by Simon StevensLast week I had my first proper outcome-based "review" now that I have reached my "maximum rehab potential" since the start of my Guillain Barré syndrome in January. I have always been nervous of reviews and I imagaine social workers can also be nervous when they have to work with a well known, empowered and rather vocal service user. With 17 years' experience behind me, I feel that the balance of power has started to shift in my favour.
The review looked at outcomes that I had two years ago and with how
much my life has changed in this period, I was remarkably impressed
with how most of my outcomes will still as relevant to my life now as
they were. My original intention when I first decided my outcomes was
to be able to get on with my life regardless of what may happen. I had
not expected for them to be tested to such extremes but clearly it
worked. I feel that until I reach retirement age, my family situation
changes, or my health needs change even more dramatically than they
have this year, my outcomes are very unlikely to change.
Where the review became interesting was when these modern user-led long-term super outcomes were converted into needs and the dreaded eligibility criteria where my desire to live a full and active live was converted into a three-hour a day social services contribution to toileting, dressing and meal preparation. I was told that while I could do what I wanted, I only had enough time allocated to prepare microwave meals and not proper meals. I suggested that for an active, enterprising large man, microwave meals were not enough. The response was to suggest two meals! Clearly, it is going to take a few more years before this "needs"-based language disappears as well as constant reminders of finance constraints.
Overall, I was very pleased with the review and the confirmation that my outcomes were on course. As the social worker remarked, this is a much more positive way of doing assessments. But it is still one of three reviews I have to do on totally different renewal schedules and, in my opinion, the whole assessment process is still a long way from how it should be in terms of a clear and transparent single easy assessment which is user-friendly for both social workers and service users.
Simon Stevens is a independent disability trainer and consultant
Where the review became interesting was when these modern user-led long-term super outcomes were converted into needs and the dreaded eligibility criteria where my desire to live a full and active live was converted into a three-hour a day social services contribution to toileting, dressing and meal preparation. I was told that while I could do what I wanted, I only had enough time allocated to prepare microwave meals and not proper meals. I suggested that for an active, enterprising large man, microwave meals were not enough. The response was to suggest two meals! Clearly, it is going to take a few more years before this "needs"-based language disappears as well as constant reminders of finance constraints.
Overall, I was very pleased with the review and the confirmation that my outcomes were on course. As the social worker remarked, this is a much more positive way of doing assessments. But it is still one of three reviews I have to do on totally different renewal schedules and, in my opinion, the whole assessment process is still a long way from how it should be in terms of a clear and transparent single easy assessment which is user-friendly for both social workers and service users.
Simon Stevens is a independent disability trainer and consultant
Leave a comment