Yes, but again doesn't this just illustrate the difficulties at a resourcing/systemic level?
When you have 4-5 hours to do something, it is very much case-dependant as to what you choose to do. It relates to that "magic wand" question, doesn't it? If you could change one thing....
A lot of the time, that may well relate to training an LSA.. but part of that (in our system) involves getting higher-level staff on board to recognise that as a priority/agree to giving time to training. In the case I mention, there really was untold damage being done to this young family. After the meeting/report, they contacted me to ask could I see them in clinic. At the meeting in clinic, the entire extended family (about 15 people!) came to talk through what I had said as they had genuinely begun to believe it was these young parents' "fault". We ended up doing adult-child interaction stuff just to build up their confidence that they were doing all the right things. Which they always had been. The school got on board and bought in training for the LSA at 20 hours.
Was it the most amazing intervention ever? No. It could have been a lot better if I'd had more time to plan it rather than having to just jump at what I thought was the most pressing issue. Did it take 6 hours and cost £450? No, it took up rather more than this some of which was undoubtedly then taken away from the rest of my clients. Could it have been more efficient? Yes. See point about planning above.
However, when you have a rogue professional out there whose complete lack of understanding of an issue is a potential risk to many families - particularly those that are already vulnerable and not the types to stand up and shout "back off, idiot" - sometimes what you do needs to be dictated by this. When a school doesn't get it at a very basic level and is categorising SLD as relating to poor parenting, that's got to be a priority too. Yes, ideally, you would have resourcing to go in and show them what to do and it would all work fantastically smoothly and they would be wowed by the efficacy of the intervention having seen it with their own eyes, but that's not how schools and LEAs decide things as we all know.
There are so many issues in cases like these. There isn't a straightforward answer right now. At the moment, there are such huge issues in terms of how our society views people with SN and how much they are willing to contribute to decent services for them that the children's workforce (there's a buzzword for you) is really not adequately trained or resourced on all sorts of levels. The specialists aren't specialist enough, teachers and LSA's are lucky to have any training at all, random professionals can choose a very specific "angle" on a SN (like "it's the parent's fault" 
) and get away with it.
In this context, training people in a particular methodology to effect change is only one part of a whole package. I suppose this is what I am saying about it being so powerful, too. Interventions that are undertaken need to be grounded in better understanding and respect of individuals with SN and part of that will involve more generic training/consultations/advice to point out the nose on people's face to them.
We need it all. We need solid evidence that a problem exists to release money/funds to meet that problem and we need appropriate solutions to those problems that can be sustained at local and school levels by everyone from the dinner lady to the EP.
That's the dream, and I recognise it's very far from the reality at present. However, sometimes I think that on a practical level, for an individual person (whether a parent or a professional) the only question you can really ask yourself to keep yourself sane is what is inside my sphere of influence to change?
For me as a professional, this involves thinking and reflecting very carefully on the holes in the system, being a part of boards like these so that I can support grassroots political activism and individual's efforts to make a difference to their child, training myself to improve my interventions (like this PT stuff), ensuring that the written work I provide is (in so far as is practicably feasible) detailed and analytical and can be used by parents in their fight against the system, challenging complacency among colleagues etc, questioning service delivery models and trying to come up with feasible alternatives etc.
What I have learned not to do is to waste energy trying to offer a quantity of intervention that is beyond my capability to provide (in the past this has led me to really fall behind and while providing some better intervention to some, has made me worse than useless to others). I have also learned that sometimes the role involves effecting change on different levels (as above). I have learned that within the context of 6-7 hours per child with most of that time tied up in a particular service delivery model that I have not designed, I can't actually do a lot of even the basic stuff I think would be useful for a child or a family or a school.
Anger and contempt at the current system is important - it can lead us to question, to act etc. My concern, sometimes, is that parents are so disgusted by their experience of a particular service as it is offered in the current flawed system that they decide e.g. all SALTS just blow bubbles and speak in nicey nicey voices and don't know much about anything. For obvious reasons, this concerns me. It depresses me beyond measure that this decision resonates with me so much - that I know these SALTs of whom you talk etc - but also that a potential resource with knowledge that could inform a multidisciplinary approach (including ABA) is wasted.