1 / 45

Multiple and Complex Needs Initiative Victoria, Australia

Multiple and Complex Needs Initiative Victoria, Australia. Outside In Conference, St John’s, NL, Canada 20-21 October 2009. 3 . The Victorian Department of Human Services - Regions. 4. Questions. 5. The beginning.

lorant
Télécharger la présentation

Multiple and Complex Needs Initiative Victoria, Australia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multiple and Complex Needs InitiativeVictoria, Australia Outside In Conference, St John’s, NL, Canada 20-21 October 2009

  2. 3. The Victorian Department of Human Services - Regions

  3. 4. Questions

  4. 5. The beginning • History of concerns raised by service providers, clinicians, carers, advocacy groups, Police, Courts and others • Poor service outcomes for a small but significant group with complex needs that challenge existing policy and legislative frameworks • Strong stakeholder support for change

  5. 6. Early scoping work • Two years of consultation and data collection 2002-2004 • Identified a group of 247 individuals with “multiple and complex” needs • Client costs: On average - $248,000 pa Highest cost package in 02/03 was $643,000

  6. 7. Early profiling – client characteristics • Characteristics of Client Group • Young – 44% 18 to 35 years • 2:1 ratio of men to women • Major presenting problems – combinations of mental disorders, intellectual impairment, acquired brain injury, substance abuse • High risk behaviours – to community, staff and self • 71% - current or past contact with criminal justice system • High volume users of emergency services • Significant accommodation issues – 35% homeless, short term or crisis accommodation

  7. 8. What we wanted for individuals • Achieve stability in: housing, health and well-being, safety, social connectedness • Provide a platform for long-term engagement in the service system • Pursue planned and consistent therapeutic goals for each person

  8. 9. What we wanted from the system (1) • Greater collaboration, partnership, flexibility (“seamless”, “joined up”) • Better use of service resources – “capacity building” • Better use of financial resources – cost effectiveness

  9. 10. What we wanted from the system (2) Capacity building means: • Stepping up..crossing boundaries.. Care plan coordination: • 50% provided by Indigo - State-wide, auspiced by Western Region Health Centre • 50% provided by local agencies

  10. 11. What are the most important things? • Commitment • Resource

  11. 12. Elements of MACNI • Regional coordination mechanisms (within government) • A legislative framework • Assessment, planning, and intensive case management function (in the funded sector) • Time-limited • NOT a crisis response – planned intervention • Some client attached dollars

  12. 13. The legislation • Unique feature.. • Elements of the HS(CN) Act 2003 • Eligibility criteria • Supports voluntary nature of initiative, and right of refusal at any time • Key decisions made by an independent statutory body • Detailed programmatic prescription at the “black law” level

  13. 14. The eligibility criteria • A person who has attained 16 years of age; and • Appears to have 2 or more of the following: • A mental disorder • An intellectual impairment • An acquired brain injury • Is an alcoholic or drug–dependent person; and • has exhibited violent or dangerous behaviour that caused serious harm to himself or herself or some other person, or • is exhibiting behaviour which is reasonably likely to place himself or herself or some other person at risk of serious harm; and • is in need of intensive supervision and support and would derive benefit from receiving coordinated services.

  14. 15. The first model 2004-2009 • Legislation – time limited • MACN Panel • Regional coordinators and regional panels • Specifically funded Community Service Organisations – state-wide roles • Brokerage – client attached dollars

  15. 16. The MACNI service modelV1 1 Existing Service System DHS Region Regional Gateway contact Regional Co-ordinator (consultation/problem solving, referral, local panel consideration, RD sign off) 2 3 Multiple and Complex Needs Panel (Eligibility,Care Plan, Care Plan Coordinator, Care Plan Review) 5 4 Care Plan assessment & care planning service (Indigo Assessment Service) Collaborative service provision with identified lead case manager from either the existing system or specific state-wide service Indigo

  16. 17. Activity: 1 June 04 to 31 May 09 - regional level • 688 consultations at the regional level Most of these consultations led to improved problem solving and local solutions; recognised as significant boost to capacity • 167 considered for referral by regions

  17. 18. Resolved at the regional level – Case study • Highly vulnerable young woman • Chaotic, abusive, multi-generational, dysfunctional family background • substance abuse since age of 11 (petrol/chroming) • ABI, schizophrenia • Brain tumour • Criminal justice system involvement • Constant moves between Melbourne/rural Vic/NSW

  18. 19. Case study -What the region did • Response has taken approx. 3 years to develop • Mental Health service: provides co-ordination - Disability service: provides funds - across regional/state boundaries • Formal communication strategy between critical providers- police, mental health, Hospital Koori Unit • Involved providers persistent eg. Guardian/region • Flexible accommodation support

