Making meaningful connections: Using insights from social pedagogy in statutory child and family social work practice

Reports into incidents of child death and serious injury have highlighted consistently concern about the capacity of social workers to communicate skilfully with children. Drawing on data collected as part of an Economic and Social Research Council funded UK-wide research project exploring social workers’ communicative practices with children, this paper explores how approaches informed by social pedagogy can assist social workers in connecting and communicating children. The qualitative research included data generated from 82 observations of social workers’ everyday encounters with children. Social pedagogical concepts of ‘haltung’ (attitude), ‘head, heart and hands’ and ‘the common third’ are outlined as potentially helpful approaches for facilitating the intimacies of inter-personal connections and enhancing social workers’ capacity to establish and sustain meaningful communication and relationships with children in the face of austere social, political and organisational contexts.

UK consensus project on quality in palliative day services: developing a quality indicator set using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

Introduction
Evaluating quality of palliative day services is essential for assessing care across diverse settings, and for monitoring quality improvement approaches.

Aim
To develop a set of quality indicators for assessment of all aspects (structure, process and outcome) of care in palliative day services.

Methods
Using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (Fitch et al., 2001), a multidisciplinary panel of 16 experts independently completed a survey rating the appropriateness of 182 potential quality indicators previously identified during a systematic evidence review. Panel members then attended a one day, face-to-face meeting where indicators were discussed and subsequently re-rated. Panel members were also asked to rate the feasibility and necessity of measuring each indicator.

Results
71 indicators classified as inappropriate during the survey were removed based on median appropriateness ratings and level of agreement. Following the panel discussions, a further 60 were removed based on appropriateness and feasibility ratings, level of agreement and assessment of necessity. Themes identified during the panel discussion and findings of the evidence review were used to translate the remaining 51 indicators into a final set of 27.

Conclusion
The final indicator set included information on rationale and supporting evidence, methods of assessment, risk adjustment, and recommended performance levels. Further implementation work will test the suitability of this ‘toolkit’ for measurement and benchmarking. The final indicator set provides the basis for standardised assessment of quality across services, including care delivered in community and primary care settings.

Reference

• Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2001. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269