Disability Services

84. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality the oversight mechanisms that exist to ensure individual family support plans developed by children's disability network teams contain agreed goals, identified interventions, assigned responsibilities, review dates and implementation timeframes in accordance with national policy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [78122/26]

Our children's disability network teams provide services to children and young people with complex disability needs through a child and family-centred needs-led model. Supports are determined by the individual needs, strengths, circumstances and the agreed goals of the child and the family. The delivery of the children's disability network team services is underpinned by the HSE's policy framework for service delivery of the CDNTs by national guidance on individual family support plans, IFSPs. These place family-centred practice at the very core of service provision. An individual family support plan sets out the goal for each child and how they, their family and the CDNT are going to work towards those goals. As set out in the national guidance for those plans. it must be an ongoing and living plan, reviewed as priorities and goals change. All supports offered by the team must relate to the plan and to the agreed goals. Each plan is developed collaboratively with the child or the young person and his or her family. A plan with initial goals should be formed as soon as possible after services commence with the child and family. These plans set out the agreed goals, the interventions required to achieve those goals, the professionals involved in delivering supports and the arrangements for monitoring and review. Family-centred practice is a fundamental principle of our CDNT model of service. An IFSP is the cornerstone of family-centric practice. The plan does not necessarily require a formal meeting between the family and the whole team. It can be developed and can be revised by the family and one or two team members during a centre appointment, during a home visit, during an online meeting or over the phone. Responsibility for ensuring that all national policies, procedures, protocols and guidelines relevant to the delivery of CDNT services rests with the local management in clinical governance structures in the HSE. All health regions have appropriate structures in place to provide robust governance of the CDNTs.

The reason I brought this question to the Minister of State this morning is that a family in County Louth has repeatedly sought an individual family support plan. While meetings have taken place involving a number of professionals, the family have not got an agreed plan yet. Such a plan is not clearly going to set out the measurable goals, the interventions and who is responsible for delivering them. The concern here is not simply one of resources; it is also about ensuring that the resources that are available are being used effectively and that the families receive the structured and co-ordinated supports as envisaged under the progressing disability services framework. If the child's needs, goals and interventions are not clearly documented and agreed, it becomes very difficult for the families to understand what supports they can expect and how progress will be measured. What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure that IFSPs are being developed by CDNTs and that they comply with the national framework?

I am sorry to hear that about the family in Louth. If I can support the Deputy by putting her in contact with local management there, who are responsible for this, I absolutely will. The number of children attending a CDNT who have a current individualised family support plan is reported to my Department by the HSE. A plan is deemed to be current when it has had input within the last 12 months; otherwise, it is deemed lapsed. The total number of children with a current individual family support plan in Deputy Butterly's region, HSE Dublin and North East, is 6,050. Nationally, that figure is 29,275. As I said, responsibility for ensuring that all national policies and procedures are inputted rests with local management and the clinical governance structures. I am happy to work with the Deputy on the case if she would like.

I thank the Minister of State. This family also raised concerns regarding the distinction between administrative contact and therapeutic intervention when service activity is being recorded. Will the Minister of State clarify how the HSE ensures that activity reporting provides an accurate picture of the services being delivered to children and families? Would she consider asking the HSE to undertake a review or audit of a sample of IFSPs and service statements nationally to ensure that they contain the goals, interventions, responsibilities and timelines required under policy and legislation? Families are less concerned with the number of meetings that are taking place than with understanding what services their child will actually receive and when they can expect them. I understand this family experienced significant difficulty in obtaining a statutory services statement, and when it was received, they felt it did not provide sufficient clarity regarding the services to be delivered and the timeframe for delivery.

In that case, the Deputy might advise the family that the Act provides for an application to raise a complaint if the HSE fails to provide, or fully provide, a service specified in the service statement, or if the service statement is inaccurate or incorrect. They may also subsequently appeal to the appeals officer if the recommendation of the complaint officer is then not implemented. There are appeals mechanisms and safeguards to ensure that if an appeal is won, it is implemented locally. In response to the Deputy's other question regarding therapeutic interventions and consultations, we have a system called the CDNT-IMS, which categorises different forms of engagement and responses. The Deputy is right that it is really important to recognise that supports may come in forms other than direct therapeutic interventions in a family-centred practice model. It is important that supports are captured, but in a specific way. Administrative tasks need to be recorded separately from interventions and we are working on ensuring that happens.