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.
A Lancashire MP has demanded a full inquiry into Ellison's case - read here. Former colleagues have also paid tribue to Philip - read here.
It is to be expected that the local MP will ask for a full inquiry. Yet he has not asked - according to reports on this - for an independent inquiry into this case. The underlying theme here is that if the 'thorough' internal inquiry conducted by the council absolves the council then many will say, perhaps cynically, "What did you expect?"
The apparent fact that an independent and exteral inquiry is not going to take place is a great opportunity missed for all concerned. If one was held and absolved the council then the "What did you expect" argument above would and could be easily dismissed. For colleagues and social workers, care workers support staff and all others who conduct lone working visits the everyday risks that they face - and indeed hightened by this matter - would also be seen to have been addressed correctly.
However, more importantly, the family of this worker will want to know precisely what happened and under any form or morality have an absolute right to know what happened. They should be lobbying their MP for a full and independent inquiry into this matter. In any measure of equity how can an organisation (in this case) a council investigate a matter in which they may be liable for or potentially negligent in the murder of one of their employees.
Put in those terms, and they are accurate ones, it seems absurd and even offensive that the council is involved in this inquiry.
Eventually, the coroner who has the power and resources to conduct an independent inquiry. Yet this could take months even years and even then should only be made public with the express agreement of the family involved. In the meantime these same everyday risks will continue across the country for lone workers. That is unacceptable and a full independent inquiry needs to be put in place with immediate effect.
How have previous cases like this been investigated? Has there ever been a full independent inquiry into any?
This is very sad news indeed. I was wondering what anyone else thought about the reporting of it though. It seemed to me to get only a fraction of the media coverage that I expect it would had this happened to a police worker, teacher, nurse.
That's a really good point vjj - it would have been news at 10 stuff if it was a teacher
CareSpace support
I said something similar on the 27 March "Re those little gems of advice." We in the social care profession only get sustained media coverage when we are accused of something. This man was doing his job and lost his life doing it. When this first happened, I called for the media to help us do something to stop these dreadful incidents happening. It seems my call has fallen on deaf ears as this recent murder as quickly fallen out of the news bullitins. As I said on the 27 March, we do not get the support or sympathy from the public and media as they, nurses and teachers. Quite the opposite in fact. I feel for this man, his family, colleagues and all of us who work in the social work/social care profession.
There needs to be a national capaign to bring awareness of violent attacks, assaults and abuse suffered by social care/social work staff to everyone's attention. There needs to be zero tolerance and better protection.
Guys, don't be too sure we (social workers) are out of the woods yet. Inasmuch as you are absolutely right regarding a more or less news blackout, there is bound to be a media frenzy if they find anything negative to report. I am sure even the Council, which by now would have issued dictats preventing any contact with the media, would come out blarring on all cylinders telling everyone that if 'procedures' had been followed, such a tragedy would have been prevented. Anyone watching the news today would not fail to notice the NHS agenda. I was surprised when I learned that the Government had given £97 extra million to help the NHS combat aggression.
The next point I want to make is that I remember when there was a campaign called 'no fear'. What happened to that? As far as I remember there was no new money backing that campaign in the early 2000s.
Some of that 97 million will no doubt go towards employing security staff which would not be practical in a social care/social work setting, except perhaps area offices.
On television this morning medical staff were interviwed telling their experiences of being assaulted. Why did they not interview social care/social work staff?
I also wondered as much. But I think the answer may lie in the fact that social and social care workers work with vulnerable people. If you follow the drift of this thinking, then it would be unthinkable to 'assume' that vulnerable could be anything else. A social worker telling the nation that the service users they work with could sometimes be quite dangerous is not 'sexy'. But does society see health worker clients as vulnerable people at all? After all, social care shares some of these clients with health care but both the government and the general public seem to feel that they can talk about thier negative experiences in the media, just days after a social worker has been been killed, without even mentioning that event, as an 'intro'. Some amount of education is needed here.
Although I believe in social services clients being vulnerable, having worked in the sector of mental health for a while, I have no illusions that the very unpredictability of behaviour when someone is going through an episode of mental ill health, makes the job dangerous. There is, of course, a huge dilemma. On the one hand mental health workers would rather the public did not continue to stigmatise people with mental health problems solely on account of the presence of the illness while mental Health organisations like SANE and Mental Health Media are doing the same.
The other side of the coin is that 'accidents' do happen and suddenly 'vulnerable' people become menaces either to the worker's livelihood or their lives. The ability of some mental health service users to manipulate is well known but it is equally downplayed in relation to mental health professionals. This may well be as a result of the long period of stigmatisation and other forms of enequality that sufferers endured. However, the world has moved on and both our profession and the general public at large need to move on with it.
Social workers and social care workers are only going to be properly protected if the dangerous conditions they work in is recognised. While training reduces this danger, it on its own will not be sufficient to deal with some avoidable negative outcomes.
I agree with the point that a social worker telling people that the people they work with can sometimes be dangerous is not sexy but this doesn't totally explain the lack of media coverage. The police telling the public that they work with dangerous people would be equally like telling them suck eggs but police officers' deaths are high profile. I think it's more, depressingly, to do with the lack or respect for the profession in general and due to the fact that many members of the public will never come into contact with social services.
Hi, Im still slightly confused about what the gentleman actually did for a living. Some reports describe him as a social worker and others as a social care worker. Not that it matters when someone has been murdered but Im just wondering if this is why the media appear uninterested?
Lancashire council has confirmed his position was a community support worker. They are carring out a Serious Untoward Incidents investigation which is routine - does anyone know what the remit of this is?
