Search

Children and young people (CYP) can be empowered to take on roles as agents of change in their own communities. CYP want to be heard and should be actively involved in the co-production, design and development of services aimed at them to ensure that the resulting services are acceptable and accessible. Little analysis of the framing and discourse of co-production in different contexts has been undertaken. Building on Children's Advocacy Center models from the United States of America (which are held in high esteem by local communities), there is perceived value of such a center in the UK. A service development initiative was designed to work with children from Greater Manchester (UK) to determine the potential for the establishment of a children's advocacy center in the North of England. This report presents the design and outcome of the initiative and contributes to the literature on the co-production of such service development projects with CYP, notably the means of achieving that outcome. Recommendations are made for the piloting of an Advocacy House model in the UK with collaborative efforts between CYP as well as health, education, law enforcement, social care providers, charities and voluntary groups. A community-inclusive partnership, underpinned by the principles of co-production and co-design, is integral to the further development of this pilot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was conducted to understand the reasons parents of children with minor conditions attend the Children's Emergency Department (ED), and their views about onsite pediatric same day care (SDC) service as an alternative treatment center. The study was a cross-sectional survey of parents attending an inner-city, district general hospital children's ED, with children aged under 16 years old who were allocated to low triage categories. A convenience sample of 58 parents of 58 children were recruited. All the 58 responses were analyzed. Incomplete questionnaires were not excluded. 47% of attendances were because of minor injury. Most presentations were within 24 hours of the injury or illness. 72% of parents were employed. 91% were registered with a General Practitioner (GP). 29% contacted a GP before the ED visit. The majority of participants who contacted a GP were referred to the ED; others were advised to wait to see if the child's condition improved and to attend the ED if there were any concerns or the child deteriorated in any way. About 50% of those that did not contact GP said the GP surgery was closed and 8% felt the GP could not help. 90% of parents perceived their child's condition as urgent requiring immediate treatment. About 33% of parents said they would be happy for their children to be treated at an onsite SDC center. The study showed limited access to GP services in the community and dissatisfaction with community services and perceived urgency of treatment prompted parents of children with minor conditions to attend the ED. This could mean significant ED attendance by children with minor conditions. The majority of the parents in the study would welcome an onsite pediatric SDC if appropriate to meet their children's care needs. Establishing an onsite SDC may help relieve the ED pressures to attend to more clinically urgent and emergency cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]