16/03/2017 Activity, Outcomes and Experiences Freud National Centre for Children and Families...

Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families

Activity, Outcomes and Experiences

CWP Cohort 1 Review for London and the South East

Sadie Williams

Deepa Mavji

Emily Ventre

Jessica Rees

16/03/2017


Background

• Health Education England (HEE) funded 60 CWP’s, each service employed 4 CWP’s

• Data from 15 partnerships in the London and South East Collaborative

• Data collected ranges from 24th April 2017 to 5th December 2017

Kings College London 2


Referral Source

Education

37%

CAMHS

20%

G.P Practices

18%

Self/parent referral

10%

Other

12%

NHS

3% Education

CAMHS

G.P Practices

Self/parent referral

Other

NHS



Outcome of referrals

Out of a total of 759 referrals

• 153 did not meet inclusion criteria

• 85 were in transition

Therefore a total of

• 533 assessments were carried out

• and 521 were accepted into the service



Age

Mean age = 11.8 years

Range = 4-18 years


2.7%

30.3%

41.3%

25.7%

0%

15%

30%

45%

0-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years

Perc

enta

ge o

f p

eople

Age group


Gender

Males

45%Females

55%



Ethnicity


49.8%

9.5% 8.6% 9.4%

12.9%

9.9%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

White Black Asian Mixed Other Unknown

Axis

Title

Axis Title

Population baseline (Department of Education, 2015)CWP


POD Outcomes DataUp to 20/02/2018

8


CWP Learning Goals


8

8

7.6

2.05

3.08

1.9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Goal 3

Goal 2

Goal 1

Beginning of Term 1 End of Term 2

I feel that I know how to deliver low intensity interventions with parents, children and young people

I feel that I have sufficient knowledge of low mood, anxiety and behaviour problems for my work with children, young people and parents

I feel sufficiently confident in effectively delivering low intensity interventions to parents, children and young people


Number of registrations on POD

Group Number

General (All Measures) 224

Anxiety- Adolescent (RCADS) 128

Anxiety- Child (SDQ) 106

Behavioural Difficulties (SDQ) 63

Low Mood (RCADS) 45


566 cases


RCADS Subscale (13 Partnerships)


67.34

58.73

71.3

60.5558.73

50.13

54.552.77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Low Mood GAD Panic Social

Mean RCADS Score Between Time 1 and Time 2 for subscale of interest (N=98)

Time 1 Time 2

-8.6

N=38 N=15 N=20 N=22

-8.6 -16.8 -8.8


RCADS Clinical Ranges for Anxiety


51%

18%

31%

Time 1

Non-Clinical Borderline High

87%

7%6%

Time 2


Non-Clinical

Non-Clinical


RCADS Clinical Ranges for Low Mood

13Kings College London

50%

11%

39%

Time 1


71%

16%

13%

Time 2


Non-Clinical

Non-Clinical


SDQ Subscale (13 partnerships)


2.97

5.635.25

1.98

7.66

15.81

2.11

3.28

4.16

1.52

8.21

11.08

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Conduct Emotional Hyperactivity Peer Prosocial Total

Mean SDQ Score Between Time 1 and Time 2 for

Subscales (N=61)

Time 1 Time 2

-0.86

+0.55

-0.46-1.09-2.35

-4.73


SDQ Total Clinical Ranges


34%

17%22%

27%

Time 1

Close to average Slightly raised

High Very high

72%

5%

13%

10%

Time 2


High Very high

Close to average

Close to average


SDQ Impact


1

0.42

0.85

0.64

0.530.48

0.26

0.46

0.37 0.36

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Distress Friendship Homelife Learning Leisure

Mean SDQ Score Between Time 1 and Time 2 for

Impact Scale (N=141)

Time 1 Time 2

-0.52 -0.16 -0.39 -0.27-0.17


SDQ Impact Clinical Ranges


11%

12%

13%64%

Time 1


High Very high

37%

19%

13%

31%

Time 2


High Very high

Close to average


Goal Based Outcomes (all partnerships)

Paired data for 351 cases from all sites and all groups

Site scores changed on average 2.95points


0 (Goal not at all met) to 10 (Goal Reached)

2.47

5.42

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mean Score on Goals Between Time 1

and Time 2

Time 1 Time 2 55% of cases achieved reliable improvement (i.e. change in score of 2.45)


Experience of Service Questionnaire (n=68)


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Listened to

Easy to talk to

Treated well

Views and worries

Know how to help

Given enough explanation

Working together

Comfortable faciliaties

Convenient appointments

Convenient location

Recommend to a friend

Good help

ESQ Parent

Certainly true Partly true Not true Missing


Experience of Service Questionnaire (n=85)


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Listened to

Easy to talk to

Treated well

Views and worries

Know how to help

Given enough explanation

Working together

Comfortable faciliaties

Convenient appointments

Convenient location

Recommend to a friend

Good help

ESQ Young Person

Certainly true Partly true Not true Missing


Examples of ESQ

• “At the beginning I was concerned that the help would be a little obvious, or worse yet that I would discover I was a terrible Mum! But the information has been really useful and the techniques work well and can be used easily.”

• “I don't like role plays but it was helpful!”

• “The course was long enough to put into practice lots of the techniques and exercises given to me. It was great to have the time to really discuss issues with X in depth.”

• “It has been a life changing experience for me and my family, I have learnt so many new tools to use with my family for us to work better as a family unit.”

Cohort 1 Review 21


Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families is a company limited by guarantee, company number 03819888, and a registered charity, number 1077106.

Our Patron: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge

Thank you for listening!

Any questions, please ask in the afternoon Panel Discussion

Date post:	22-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buinhan
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

16/03/2017 Activity, Outcomes and Experiences Freud National Centre for Children and Families...

Documents