Single Shared Assessment: The Limits to ‘Quick Fix’ Implementation

Joint working between health and social services has been a key focus of policy in recent years, albeit ‐ underneath the protocols and partnership agreements ‐ integrated processes have developed unevenly. A single shared assessment tool has been one of the concrete expressions of policy on the ground. This paper explores the implementation of the shared assessment process in Scotland. It discusses the broader policy agenda, before exploring the introduction of the shared assessment tool in a large urban authority. Based primarily on interviews with front‐line staff in health and social work and managers charged with delivering shared assessment, the paper suggests a lack of engagement on issues such as working cultures and equity of workloads, while some of the main reasons behind the implementation of shared assessment, such as overcoming duplication, have not generally materialised for staff. Overall, single shared assessment has been driven by process rather than by engagement with wider ideas about joint working, which has led to uneven and at times unwilling implementation.

[1]  G. Macnamara The Implementation of Single Shared Assessment in Meadowbank, Falkirk: A Joint Future , 2006 .

[2]  T. Forbes,et al.  DELIVERING COMMUNITY CARE IN SCOTLAND: CAN LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS BRIDGE THE GAP? , 2005 .

[3]  Mark McAteer,et al.  Devolution and Local Government: Evidence from Scotland , 2005 .

[4]  W. El Ansari,et al.  The Costs and Benefits to Participants in Community Partnerships: A Paradox? , 2004, Health promotion practice.

[5]  A. Petch,et al.  Moving towards integrated working in health and social care in Scotland: from maze to matrix , 2003, Journal of interprofessional care.

[6]  Anna Coleman,et al.  Primary health and social care services in the UK: progress towards partnership? , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[7]  L. Brown,et al.  Evaluating the impact of integrated health and social care teams on older people living in the community. , 2003, Health & social care in the community.

[8]  Jim Crowther,et al.  Collaborative partnerships in community education , 2003 .

[9]  Bob Hudson,et al.  The NHS and social care: the final countdown? , 2002 .

[10]  C. Glendinning,et al.  Partnerships, performance and primary care: developing integrated services for older people in England , 2002, Ageing and Society.

[11]  A. McCallin,et al.  Interdisciplinary practice--a matter of teamwork: an integrated literature review. , 2001, Journal of clinical nursing.

[12]  W. El Ansari,et al.  Collaboration and partnerships: developing the evidence base. , 2001, Health & social care in the community.

[13]  J Molyneux,et al.  Interprofessional teamworking: what makes teams work well? , 2001, Journal of interprofessional care.

[14]  E. Peck,et al.  The meanings of 'culture' in health and social care: a case study of the combined Trust in Somerset. , 2001, Journal of interprofessional care.

[15]  H. Brown,et al.  Critical Practice in Health and Social Care , 2000 .

[16]  Bob Hudson,et al.  Joint commissioning across the primary health care-social care boundary: can it work? , 1999, Health & social care in the community.

[17]  K. Rummery The way forward for joint working? Involving primary care in the commissioning of social care services , 1999 .

[18]  P Runciman,et al.  Health assessment of the elderly at home: the case for shared learning. , 1989, Journal of advanced nursing.

[19]  Bob Hudson,et al.  Collaboration in Social Welfare: a framework for analysis , 1987 .

[20]  T. Beauchamp,et al.  Principles of biomedical ethics , 1991 .