Recommendations for Future Practice

This researcher concludes that policy may improve the experiences of the parents but there is a need for ‘fine-tuning’. What is important, given the lack of literature that elicits parents’ experiences of this topic, is that the findings here are used to base the following recommendations.

The key factor concerning familial experiences with services at any level was the lack of information available. In many cases they felt information was neither timely nor forthcoming, generating anxiety particularly at transitional periods. Therefore the recommendations should focus upon ways to deliver timely information.

This study proposes the development of unambiguous standardised training for health and social care professionals, suggesting the need for inter-professional learning of social workers and nurses. Literature has already acknowledged that a lack of standardised training across the UK has led to a subjective interpretation of the policy (Ellis, 2007). It is important that nurses and social workers are aware of what their roles in delivering information are and an understanding of when support may be

- 83 -

professional and parent. It is clear that participation alone on the part of the parent does not lead to empowerment. Here training is more geared to creating a change in attitude, than a change in knowledge, professionals are already aware of the need to include parents in care packages, but this inclusion is subject to interpretation. Therefore, professionals should acknowledge not just when but how to engage with families, so that both parties can organise a service that is beneficial for the child.

The above training should be implemented at student level. However, there is a need to reach those already in practice, therefore it is suggested that training is promoted throughout Primary Care Trust’s and Local Authorities to engage with pre-existing social work and community nursing teams.

7.2 Reflection

In reflecting upon this research, the inclusion of nurses and social workers experiences would have enhanced a deeper understanding of service delivery. I had also wished to look further into the delivery of direct payments but given the lack of literature and availability of parents who accessed the services; this was unrealistic in the time frame. Despite this, I feel the study has highlighted some of the issues associated with this service and provided indications for future research.

In terms of my personal development I have grown, through overcoming various difficulties associated with recruiting participants, planning and

time management. I have gained confidence in my ability to manage a research project. In sharing experiences with parents I have a deeper level of awareness that while the child is the centre of care delivery, the family are a part of this and their wellbeing is paramount in enabling them to continue caring for their child. The necessary limits on the length of this report means it has been difficult to portray all the aspects families face. However, it is my responsibility to understand these difficulties and be aware of how families as a whole can be empowered with nursing support.

I will finish this with a quote from a parent,

“I’m a bee, bees shouldn’t fly, they’re not aerodynamic, but no one has

told them so they keep flying. Somebody should sit me down and say you

can’t do all this, it’s impossible, but nobody’s told me so I just do it…”

- 85 -

 Ashworth, M and Baker, A. (2000) ‘Time and space’: carers’ views about respite care. Health and Social Care in the Community. 8 (1): pp 50- 56

 Banks, M (2003) Disability in the Family: A life span Perspective. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 9 (4): pp 367- 384

 Beck, C., Keddy, B. and Cohen, M. (1994) Reliability and Validity Issues in Phenomenological Research. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 16 (3): pp 254- 267

 Carnaby, S. (2007) The Bigger Picture Understanding approaches to learning disability. In: Carnaby, S (Ed.) Learning Disability

Today. 2nd ed. Brighton: Pavilion

 Catherall and Iphofen (2006) Living with disability. Learning Disability Practice. 9 (5): pp 16- 21

 Colaizzi, P (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist reviews it. In Beck, C., Keddy, B. and Cohen, M. (1994) Reliability and Validity Issues in Phenomenological Research. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 16 (3): pp 254- 267

 Corkin, D., Price, J. and Gillespie (2006) Respite care for children, young people and families – are their needs addressed?

International Journal of Palliative Nursing. 12 (9): pp 422- 427

 Dahlberg, K., Drew, N. and Nystrom, M (2001) Reflective Lifeworld Research. In. Holloway, I. and Wheeler, S. (2002) Qualitative Research In Nursing. 2nd ed. Oxford. Blackwell Science

 Data Protection Act (1998) (c. 29). Great Britain. London. HMSO  Department For Education and Skills (2007) Aiming high for

disabled children: better support for families. London. HMSO  Department for Schools and Families (DfSF) (2007) The Children’s

Plan. London. HMSO

 Department of Health (2001) Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century. Cmnd 5086. London: HMSO

 Department of Health (2003) Every Child Matters. Cmnd 5860. London: HMSO

 Department of Health (2004) National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. London. HMSO

 Department of Health (2006) Transition: Getting it Right for Young People. London. HMSO

 Department of Health (2009) Valuing People: From Progress to Transformation. London:HMSO

 Department of Health and Department for Children Schools and Families (2009) Healthy lives, Brighter futures- the strategy for children and young people’s health. London. HMSO

 Department of Health and Social Security (1971) Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped. Cmnd 4683. London: HMSO .  Department of Work and Pensions, Department of Health and

Department for Education and Skills (2005) Improving Life Chances of Disabled People. London. HMSO

 Dingwall, R. (1997) Accounts, Interviews and Observations. In, Miller, D and Dingwall (Eds) Conext and Method in Qualitative Research. London. SAGE

 Disability Discrimination Act (1995) (c.50). Great Britain. London. HMSO

 Ellis, J., Logan, S., Pumphery, R., Kuan Tan, H., Henley, W.,

Edwards, V., Moy, R. and Gilbert, R. (2007) Inequalities in provision of the Disability Living Allowance for Down Syndrome. Archives of Disease In Childhood. 93: pp 14- 16

