Consultation on the Pregnancy and Parenthood in Young People Strategy: Analysis of Responses

5. Leadership and Accountability

The Scottish Government considers that improved service organisation, informed by local data about the needs of young people, and greater partnership working across agencies will contribute to local services being developed in a more comprehensive and integrated way. An accountable person who can support and enable local multi-agency partners in delivery as well as monitoring and reacting to performance management is viewed as vital, with strong leadership, both local and national, seen as essential for the effective implementation of the Strategy. The Scottish Government proposes that each CPP should identify an accountable person at a senior level to take on this executive role at local level. A National Lead for implementation of the Strategy will provide national leadership and be responsible for its strategic delivery.

Question 14: What are the barriers and opportunities for local data collection to ensure the Strategy is intelligence led?

Thirty respondents addressed this question with the most focus being on barriers for local data collection.

Barriers identified by respondents

The barrier most commonly identified (10 respondents across a range of sectors) was a lack of compatibility between the datasets of different agencies. Put simply:

“Separate data systems still exist that don’t talk to each other” (The Highland Sexual Health Strategy Group on behalf of NHS Highland and Highland Council).

Respondents highlighted different methods of collection of data and record keeping, different data sources and different aspects of information collected as all hampering the sharing of local data across agencies. Some information technology systems were viewed as inaccessible to some staff, not kept up-to-date with latest information and missing key data. Information Services Division (ISD Scotland) data was praised for its usefulness by one respondent (Joint) although considered not timeous enough for local decision-making.

A few respondents considered that staff may be unaware of data available within their organisation and this should be distilled and made accessible to them. One (NHS) recommended easier methods of data collection to facilitate up-to-date information.

Another barrier identified by several respondents (5 mentions) was individual agencies protocols on sharing information on account of confidentiality issues, which prevented data being available across organisations. One example given was the lack of access of Youth Work services to health and education data; another was the lack of wider circulation of unpublished data. Calls were made (Ind, Joint, Other) for the Strategy to include guidance on protocols for sharing data, taking into account data protection issues. One respondent commented:

“It would be helpful in this section to reinforce the fact that sensitive personal information shared under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 should only be shared in line with principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. The young person’s consent should normally also be sought to share such information” (Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People).

Five respondents, from different categories (Joint, Prof Rep, Third, Acad and Ind), highlighted lack of time and resources as challenging for agencies in their collection of local data.

Three respondents (two Joint, one NHS) identified small numbers as creating problems in potentially skewing trend data and threatening anonymity of individuals.

Opportunities identified by respondents

Very few respondents identified specific potential opportunities for local data collection and sharing. One (Ind) considered that this would greatly assist mapping priority needs and informing further actions required. Another (NHS) identified the Child Protection Portal as an opportunity for multi-agency partners to share significant events. Local Child Health Surveillance Systems could be expanded to capture outcome data according to one respondent (Joint). The view of two respondents (Prof Rep, Joint) was that joint leadership and accountability could address some of the data-sharing issues raised.

Two joint respondents recommended a broadening of focus from pregnancy data to wider, contextual data. A few respondents (Joint, Third) suggested that greater acknowledgement of the value of qualitative data would be beneficial, such as views of young people on infant feeding. An academic called for national data on how many young people and care leavers are young parents in Scotland, emphasising that national data on this can begin to inform more local data collection.

Question 15: The Strategy proposes that leadership in planning and delivery at local level should be the responsibility of CPPs. Do you agree with this CPP-led approach?

Thirty-six respondents addressed this question. Of these, 31 respondents expressed their support for the proposal; three raised concerns only; and two provided commentary without indicating whether or not they were in support. Table 2 presents views by respondent category.

Table 2: Views on whether leadership in planning and delivery at local level should be the responsibility of CPPs

Category	Agree	Concerns only	Comments only	Total
Third Sector	4			4
Joint/Multi-agency	6		1	7
NHS Body	6	1	1	8
Professional Representative Bodies	4	1		5
Local Authority Educ/Children/YP services	4			4
Academic	2			2
Faith				0
Other				0
Total organisations	26	2	2	30
Individuals	5	1		6
Grand total	31	3	2	36

Perceived benefits of the proposal

Several respondents provided reasons to support the proposal. A recurring view was that the proposal would promote a holistic approach to addressing the issues associated pregnancy and parenthood in young people, broadening what some viewed as the current narrow focus on health, to making all relevant agencies aware of their respective roles.

Another advantage of CPP leadership and accountability which was identified by a few respondents was that it would enable sharing of information, resources and skills, possibly utilising sharing arrangements already in place.

Other substantive benefits of the proposed CPP-led approach identified by one or two respondents were:

• Promotes genuine partnership and is the approach used by all of the national Collaboratives.
• Helps to maintain a focus on outcomes.
• Allows for local flexibility to accommodate local needs.
• Will promote the empowerment of young people within our community.

The key concerns raised were over the capacity of CPPs at present to accommodate the demands of delivering the Strategy at a time of significant competing priorities, particularly related to dovetailing with the Health and Social Care Integration Boards. One respondent commented:

“As operational developments for Health and Social Care Integration gain momentum, engagement by IJBs [Integrated Joint Boards] with General Practice to date is very variable across Scotland, but generally minimal and RCGP Scotland has concerns about how Community Planning Partnerships will engage General Practice meaningfully in delivering the objectives of the Strategy” (Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland).

One respondent (Ind) argued that rather than implementing the Strategy, the issues of pregnancy and parenthood in young people should be addressed by large-scale improvements in health and education.

Other comments

A few NHS respondents expressed caution over leaving the assignation of a senior accountable person to each CPP. They felt that unless specified otherwise, this position would tend to fall to someone in the health service.

One respondent (NHS) urged that sexual health components of the Strategy should be included in local sexual health strategies too.