Review of Maternal and Child Health Service Human Services Directors’ Forum 24 April 2013 Dr Ro Saxon, HDG Consulting Group.

Review of Maternal and Child Health Service

Human Services Directors’ Forum

24 April 2013

Dr Ro Saxon, HDG Consulting Group

Aim

To maintain a high quality, evidence-based universal service for all children and families, while giving priority to, and improving outcomes for, vulnerable children and families.

Objective

To examine the various components that make up the MCH Service informed by the latest evidence, and identify options to enhance, refine or modify the planning, delivery and evaluation of the MCH service in response to existing and emerging challenges.

Key concepts

3

Additional•Eg. ARACY nurse home visiting trial

Enhanced MCH Service•More intensive support for target

group of families with children <1 yr•Target of 7,013 families to receive

between 15-17 hours of service•Supported approx 13,000 clients in

2010-111TAR

GET

ED S

ERVI

CES

Universal MCH Service•Free universal service for children birth to school age

•Structured as 6.75 hours over 10 key ages and stages•~ 73,000 newborns and mothers in 2011-12

•400,000 nurse consultations per year•44,040 referrals2 made

24 hour MCH Telephone Line - > 100,000 families supported 3TOTA

L PO

PULA

TIO

N

4

UN

DER

TR

IAL

The MCH Service

Policy context

Commonwealth

National Framework for Universal Child and Family Health Services National partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education National Early Childhood Development Strategy – Investing in the Early Years National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care 3 year old health check (2012-13 Budget) by GPs National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 FaHCSIA programs, Family Support Services National Collaboration Framework

2009-2013

State

Towards Victoria as a Learning Community Directions Paper responding to Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry Victorian Families Statement Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework Improving Victoria’s Early Childhood Workforce Early Years Strategy (proposed)

Local

Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plans Municipal Early Years Planning Framework and Plans Planning, co-funding and provision of MCH Services

Drivers

• Respond to increasing pressures

• Wellness approach, strength based, informed parents

• Improve outcomes for children/families experiencing vulnerability

• Strengthen progressive universalism (see over)

• Improve service efficiency

• Increase emphasis on integrated responses

• Improve information management

Elements

7

Systems and arrangements

supporting collaboration

across different services and

settingsMCH Services

see all children & their families at every stage

of a child’s development

Other policies and programs that support

parents

The workforce mix and

competency framework

Service delivery model

•Structure & activities offered;•Interactions with other services provided

The funding model

Outcomes and quality

monitoring

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Concepts

• Progressive universalism– all children and families have access to services

– a progressively greater level of support / intensity to be provided to those who need it

• Integrated approaches– The multi-dimensional nature of vulnerability requires an

integrated approach from a range of practitioners and sectors

• Wellness, strength-based approach– Parents well informed, information and education

– Capacity building, build on strengths (not deficit focus)

– Flexible responses, choice, self-directed, family diversity

• Increased focus on monitoring outcomes

Consultation / Discussion Questions

9

The aim is to maintain a high quality, evidence-based universal service for all children and families, while giving priority to, and improving outcomes for, vulnerable children and families.

Question 1:

What are the biggest challenges for local government in relation to engaging and supporting children/families experiencing vulnerability?

e.g. from a systemic, policy, resourcing, service design, data or other perspective?

Question 2:

How could services, resources or supports could be allocated or arranged so that there is an increased level of support for children/families experiencing vulnerability?

What would have the most impact?

Question 3:

How could a more flexible workforce (such as a multi-disciplinary team) be achieved?

Question 4:

What challenges and opportunities does this reform offer?

Given the broad context of what might be possible, what would you suggest as priorities for the following time frames?

- Short term (1-2 years)- Medium term (3-5 years)- Longer term (5-10 years)

Other comments or suggestions?

• Next steps

• Survey

• Thank you