim was to investigate professionals’ experiences of CIP. The study consists of qualitative analysis of 12 focus group interviews with a total of 71 staff with different professions in health care, education and social services about their experiences of CIP. The results indicate that the participants act according to their core mission: nurturing, teaching and investigation. Two main categories with four sub-categories each appeared in the analysis. The main category, hindering factors, contains the categories: different mandates and requirements, requirements for presence initiative, questioning and censure, and timelines and prioritization. The main category of facilitating factors contains the categories: similar interpretation of common agreement, mutual respect and shared learning, common terminology and documentation, and willingness to collaborate. The analysis indicate that CIP was perceived as alternating between, on the one hand, a pro-active and service-focused tool, and on the other hand, a competing and compelling professional instrument.

Mobility and satisfaction with lower-limb prostheses and orthoses among users in Sierra Leone: A cross-sectional study

Objectives: To investigate patients' mobility and satisfaction with their lower-limb prosthetic or orthotic device and related service delivery in Sierra Leone; to compare groups of patients regarding type and level of assistive device, gender, area of residence, income; and to identify factors associated with satisfaction with the assistive device and service. Methods: A total of 139 patients answered questionnaires, including the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology questionnaire (QUEST 2.0). Results: Eighty-six percent of assistive devices were in use, but half needed repair. Thirty-three percent of patients reported pain when using their assistive device. Patients had difficulties or could not walk at all on: uneven ground (65%); hills (75%); and stairs (66%). Patients were quite satisfied with their assistive device and the service (mean 3.7 out of 5 in QUEST), but reported 886 problems. Approximately half of the patients could not access services. In relation to mobility and service delivery, women, orthotic patients and patients using above-knee assistive devices had the poorest results. The general condition of the assistive device and patients' ability to walk on uneven ground were associated with satisfaction with the assistive devices and service. Conclusion: Patients reported high levels of mobility while using their device although they experienced pain and difficulties walking on challenging surfaces. Limitations in the effectiveness of assistive devices and limited access to follow-up services and repairs were issues desired to be addressed.