Mapping user experiences of the Education, Health and Care process: a qualitative study

The authors undertook in-depth narrative interviews with 92 families on their satisfaction with the process for EHCPs for children and young people with SEND aged over 15, focus groups with young people, followed by an online survey for parents reporting very high or very low satisfaction.

  • Theme: Co-productive working with young people and parent/carers
  • Strength: Robust
  • Breadth of Impact: Robust
  • Status: Quality Assured
View & Download Resources

The authors undertook in-depth narrative interviews with 92 families on their satisfaction with the process for EHCPs for children and young people with SEND aged over 15, focus groups with young people, followed by an online survey for parents reporting very high or very low satisfaction.

They found that overall parents reported being satisfied with the new approach. Parents generally reported that they liked the new philosophy behind the reforms which promote a person-centred approach, their child being at heart of process, professionals taking a multi-agency approach, and developing a holistic view of their child. Key drivers of satisfaction included accessible referral routes, holistic needs assessments driven by the children and young people and family’s needs and aspirations, a monitoring and reviewing process, parental and young people involvement, and joined up multi-agency working.

This grey literature was appraised using a validated checklist. The AACODS checklist provides guidance when dealing with diverse formats of grey literature (Tyndall, 2010). AACODS includes the following items: Authority (who is responsible for the intellectual content) – Accuracy – Coverage (parameters which define the content coverage i.e., reference to a particular population group, or certain type of publication) – Objectivity (identify bias, if it is unstated or unacknowledged) – Date (that confirms relevance of information)- Significance (value judgment in the context of the relevant research area). The checklist can be used for any discipline area and prioritises expert opinion and expertise over source format (Tyndall, 2010).