A Lancashire social worker has been stabbed to death while on a house visit. Read the story here. The cabinet member for adult and community services has said there will be an internal investigation with health partners Lancashire Care NHS trust. Does anyone know the man who died? So sad. It has been known for a long time that social workers do a sometimes dangerous job - I will be interested to see what the council's investigation finds, and whether it leads to better protection for social workers. I don't know the details of this case, but lots of social workers pay lone visits to clients, and sometimes lack proper lone working policies, training and protection. When are things going to improve?

I am sadened to hear the news of yet another person losing their life during a home visit. Can you recall the incident of a newly qualified CPN in the north east region who went alone on a home visit. When is something going to be done to protect workers. In Children Services we are told not to go out alone if there is potential for violence but how many times due to staff shortages have we taken the chance. If it was a police officer would they go alone? My heart goes out to yet another  family who have lost a loved one in the line of work.

The media are the first to jump up and down when they think Social Workers have failed so lets see what they have to say on this. My prayers are with his colleagues and family. 

You can never eliminate risk but you can reduce the chances of a violent attack by the way you manage the situation. I don't know how adequate people's training is - what do you do if a client turns on you?

Managing conflict is essential training for any isolated worker. As is appropriate lone wroking policies and procedures. The real danger is when a violent/aggressive incident arises out of the blue. You could be visiting a previuosly calm,friendly individual and suddenly find yourself in a potentially dangerous situation. I know of a an incident where a worker was attacked by his clients friend (who felt he was sticking up for the client?) This happned in a bust street with many onlookers ,none of whom came to his assistance (neither did his client who incidently has mental health needs and learning disability) This was entirely unprovoked and the worker was left shaken and physically injured. He has now got another job.

It terrible and sad for that mans family ...... the CMHT where he works will be distraught.

It can still be difficult to predict the extent of risk. The people who you see on doubled up visits have usually done or said something to warrant joint visits, it is sometimes impossible to gague that you are walking into a high risk situation if you have had no warning that a service user is relapsing (for example).

All will become apparent and potential lessons may be learned but I recall the case in Wandsworth some years ago now where a very experienced mental health social worker was killed by a service user, sometimes situations do arise out of the blue and all the skill in the world cannot resolve them.

I also keep in mind that visits and contacts do increase when service users are relapsing, so does risk, we just dont always have the staff numbers to double up even on ASW assessments!!!!

I used to think it takes something going wrong for things to change, now i dont even think thats the case

All the above points are well made. As soon as I heard the news from Channel 4 News I posted a thread 'Death of another care worker' in 'Practice'. Like Preeta, many of us have now lost that idealist view that fatal incidents could become catalysts to positive change. This is because there could be no greater an incidnece than a fatal one. And these incidents are piling up steadily. Figure crunchers would want us to believe that the statistics is insignificant, since out of the national fifure of homicides those committed by people receiving services are relatively small. However, within this, is also the know that most of the fatal incidents occur with people who are known to the service user - and this includes a professional.

The argument put forward about staff shortages is just as valid as that for the unpredictability of when violence may errupt during contact with a service user. Whether or not anything is done to address the two arguments would depend on which one of them holds sway with the employers. Employers who hold the view that despite staff shortage, staff welfare is paramount, would do everything they could to encourage staff to practise innovative care co-ordinating, i.e. allowing double-hand working. This should not be that much of a problem now that multi-disciplinary teamworking is the norm. I have known teams that have encouraged careworkers or assistant social workers to accompany on home visits.

Those employers, who on the other hand hold service user welfare paramount would not. They would innsist on various bureaucratic measures, including the over-reliance on heavy and rigid risk assessment and management tools. However, as has been mentioned earlier, any risk assessment and management is only as good as the history, especially the most recent history, associated with the service user. This would then put the onus of outcomes on the worker, rather than the organisation. The worker in turn, having to consider all the implications including his or her standing within the team structure, may wisely or not, take decisions that with hindsight, they may not be too proud of. However, it must be noted that every decision is made on the basis of the information available to the decision maker at the time (granted that not every element is given equal consideration). As in the Lancashire case, a decision was taken that resulted in fatal consequences. What seems to be clear at the moment is that the worker was alone.

Just over the weekend or so the new law about coporate manslaughter came into effect. Could it be possible to use this against employers of social and health care workers, if it could be proven that work allocation systems contributed to workers coming to harm? After all, if due to faulty equipment or practice measures a worker got killed in industry (which our employers are now modelling themselves on) a charge could be brought against them. Such a thought may make them think twice, but sadly, not the rising numbers of fatalities suffered by social care workers.

Once again my heart goes to the victim and his family. 

it was just a few weeks ago that we were discussing about not being a hero and now this dreadfull  incident has happened My heart goes out  to this man's loved ones. We all know someone who has been assaulted and or abused. Of course we do not yet know the full facts and as usual the media do not seem to know the diffrence between social worker and care worker. Of course, both do home visits and suffer abuse, insults and assaults, some of course take place in day and residential settings as well as in the community. All the meeings and risks assessments will not eliminate the possibility of these things happening. I only hope and pray that whatever investigation takes place, some good comes from it rather than blame and scapegoating.

