an early warning score system, that collated information from hospitals, GPs, disability support services, school attendance records, and Oranga Tamariki records
Inter-departmental information sharing has that promise as well as lots of risks. The ' social investment' approach relies on it.
The Health and Disability Commission has tried for ages to get services _not_ supplied added to their remit. Governments of all stripes have refused, so agencies can't be held accountable for access rationing.
Chuckling going on in the whare...
A couple of years ago we made a complaint via an advocate about the "services" rendered by our local NASC.
After some exchanges (surprising what they're willing to put in an email ;-) ) we had a meeting up at the Hospital twixt us and our advocate the NASC manager, the DHB manager and a leading rehab clinician. We recorded this meeting.
With the most adroit slight of hand they managed to completely dismiss our complaints and imply that Peter was reluctant to participate in a needs assessment.
More chuckling in the whare.
Peter has had more assessments than most in the 48 years since breaking his miserable neck, and has cooperated fully with all of them.
He did however remind the DHB manager of the time that the assessor's area of expertise was intellectual disability and they had no knowledge of spinal impairment, much less tetraplegia.
He told the DHB manager that he would be administering a wee test of his own to the next assessor and if they failed to display an acceptable knowledge of tetraplegia he would consider them unfit for purpose and ask that another, appropriately experienced person was sent.
"But that would be declining service!" DHB manager sputtered....