  19. 20. Activity: 1 June 04 to 31 May 09 – MACN Panel • 84 referrals (from regions) • 79 determined eligible • 56 care plans determined • 39 care plans extended into second year • 39 care plans concluded

  20. 21. The first model – issues • Very slow start up; steep learning curve • Developing shared understanding of roles and responsibilities: • Panel • Assessment/care plan development/care plan coordination • Regional coordination and local capacity

  21. 22. Questions

  22. 23. The model in action (1) • Some practice benefits • Care plan coordination • State-wide focus • Information sharing provisions

  23. 24. The model in action (2) • Care Plan Coordination • Is different from case management or direct service • Is vital when there are multiple services involved • Has “dual beneficiaries”: the clients, and the system • Is a good tool for sharing risk • Needs to be recognised and resourced • 1:5 worker to client ratio

  24. 25. The model in action (3) • Some assumptions that proved not to be true • Housing is the most important thing (ALL the “platforms” need equal consideration and planning) • Lots of extra money needed • Its harder in the rural areas to do a good job

  25. 26. Questions

  26. 27. External evaluation - KPMG • 4 reports over 3 years • Final report February 2008 • 4 “evaluation questions”

  27. 28. External evaluation (2) • Improvement in individual outcomes? Yes • Improvement in service coordination? Yes • Adequacy of legislation? Yes • Achievement of cost-benefit? Less clear

  28. 29. External evaluation (3) • 76% reduction in presentations to hospital emergency departments • 34% reduction in number of hospital admissions • 57% reduction in hospital bed days

  29. 30. Internal review - snapshot study(1) • “Snapshot” July-Sept 08 • Client status pre and post MACNI was assessed against the four MACNI platforms: • Stable accommodation • Health and well-being • Social connectedness • Safety

  30. 31. Snapshot study (2) • 19 out of 22 clients who had exited from MACNI were reviewed • Four data sources • KPMG evaluation case studies • MACNI case files and reports • Interviews with key service providers • Client Outcome Survey

  31. 32. Outcomes: Comparative data – key findings

  32. 33. Key Findings (1) • Successful client outcomes for 13 of the 19 • 57% overall improvement across all 4 platforms

  33. 34. Key Findings (2) • Service system: • MACNI leads to capacity building of sector • Biggest achievement was bringing people to the table and getting them to communicate • Individuals: • Most successful - disengaged, isolated, highly transient, significant criminal justice histories & homeless • Least successful - those transiting from youth to adult services, those with indigenous backgrounds

  34. 35. More about the unsuccessful outcomes 4 out of 6 transitioning from youth to adult services 5 out of 6 – histories of Youth Justice/Child Protection • 3 out of 6 - indigenous backgrounds • 5 out of 6 had non-Indigo Care Plan Coord.

  35. 36. What were the successes? • Care Plan – an effective tool • Care Plan Coordination - critical role • Coordination through care teams • Access to training and mentoring • Reflective space – insists on focus and attention • Some additional dollars useful

  36. 37. What were the challenges? • Complexity of service system • Complexity of the MACNI model • Transitions difficult to negotiate – can “mirror” broader service system problems • Maintaining momentum and commitment after MACNI

  37. 38. Sustainability • MACNI is a time-limited intervention • Ongoing care planning is critical to sustaining the gains - NB • Good planning may: • Reduce costs – or not • Highlight/confirm the need for ongoing costs – high, or otherwise

  38. 39. The second model June 2009 • Legislation - ongoing • Government gate-keeping and review group • Regional coordinators and regional panels – better resourced, making key decisions • One specifically funded CSO – still state-wide, with broader role • Brokerage – client attached dollars

  39. 40. MACNI service model V2

  40. 41. The Future – the framework • Human Services (Complex Needs) Act 2009 • Maintained: information sharing provisions, eligibility criteria, framework for care plan coordination • Changed: strict separation between assessment and care planning, maximum length of care plan • Removed: independent statutory body

  41. 42. The Future – making the decisions • Central group still “keeps the gate” • Regional services make more of the key decisions • More staffing resource at the regional level • Tighter guidelines around client attached dollars

  42. 43. Some reflections on the elements.. • Legislation • The MACN Panel • Cross-program collaboration • Assessment and planning • State-wide authority and service delivery • Work at the local/regional level • Client attached dollars

  43. 44. Some things we didn’t do • A good job for people with indigenous backgrounds • A review from the perspective of service users

  44. 45. Questions

More Related