It is long past the time for society to acknowledge that thosae of us who work in the social care profession have the right to go about our duties without the fear of abuse and assault.

I call upon the media to help and support us in this matter instead of attacking at every opportunity

Brain

the facts in this case are yet to emerge but it would be interesting to know if there had been any previous problems with lone working policies and procedures at Lancashire - assuming Philip Ellison was visiting a service user alone. It would be good to hear from anyone working in the adult care section there. Were there staffing issues?

Of course any specific comment can only be speculation given the full facts of the case are unknown to many.  Yet some general questions have emerged such as the nature of lone working, corporate manslaughter and others.  I wish to add another one - Is it right for an internal investigation to take place or should this be an external and independent one?  I mean no slight to those involved rather that there should be a body suitably independent with enough teeth to investigate this matter.  If there was then perhaps policy and practise would have a better chance of change.

Another general point that impacts here is the tendency to move support and care deliver away from accommodation-based services to visiting support.  Such a trend has been done largely for cost-efficiency purposes that are in some ways inevitable and even practical.  Yet, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that 'risk' has been downplayed to achieve this financial aim.  Again an external independent body with teeth seems needed - if only to dispel such comments.

Would such an independent body also help with 'corporate manslaughter' claims?  This is an evolving area of law that given the legal perception of councils is likely to lead to many (emotive or financially driven?) claims to be made against councils. Surely, such a body would be in the best interests of councils too?  I dont know whether 'corporate manslaughter' claims can be brought under conditional arrangements (i.e. no-win, no-fee) by solicitors - but if they can I strongly suspect they will increase exponentially.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 applies not only to employees but to everyone to whom a duty of care is owed. This has taken 11 yrs to pass and the majority of organisations are prepared for it. ( well they have had plenty of time ) But not all. Some feel it doesnt apply to them but it applies equally to any employer no matter size. Its tragic that this incident has happened at all but the employer is vicariuosly liable. An independant inquiry should take place to ensure no stone is left unturned .

My thoughts are with his family and the people he worked with.

 Regarding Corporate Manslaughter, social workers in my area recently had to attend mandatory lone worker training and I wonder if this is a way to reduce any potential claims against the Council. The training was good, but at the end of the day, we all put ourselves in dangerous situations and will probably continue to do so, in order to continue to work with vulnerable people. The cynic in me suggests that if the council can say that they provided this training, but you went against this, then you as an individual are to blame?

Kymb21 you are probably right to be cynical, however, lone worker policy is more than just sending staff on a training session. Appropriate first aid provision and communication(via mobiles.radios etc) are necessary as are risk assessmants for ALL staff , Yes the employer will almost certainly attempt to blame the worker by saying...but we sent you on a course ...but they have clear legal duties to protect their employees.

I am sure that legal minds are now working hard since I first injected the idea of coporate manslaughter into this debate. As with any legal exercise, the opponent or the adversary, would try to put forward a defence. However, with some laws, there are legal defences built in. For instance, under the Mental Health Act 1983, section 139 provides a series of legal defences, one of which is that the action of the Approved Social Worker was done in good faith. However, this thought would have been present at the time of the act or the omission of it.

I am sure therefore that if any legal challenge is mounted lawyers will go through the legislation to see what is on offer. The fact that training was provided may not even be a legal defence however, only a test case would clarify what this coporate manslaughter law actually offers. Laws can be interpreted in several ways, including what is called the 'mischief rule'. Since this law, according to popular belief, took 11 years to hit the statute books, there must have been overwhelming evidence and intention to deal with employers who would do just the least of what is expected of them in terms of health and safety.

It is no good relying on providing training if there is record of the employers systematically ignoring or only paying lip service to what that training requires. I attended a training once on lone working. During this training it was revealed that fellow social workers had visited an address and to their surprise, they ended up looking down the barrel of a shotgun. Although it was true that the CMHT did not have a previous knowledge of this address, it transpired that other departments of the Council did have some information. The fact that they did not disseminate the information to all who needed to know could be challenged. The shotgun incidence is an extreme case but ever so often Councils do get reports about unsocial behaviour relating to individuals or particular locations. It would be expected that a reasonable employer, who owes a duty of care to his/employees, would make this information available to the workers who may put themselves at risk by visiting these locations.

I also had another experience which challenges the notion of doubling up on home visits. I volunteered to accompany a female colleague on a home visit, the aim of which was to help a woman she had helped place in a residential care collect some of her personal belongings from her previous address. This address was managed by a Housing Association and there was staff on sight. When we arrived, two women, who happened to to be the daughters of the lady concerned appeared (we were not expecting them) and without the slightest provocation, while my colleague was talking to the Housing Association staff, one of the daughters took a swing at my colleague, which caught her right in the face. At the second attempt I intervened and blocked her off. My colleague was in shock and was helpless. I called the police, who took ages to come and when they eventually did, they appeared to side with the aggressor, taking her aside and leaving us baffled as to when they were going to ask us what happened. To cut this story short, nothing came out of it eventhough we ticked all the RIDDOR boxes.

What this incidence demonstrates to me is that employers need to do more than just train staff to be risk aware. They need to create the condition that would ALWAYS make it possible to manage these risks without putting extra pressure on the workers.