 Ellis, K. (2007) Direct Payments and Social Work Practice: The Significance of ‘Street-Level Bureaucracy’ in Determining Eligibility. British Journal of Social Work. 37: pp 405- 422

 Emerson, E (2005) Models of service delivery In: Grant, G., Gowerd, M., Richardson, M. and Ramcharan, P. (Ed) Learning Disability; a life cycle approach to valuing people. Berkshire: Open University Press

 Every Disabled child Matters (2009) Getting Rights and Justice for every disabled child. [online]. Available at:

http://www.ncb.org.uk/edcm/home.aspx [Accessed 26 November 2009]

- 87 -

 Hollaway, I and Tordres, L. (2006) Phenomenological Research. In. K, Garrish and Lacey, A. (2006) The Research Process and

Nursing. 5th Ed. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.

 Holloway, I. and Wheeler, S. (2002) Qualitative Research In Nursing. 2nd ed. Oxford. Blackwell Science

 Hudson, B (2003) From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: the partnership challenge for learning disability services in England, Disability and Society. 18 (3): pp 258- 267

 Human Rights Act (1998) (c. 42). Great Britain. London. HMSO  Kirk, A and Glendinning, C. (1998) Trends in community care and

patient participation: implications for the roles of the informal carers and community nurses in the United Kingdom. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 28 (2): pp 370- 381

 Leece, D and Leece, J. (2006) Direct Payments: Creating a Two- Tiered System in Social Care? British Journal of Social Work. 36: pp 1379- 1393

 Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. In. Holloway, I. and Wheeler, S. (2002) Qualitative Research In Nursing. 2nd ed. Oxford. Blackwell Science

 Lipsky, M (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York. Russell Sage

 MacDonald, H and Callery, P. (2003) Different meanings of respite: a study of parents, nurses and social workers caring for children with complex needs. Child: Care, Health and Development. 30 (3): pp 279- 288

 MacDonald, H and Callery, P. (2007) Parenting Children Requiring Complex Care: a journey though time. Child: care, health and development. 34 (2): pp 207- 213

 Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (2003) Beginning Qualitative Research a Philosophic Guide. London. Routledge Falmer  McCliments (2005) From Vagabonds to Victorian values: the social

construction of disability identity. In: Grant, G., Gowerd, M.,

Richardson, M. and Ramcharan, P. (Ed) Learning Disability; a life cycle approach to valuing people. Berkshire: Open University Press

 Olsen, R and Maslin-Prothero, P. (2001) Dilemmas in the provision of own-home respite support for parents of young children with complex health care needs: evidence from an evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 34 (5): pp 603- 610

 Parahoo, K. (2006) Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues. 2nd ed. London. Palgrave MacMillan

 Preece, D and Rita, J. (2007) Short Break Services for Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders: Factors Associated with Service Use and Non-use. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 37: pp 371- 385

 Priestly, M., Jolly, D., Pearson, C., Ridell, S., Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (2007) Direct Payments and Disabled People in the UK: Supply, Demand and Devolution. British Journal of Social Work. 37: pp 1189- 1204

 Procter, S and Allan, T. (2006) Sampling In. K, Garrish and Lacey, A. (2006) The Research Process and Nursing. 5th Ed. Oxford. Blackwell. Publishing.

 Race, D. (2007) A tale of two White Papers: Policy documents as indicators of trends in UK services. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. 11 (1): pp 83- 103

 Rapley, T. (2004) Interviews. In. Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J., and Silverman, D. (Eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London. SAGE

 Richardson, M (2005) Critiques of segregation and eugenics In: Grant, G., Gowerd, M., Richardson, M. and Ramcharan, P. (Ed) Learning Disability; a life cycle approach to valuing people. Berkshire: Open University Press

 Robinson, C., Jackson, P. and Townsley, R. (2001) Short breaks for families caring for a disabled child with complex health needs. Child and Family Social Work. 6: pp 67- 75

 Seidman, I. (1998) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. 2nd Ed. New York. Teachers Collage Press

 Silverman, D. (2005) Doing Qualitative Research: a practical handbook. 2nd ed. London. Sage Publications

 Slater, C., Slater, K. and Carpenter, A. (2007) ‘I choose – I choose my staff, I choose where I go’ Living with direct payments. In:

- 89 -

 Stainton, T. (2002) Taking Rights Structurally: Disability Rights and Social Worker Responses to Direct Payments. British Journal of Social Work. 32: pp 751- 763

 Swift, P (2007) Implementing direct payments for people with a learning disability. Learning Disability Today. 7 (1): pp 12- 15  Tarleton, B. and Ward, L (2005) Changes and choices: finding out

what information young people with learning disabilities, their parents and supporters need in transition. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 33: pp 70- 76

 The Carers and Disabled Children’s Act (2000) (c. 16). Great Britain. London. HMSO

 The Children’s Act (1948) (c. 43). Great Britain. London. HMSO  The Health and Social Care Act (2001) (c. 15).Great Britain.

London. HMSO

 The National Health Service and Community Care Act (1990) (c. 19). Great Britain. London. HMSO

 Tod, A. (2006) Interviewing. In. K, Garrish and Lacey, A. (2006) The Research Process and Nursing. 5th Ed. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.

 Todd, S. and Jones, S. (2005) Looking at the future and seeing the past: the challenge of the middle years of parenting a child with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 49 (6): 389- 404