Choice is a hot topic. I fundamentally believe that if I'm able to tailor a package of goods and services to suit me best, I'll be better off. I believe that's true for everyone...well, almost everyone. There are some people who seem incapable of choosing wisely, whether for consumer goods or a package of public services. But then again, they probably don't think much of my choices either.
Trust is a fundamental issue in the choice debate. Usually when we talk about the "trust" issue, it's about how much the general public trusts us the public servants, whether we be local government officers, politicians or quango employees. But I think there's another important matter in the trust debate. How much do we as public servants and professionals trust the public? What do we think of their choices? And how much do we wittingly or unwittingly encourage them to choose something else if we disagree with their tastes and preferences. How we can tell if we disagree because their choices are wrong (e.g. leading to the wrong clinical outcome, will have negative impact on themselves or others) or if we find them personally distasteful? It's easy to say that part of the job of the professional is making that distinction, but humans aren't that simple.
There Department of Health is working to develop a tool to help both practitioners and users evaluate their choices. If both parties can understand the risk and impact of various choices, and decided whether they're worth accepting that will go a long way toward supporting choice and engendering a trust that's mutual.
I'm not entirely clear what stage the tool is in development, but it looks really interesting. Here's what the DoH website says:
It is designed to be used by social care staff and practitioners from health who have care management/care co-ordination responsibilities. Service users could also be encouraged to use the tool as part of a self-assessment if they so wished.
Its application can be with any adult from any care group, in any situation and it is designed to be flexible and useful in a variety of settings including residential, supported housing and community teams. It is not intended that the impact assessment will replace other risk assessment processes especially in relation to mental health and safeguarding, where tried and tested risk and care planning processes are in place.
The tool will be tested in a variety of settings by a range of practitioners with a diverse group of service users to ensure it is robust and useful.
If you are interested in holding a seminar contact Caroline, CSIP Risk
Framework Project Lead, on 07979 713 235 or email caroline.godleman@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Back to main page
No comments:
Post a Comment