Autism adult services: coordinating assessment across multi-agency pathways
Adult autism assessment rarely sits within a single service. Health, social care, housing, education, mental health and VCSE partners often all hold relevant information, yet coordination is frequently weak. The result is duplication, delay and confusion for the person. This article explains how providers coordinate assessment within assessment, eligibility and transition into adult services, and how coordination must align with wider service models and care pathways to remain safe and efficient.
Why multi-agency assessment breaks down
Common causes of failure include:
- No single point of accountability.
- Unclear consent and information-sharing arrangements.
- Different assessment frameworks used in parallel.
- Professionals waiting for each other before acting.
For autistic adults, repeated questioning and inconsistent messages increase distress and disengagement.
What effective coordination looks like in practice
Effective coordination does not require perfect integration. It requires:
- A named lead responsible for pulling information together.
- Clear consent and capacity decisions documented early.
- A shared understanding of purpose and timescale.
- Active management of gaps and delays.
Operational example 1: coordinating health and social care inputs
Context: An autistic adult is known to mental health services and adult social care, but assessments are happening separately and conclusions conflict.
Support approach: The provider agrees a lead professional role and aligns assessment questions to avoid duplication.
Day-to-day delivery detail: A joint summary document is created, pulling functional impact, risk and strengths into one record. Meetings are kept small and accessible. Disagreements between professionals are resolved through discussion rather than parallel reports.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Assessment timescales reduce and the final eligibility decision is accepted by all parties. The person reports reduced frustration.
Operational example 2: coordinating assessment where housing risk dominates
Context: Housing instability is driving risk, but housing services and care services operate on different timelines.
Support approach: The provider integrates housing risk into the assessment rather than treating it as a separate issue.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Joint calls with housing are scheduled, evidence is shared with consent, and interim support is introduced while longer-term decisions are pending.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Eviction is avoided and crisis presentation reduces.
Operational example 3: coordinating assessment across transition points
Context: A young person transitioning to adult services has assessments from education, children’s services and health.
Support approach: The provider synthesises existing information rather than restarting assessment.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Key findings are translated into adult-focused functional impact and risk language. Gaps are filled selectively.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Transition is smoother and duplication is avoided.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect providers to coordinate assessment efficiently and avoid duplication. They look for clear ownership, appropriate information-sharing, and evidence that delays are actively managed.
Regulator and inspector expectation (CQC)
CQC expects coordinated care that meets people’s needs. Inspectors will look for joined-up working, consent practice, and governance that prevents people falling between services.
Governance and assurance
- Named assessment coordinator role.
- Information-sharing agreements and consent checks.
- Oversight of multi-agency delays.
- Audit of duplicated or repeated assessments.
What good looks like
Good coordination reduces delay, improves experience and leads to clearer decisions. It shows that assessment is being managed as a system process rather than a series of disconnected tasks.