2. The Personalisation Agenda: The Service User Role in Practice Learning Jane McLenachan Head of Division of Social Work & Health Studies School of Applied Social Sciences

3. Personalisation: implications for social work New types of worker roles  organisational & professional context Emergence of brokerage role  knowledge & skills needed: social model of disability, safeguarding, advocacy, negotiation, communication, commissioning Resource issues – provides a ‘contradictory mix of empowerment & disempowerment?’ (Sang 2009 p32) What students need to learn?

4. Project Aims Enhance student understanding of policy context of adult care & personalisation agenda (DH 2006) Build upon well established service user and carer involvement in social work degree Explore practice learning opportunities with individual service users and carers as part of personalisation agenda Produce good practice guide for development of future service user led practice learning

5. Project Overview 2nd year Social Work students at Sheffield Hallam University 60 days practice learning, March - July 2009 3 students 6 service users and carers - all adults Inclusive Living Sheffield (ILS) – service user organisation Each student matched with 2 service users/carers and with ILS Service users trained as work based supervisors

6. Preparation & Planning Mapping of learning opportunities against NOS for Social Work (TOPSS 2002) CRB checks on service users Audit of health & safety & insurance requirements Payment arrangements Preparation of students Training for service users

7. Project Evaluation Pre-project questionnaire completed by service users/carers and students addressing their:  prior experience of practice learning  concerns & expectations of project Post-project questionnaires & interviews with students, service users/carers and university staff to examine:  perspectives & experiences of all involved Evaluation report produced with recommendations for future practice

8. Evaluation Outcomes Students gained insight into ‘daily realities’ of service users or carers - from a perspective not always seen by professionals, saw "both sides of the coin" Experience of inter-professional working in practice Enhanced understanding of social model of disability & impact of disabling environments Insight into budget management and service commissioning Enhanced communication & assessment skills Developed knowledge of personalisation and adult care law Opportunity to see disabled people as active & contributing and not "defined by our disability"

9. Evaluation Outcomes (2) Experience had "broadened the students' horizons" Students brought a different perspective to the service user/carer's own situation Work undertaken by student "left a legacy" for the service user/carer through concrete outcomes Learned about benefits & challenges of personalisation Service user role as supervisor challenging for both Importance of clarifying boundaries & personal space Flexibility & intensity of placement – both strength & challenge Worthwhile experience for all involved. On scale of 1-10, mean score was 8 for success of placement

10. Recommendations Clarity about purpose & expectations of placement – for both student & service user Co-ordination - convened by host agency to address sense of distinct parts to placement Co-ordinated approach to tutor role Off-site practice educator acting as lead person providing consistent supervision & assessment Length of placement – sufficient learning opportunities V intensity for service user Need tangible, concrete outcomes and clear assessment arrangements

11. Recommendations (2) Training & preparation  spread out over more, but shorter days  utilise creative ways of introducing the documentation  use experienced service users/carers in future training.  early initial meeting between students and service users/carers Mentoring & support  peer support arrangements for students  use of social networking sites  mentor role for service users

12. Recommendations (3) Confidentiality – issues to address in practice report & assessment process Need for coherent programme of learning but that also allows for flexibility Proactive & engaged students – implications for placement allocation process Practicalities – minimum bureaucracy BUT:  Funding arrangements that don’t compromise benefits – needs national response  CRB checks  Health & safety assessments & insurance arrangements

13. Next Steps Training of further group of service users & carers Development of placements with new group of service users at SHU Service user placement project established at DMU with Leicester City Council SfC funded project supporting service user completion of Enabling Learning module at DMU

14. Acknowledgements This project was completed at Sheffield Hallam University and the involvement of the following people is acknowledged: Mark Doel, Research Professor of Social Work; Deborah Develin, Senior Lecturer Practice Education; Elaine Flynn, Practice Learning Co-ordinator; Beverley Murphy, Practice Learning Coordinator Students: Charlene Bennett; Jenny Holroyd; Brett Howarth Service users & carers: Christine Barton; Muriel Crookes; Viv Lowndes Smith; Geoff Pick; Gill Price; Marjorie Quine; Jacqui Stubbs, Inclusive Living Sheffield

15. References DH (2006) Our health, our care, our say: A new direction for community services London The Stationery Office HM Govt. (2007) Putting People First London HM Government Sang B (2009) Personalisation: Consumer Power or Social Co-Production? Journal of Integrated Care Vol 17 No 4 p 31-37 SfC et al (2009) Quality Assurance Benchmark Statement & Guidance on the Monitoring of Practice Learning Opportunities www.skillsforcare.org.ukwww.skillsforcare.org.uk TOPSS (2002) The National Occupational Standards for Social Work www.skillsforcare.org.ukwww.skillsforcare.org.uk