Patterns of referral and waiting times for specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.

BACKGROUND: During 12-month period (2012/13) around 21,480 children and young people (CYP) were referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) in Scotland (NHS Scotland, 2013, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services waiting times in Scotland). At the end of September 2012, there were 3,602 CYP still waiting for 'start of treatment' or 'removal from the waiting list', 375 (10%) CYP had waited over 26 weeks and 1,204 (33%) CYP had waited over 18 weeks (NHS Scotland, 2013, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services waiting times in Scotland). Referral source, referral reason and the sociodemographic characteristics of CYP are not routinely collected, and therefore, associations between these factors and wait times for 'start of treatment' or 'removal from the waiting list' (i.e. the referral outcome) are unknown. METHOD: In this exploratory study, a retrospective analysis of referral data was conducted in one CAMHS. Data for 476 referrals between 1st May 2013 and 31st May 2014 were initially analysed to define categories for each of the following key variables: referral source, referral reason and referral outcome. Data on CYP sociodemographic characteristics were extracted from referral records, including age, gender and postcode, from which Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile of residence was derived. Descriptive statistics were calculated for referral source, referral reason and CYP sociodemographic characteristics. Regression models were then built to determine predictors of a referral being rejected by CAMHS and waiting time for referrals accepted by CAMHS. Data were analysed in SPSS (Version 20). RESULTS: Of the 476 referrals, 72% (n = 342) were accepted and 12% (n = 59) were rejected. Most referrals were made by general practitioners. Just under a third of referrals to CAMHS (31%) were for CYP with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The odds of being rejected by CAMHS were significantly higher if referred by teachers and for CYP with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Age and referral reason were significant independent predictors of waiting time after referral to CAMHS, with CYP referred for hyperactivity/inattention waiting significantly longer. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers should consider ways to foster dialogue and collaboration between different groups of professionals making and accepting referrals to CAMHS in order to improve timely access to appropriate mental health support services for CYP. Research is urgently needed to investigate the experiences of CYP who are either rejected by CAMHS or wait lengthy periods of time before starting their treatment with CAMHS.

Getting It Right for Every Child: A National Policy Framework to Promote Children's Well-being in Scotland, United Kingdom.

POLICY POINTS: Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC), a landmark policy framework for improving children's well-being in Scotland, United Kingdom, is a practice initiative signifying a distinct way of thinking, an agenda for change, and the future direction of child welfare policy. GIRFEC represents a unique case study of national transformative change within the contexts of children's well-being and universal services and is of relevance to other jurisdictions. Implementation is under way, with an understanding of well-being and the requirement for information sharing enshrined in law. Yet there is scope for interpretation within the legislation and associated guidance. Inherent tensions around intrusion, data gathering, professional roles, and balancing well-being against child protection threaten the effectiveness of the policy if not resolved. CONTEXT: Despite persistent health inequalities and intergenerational deprivation, the Scottish government aspires for Scotland to be the best country for children to grow up in. Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) is a landmark children's policy framework to improve children's well-being via early intervention, universal service provision, and multiagency coordination across organizational boundaries. Placing the child and family "at the center," this approach marks a shift from welfare to well-being, yet there is still a general lack of consensus over how well-being is defined and measured. As an umbrella policy framework with broad reach, GIRFEC represents the current and future direction of children's/family policy in Scotland, yet large-scale practice change is required for successful implementation. METHODS: This article explores the origins and emergence of GIRFEC and presents a critical analysis of its incremental design, development, and implementation. FINDINGS: There is considerable scope for interpretation within the GIRFEC legislation and guidance, most notably around assessment of well-being and the role and remit of those charged with implementation. Tensions have arisen around issues such as professional roles; intrusion, data sharing, and confidentiality; and the balance between supporting well-being and protecting children. Despite the policy's intentions for integration, the service landscape for children and families still remains relatively fragmented. CONCLUSIONS: Although the policy has groundbreaking potential, inherent tensions must be resolved and the processes of change carefully managed in order for GIRFEC to be effective. It remains to be seen whether GIRFEC can fulfil the Scottish government's aspirations to reduce inequalities and improve lifelong outcomes for Scotland's children and young people. In terms of both a national children's well-being framework within a universal public service context and a distinct style of policymaking and implementation, the Scottish experience represents a unique case study of whole-country, transformational change and is of relevance to other jurisdictions.

Early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing: what works, for whom and in what circumstances? Protocol for a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Child health and wellbeing is influenced by multiple factors, all of which can impact on early childhood development. Adverse early life experiences can have lasting effects across the life course, sustaining inequalities and resulting in negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of individuals and society. The potential to influence future outcomes via early intervention is widely accepted; there are numerous policy initiatives, programmes and interventions clustered around the early years theme, resulting in a broad and disparate evidence base. Existing reviews have addressed the effectiveness of early years interventions, yet there is a knowledge gap regarding the mechanisms underlying why interventions work in given contexts. METHODS/DESIGN: This realist review seeks to address the question 'what works, for whom and in what circumstances?' in terms of early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing. The review will be conducted following Pawson's five-stage iterative realist methodology: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will work with stakeholders in the early stages to refine the focus of the review, create a review framework and build programme theory. Searches for primary evidence will be conducted iteratively. Data will be extracted and tested against the programme theory. A review collaboration group will oversee the review process. DISCUSSION: The review will demonstrate how early years interventions do or do not work in different contexts and with what outcomes and effects. Review findings will be written up following the RAMESES guidelines and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015017832.