 by 57%), followed by Safeguarding training (taken by 45% of all staff respondents). Other training included multi-agency ways of working, Family Networks/Family Group Conference, Whole Family Working, Working with families at section 17 and above, as well as FHLP and LCPP trainings (see Appendix 5, Q24). There were notable differences in the trainings undertaken by LA staff compared to those from partner agencies. LA staff were more likely to have participated in ‘Family network/Family group conference’ training compared to partner agencies (41% vs 11%), ‘Whole family network’ training (23% vs 9%), ‘Assessing and managing risk training’ (21% vs 11%), and ‘Relevant current theories and evidence-based strategies training’ (19% vs 11%). In contrast, partner agency staff were more likely to have attended ‘Safeguarding’ training (53% compared to 43% of LA staff). Overall, a greater proportion of LA staff reported having participated in any training, with 92% indicating attendance, compared to 81% of partner agency staff. Good practice case study: early signs of positive change in health collaboration Health stakeholders reported that the Pathfinder has started to support a more flexible and responsive approach to working with families. While still in early stages, there are encouraging signs of progress in how health professionals are working together and engaging with families. • Improved Day-to-Day Communication: Co-locating community midwives with other professionals has made it easier to have informal, in-the-moment conversations. This has helped some midwives feel more supported and confident when taking on new cases. • Increased Awareness and Understanding: Additional training on ‘Signs of Safety’ and ‘Early Help’ was delivered to wider health teams. Feedback was posi