Change is part of a humans’ existence therefore, it’s unavoidable and timeless. This concept is interrelated and insensitive to current occurrences within the wider welfare institutions in the UK’s health and social care sectors in particular. At present, health and social services are all over again undergoing a painstaking restructuring that’s creating psychological and physical stresses to the entire workforce and consumers. This trajectory is building uncertain future due to continuous re-organizations, change of emphasis and redirections of care delivery to the overall public. Ironically, people aren’t sure where their future and loyalty lies as changes in the device is triggering great worries to all concerned.
On reflection, health and social services went through a huge conscientious change in 1990s (The NHS and Community Care Act), that reconfigured the welfare systems from what many practitioners and managers thought will be a modern establishment. However, the New Labour government in 1997 to 2010 changed the chance and redesigned it to new approaches such as personalization of services (Direct payments, Cash for Care and Personal Budgets) that transformed services delivery within the sectors. Change can make or break staff commitment, maximization of services, profitability or industrial disputes involving the management and employees, this owing to mishaps within industrial relations’ policies and protocols.
Changing organizational cultures in addition to philosophy and employee’s terms of reference requires effective governance and scrutiny in order to ensure health and social care reforms benefit the benefits of all. The important thing to making the reforms work as planned is always to safeguard effective analysis of brand new policy directives and structures. It’s now questionable whether the “New Means of Working” is capable of changing the fabrics and structures of the welfare services in the UK. The key themes of the overhauls are to cut back costs/budgets, staffing and improving quality and standards of services.
Decision making in a few departments or services are proving to be irrational because costs are escalating, standards declining and waiting lists for assessment increasing across many social services departments. Most quality newspapers affirm that the coalition may did everything they could to start implementing health and social care modifications before being properly examined. But, without careful considerations and good governance the plans would be an unmitigated disaster. That notwithstanding, the speed of restructuring and reallocation of services have produced an unsettling atmosphere for many health/social care workers and managers. The government’ itinerary to carry on with reforms and their failure to permit time for study or to win the professional’s backing for these radical plans have now been challenging to the wider community of experts and the general public at large.
Thinking about the clamor amongst practitioners and clinicians, the question is, would the governments’ defiant be regarded as democratic or dictetorism? In contrast, it’s thought that democracy means “government for the people and by the people” ;.If that’s the case, the coalition might have itself to be blamed for just about any criticisms regarding their actions. The dismantling of the (PCT) Primary Care Trusts through the entire country next several years could be termed as political vandalism of tax payer’s money and good governance.
Similarly, most strategic health and local government authorities have expressed concerns regarding cutbacks on their budget, which could have huge ramifications to services for seniors and other vulnerable groups such as individuals with disabilities and mental health. It’s been widely highlighted with a large proportion of the professional bodies including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, British Medical Association and BBC 2 News Night in particular. The criticisms of the us government has become without seasoning because health and social care organizations needs to double their expected cuts in order to remain afloat.
The growth of seniors and their increasing demand for care has become unprecedented and becoming a risk to the welfare service and public services. This really is despite extraordinary support from informal caregivers who are believed to possess saved the us government over eleven (£11bn) billion pounds a year. That notwithstanding, change is necessary to reduce duplications within the device therefore, what’s desirable now’s a long term strategic alliance between all stakeholders (the national and local governments, health and social care and members of the family etc.). This may guarantee and strengthen collaborative services and minimization of costs and wastage within the sectors involved. Yet, judging from the current state of the economy the macro and micro variable, it’s sure change is foreseeable in order to meet up with the challenges presented by the turmoil in the financial market and escalation of cost to keep up health and social care. autism specialist
However, the issue in planning, management and administration of the ageing universal service in the UK has been made a lot harder consequently of disproportionately deep cuts to local authorities. The Big Society agenda indicated that the us government should devolve responsibilities to the city, individuals, families and the third sector. By all assumptions, this will make certain that service users’ care would continue while restructuring is in progress. In hindsight, the important thing to making the reforms work is always to safeguard effective control and scrutiny of all of the workflow patterns and services delivery. Practically, this has proved overwhelming for the organizations and management as information on the shake-up is superficial in terms of economics and socio-politics consistent with social policy in the UK.
Presently, the us government seems unconcerned and flustered regarding the “House of Common’s” health select committee’s proposal that councillors should be appointed to possess seats on the boards of GPs consortia. On reflection, the quality and capacity of the representatives of some voluntary bodies such as: patients/service user’s liaison body and the area involvement network agencies could be inconsistent and lacking due to clinical and financial expertise. Thus, as a scrutiny committee, it’d in practice be problematic to work closely with Health Watch, in addition to with the health and wellbeing boards.