13 March 2012 - Scottish Government

Communities of Practice were undergoing would be an opportunity
to refresh engagement in this area.
• The timing in Objective 2 may not be right as there is the possibility
of political change within COSLA following elections, though this
should not prevent the board being aware of the importance of
engagement with local authorities and COSLA.
• The words “pour encourager les autres” in action 7.1 could be
taken negatively.
• Some of the outcomes identified in the report were perhaps too
focused on process.
• The board should recognise that CPPs and local authorities would
continue to progress in different ways at different paces and that
the adaptability of the Maturity Model reflected this.
• Rod Harrison, Children and Families Analysis at the Scottish
Government, was undertaking a piece of work to draw out from the
range of outcome frameworks key outcomes which were most
important to improving children’s lives.
6. Risk and Issue Register
Robin McKendrick presented the risk register (GIRPB/05/05), bringing to
the board’s attention that the narrative had been updated and the register
had been re-scored to reflect developments.
The board noted the register and remarked on the particular challenges
associated with risk 7.
7. Information Sharing
Boyd McAdam presented the paper updating the board on information
sharing, including the inter-Agency Communications Tool (iACT)
(GIRPB/05/06). He reported that iACT is being reviewed as part of a wider
review of eCare, which coincides with the development of the eHealth and
Social Care strategy. The Data Sharing Technologies Board (DSTB) had
been created to advise on technology which might support information
sharing across Health and Social Care services. The policy responsibility
for information sharing for children and young people continued to rest
with the GIRFEC Programme Board. Boyd highlighted the work of the
GIRFEC team in providing guidance on chronologies
In line with the Board’s responsibilities, he presented the business
requirements for information sharing to support the GIRFEC approach as
agreed by the iACT Advisory Group (iAG) (GIRPB/05/06a). The majority of
these requirements represented what was essential from a GIRFEC
perspective, with a significant minority of the requirements being
necessary to make it attractive to practitioners. Not everything sought by
practitioners had been incorporated in to the business requirements,
following discussion with the Advisory Group.
GIRPB/06/02
6