Home on a care order: who the children are and what the care order is for

Compared to children in other placements, there is much less known about the characteristics and needs of children in the UK who are returned to their birth parents with a care order still in place. That is in spite of evidence to suggest they face more difficulties than young people in other placements. Based on a 2009 census of looked after children in Northern Ireland, just under 10% (n = 193) were found to be living at home under a care order. Case file reviews were conducted for a quarter of these young people (n = 47) to generate descriptive statistics showing a very diverse population. That was followed by semi-structured interviews with members of eight families (ten children and eight birth parent/s), providing transcripts for thematic analysis. Nearly half of the young people whose case files were reviewed had experienced at least one home placement breakdown, but nearly two thirds had a stable last home placement. Care orders appeared to serve two functions: to give legal authority to social services for the monitoring of placements, and to facilitate family access to family support services. Replacing some care orders with supervision orders might better align legal status and actual function.

The Family Model - A transgenerational approach to mental health in families: personal, clinical, educational, research, systems and policy perspectives

The Family Model – A transgenerational approach to mental health in families This workshop will provide an overview on The Family Model (TFM) and its use in promoting and facilitating a trans­generational family focus in Mental Health services, over the past 10­ - 15 years. Each of the speakers will address a different perspective, including service user/consumer, clinical practice, education & training, research and policy. Adrian Falkov (chair) will provide an overview of TFM to set the scene and a ‘policy to practice’ perspective, based on use of TFM in Australia. Author: Heide Lloyd. The Family Model ­ A personal (consumer/patient) perspective | United Kingdom Heide will provide a description of her experiences as a child, adult, parent & grandparent, using TFM as the structure around which to ‘weave’ her story and demonstrate how TFM has assisted her in understanding the impact of symptoms on her & family and how she has used it in her management of symptoms and recovery (personal perspective). The Family Model ­ Education & training perspective ­ Marie Diggins | United Kingdom PhD Bente Weimand | Norway Authors: ­ Marie Diggins | United Kingdom PhD Bente Weimand | Norway This combined (UK & Norwegian) presentation will cover historical background to TFM and its use in eLearning (the Social Care Institute for Excellence)and a number of other UK initiatives, together with a description of the postgraduate masters course at the University Oslo/Akershus, using TFM. The Family Model ­ A research perspective PhD Anne Grant | Northern Ireland Author: PhD Anne Grant | Ireland Anne Grant will describe how she used TFM as the theoretical framework for her PhD looking at family focused (nursing) practice in Ireland. The Family Model ­ A service systems perspective ­ Mary Donaghy | Northern Ireland Authors: PhD Adrian Falkov | Australia ­ Mary Donaghy | N Ireland Mary Donaghy will discuss how TFM has been used to support & facilitate a cross service ‘whole of system’ change program in Belfast (NI) to achieve improved family focused practice. She will demonstrate its utility in achieving a broader approach to service design, delivery and evaluation.

Providing a ‘whole-of-family’ approach to care: family-focused practices in mental health services

Introduction: Family members including children are all impacted by a family member’s mental illness. Although mental health services are increasingly encouraged to engage in family-focused practice, this is not a well-understood concept or practice in mental health care. Methods: An integrative review using systematic methods was conducted with international literature, with the aim of identifying concepts and practices of family-focused practice in child and youth and adult mental health services. Results: Findings from 40 peer-reviewed literature identified a range of understandings and applications of family-focused practice, including who comprises the ‘family’, whether the focus is family of origin or family of procreation or choice, and whether the context of practice is child and youth or adult. ‘Family’ as defined by its members forms the foundation for practice that aims to provide a whole-of-family approach to care. Six core practices comprise a family focus to care: assessment; psychoeducation; family care planning and goal-setting; liaison between families and services; instrumental, emotional and social support; and a coordinated system of care between families and services. Conclusion: By incorporating key principles and the core family-focused practices into their care delivery, clinicians can facilitate a whole-of-family approach to care and strengthen family members’ wellbeing and resilience, and their individual and collective health outcomes.

Genome-wide association study reveals greater polygenic loading for schizophrenia in cases with a family history of illness

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of schizophrenia have yielded more than 100 common susceptibility variants, and strongly support a substantial polygenic contribution of a large number of small allelic effects. It has been hypothesized that familial schizophrenia is largely a consequence of inherited rather than environmental factors. We investigated the extent to which familiality of schizophrenia is associated with enrichment for common risk variants detectable in a large GWAS. We analyzed single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data for cases reporting a family history of psychotic illness (N = 978), cases reporting no such family history (N = 4,503), and unscreened controls (N = 8,285) from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC1) study of schizophrenia. We used a multinomial logistic regression approach with model-fitting to detect allelic effects specific to either family history subgroup. We also considered a polygenic model, in which we tested whether family history positive subjects carried more schizophrenia risk alleles than family history negative subjects, on average. Several individual SNPs attained suggestive but not genome-wide significant association with either family history subgroup. Comparison of genome-wide polygenic risk scores based on GWAS summary statistics indicated a significant enrichment for SNP effects among family history positive compared to family history negative cases (Nagelkerke's R(2 ) = 0.0021; P = 0.00331; P-value threshold <0.4). Estimates of variability in disease liability attributable to the aggregate effect of genome-wide SNPs were significantly greater for family history positive compared to family history negative cases (0.32 and 0.22, respectively; P = 0.031). We found suggestive evidence of allelic effects detectable in large GWAS of schizophrenia that might be specific to particular family history subgroups. However, consideration of a polygenic risk score indicated a significant enrichment among family history positive cases for common allelic effects. Familial illness might, therefore, represent a more heritable form of schizophrenia, as suggested by previous epidemiological studies.