I have worked with a very abusive service user for a number of years now, he appears to have 'issues' with females and has recently spoken of wanting me dead. I made my manager aware and was told he would be allocated to a male worker but a month on nothing has happened and I am still expected to go to his flat and offer him support on my own! I am more than capable of dealing with difficult service users but I really don't want to end up like the social worker in Lancashire, my thoughts are with his family.
Emmy, please check your organisations lone working policy and request a formal risk assessment. You should not be expected to place yourself at risk. Especially in light of this tragic death.
We've just put together a new podcast, which you can listen to here, which discusses social work safety. Let me know what you think
I must agree - staying safe is more important than anything.
I liked the podcast - that Ivory chap sounds like John Humphreys
Yes the podcast was very interesting and highlighted what we have all been saying about how difficult it is to deal with unexpected risk,especially in the mental health field.
I share the concerns already voiced in this blog about lone working policies and risks to social workers. I work in a CMHT in the Midlands area and was assaulted by a service user last May. This assualt was completely unexpected and there was no time to anticipate yet alone attempt to leave or prevent it. It was also an action that had never been carried out by the service user before and would not have been recorded on the Risk Assessment which i was completely familiar with. I am the first to admit that i am no hero and had i have detected anything like that may happen, I would never have attended alone. i wonder how much of my situation was the case for the poor social worker who's life was taken? Sometimes you could have all the risk assessments and lone working policies in the world and they still may not prevent something like this happening.
I hope an enquiry is held by an independent body to ascertain the finer details and how the situation could be avoided. Until then, as others have stated, social workers will still carry on visiting people who present risks to themselves or others simply for the fact that thats what they came into social work to do - to try and help people and try and make a difference.
My sincerest condolences go to the victims family.
The sister of Philip Ellison has called for the housing block where he was stabbed to death to be demolished. Alice Victor, 60,called for a memorial to be built in its place. Apparently the council are considering building a memorial to Philip. Should the block be demolished? What kind of memorial would be fitting?
Mrs Victor also told the Lanashire Evening Post that there was one person on duty at the block and asked: "Where were the other staff? Why was he left alone? Did they not have any alarm system? Did they not have any cameras? This should have been prevented."She said her sister Christine is also a social worker in Preston and she called for her to quit. Should she quit?
Read the full report in the Lancashire Post here.
Hi Georgie30
How did your department respond to the attack? Were any changes made?
Thanks Muriel for the link. My heart goes out to Philips family.Im not sure about the call to demolish the building. I can understand the sisters point of view but can you imagine the upheaval? Of trying to rehome the other people who live there. Im sure they are already traumatised by recent events so perhaps moving away from that place would be a good idea for them.As more info becomes available we can see how this could this could have been prevented. Its going to be another can of worms. There must be an independant inquiry into this sad ,sad case.
I think it is important not to lose sight of the perspective of service users in this case. I am sure the staff at that home are facing a very difficult time in dealing with their own grief and the reactions of the others residents. Reports in a few papers seem to suggest people living in the street are also questioning whether they are safe with a home for people with mental health problems in their midst - which can't make things any easier for the staff or residents...
I am fortunate in one respect - that I no longer work on the frontline and face the dangers associated with lone working and what many suspect to be lip service to genuine risk assessment. Perhaps because of this it is in many ways easier for me to make a number of points recurrent in tjhis thread to date.
Social workers seem to be preoccupied with how the media and general public view them yet also appear to do nothing about changing this.
These are two separate but linked issues. Firstly, I accept that there is very little that can be done about the (mass) media portrayal of this story. Asking local residents safety perceptions etc is simply just a way to sensationalise the issue and prolong that type of stereotypical portrayal of social wokers. Tabloid and local journalists simply seek to distort the facts and issues to make a good story for their customers. Little can be done here now or in the future.
The second issue is that social workers dont seem to be doing anything on a collective lobbying basis to get the often lax attitude to lone working / risk assessment changed. Neither do - and it may be their role in this - unions or any other collective body appear to be doing much about this. One death is one death too many, personally and professionally speaking, and this tragic death is not a one-off. More deaths have occurred and many, many more assaults occur as this thread clearly highlights. Yet what has been done over say the last 1,2, 5 or even 10 years about these in many cases preventable assaults? Anyone care to post any research on this that has been completed on a national scale? Does anyone know if assaults of this nature are recorded nationally anywhere?
I can answer for supported housing that has many lone workers delivering floating support and single-staffed accommodation-based provision in which I know of no national figures on the number of assaults being compiled. I do have masses of anecdotal evidence from staff working in such situations across the country that assaults are common and have also known cases of staff deaths in service.
Another point is one of my original comments here. That there needs to be an independent enquiry into this matter and not an inquiry conducted by a council who may be negligent in the mnurder of one of its employees. That current scenario is a scandal and the council's investigation should be stopped immediately. Moreover, because of the massive potential for a conflict of interest such council inquiries should be banned in law.
To emphasise that last point imagine the outcry if the lone worker in this case worke for a private provider or a small charity provider and that provider conducted an inquiry. The local council and police and central government and the mass media (and of course the local MP!) would all be up in arms. So why is it acceptable for the council to conduct an inquiry in this case?
Thirdly - and without knowing the facts of this case - nationally we have seen massive financial pressures on care and support providers to cut costs and/or raise eligibility thresholds. All of this has a direct link in my view on cost-cutting measures that manifest in increase lone working and often reduced risk assessments in practice (regardless of what the superficial theory of tick boxes says.)
That last pint may be overly cynical. However, if the deceased was my family member I would want no stone unturned to find out what happened here and why it was allowed to happen. The family of the deceased deserve that as an absolute right and this obviates that a full independent inquiry takes places and that the current council one halts with immediate effect.
You should read a report done in April 2000 on violence against social care staff - read it here
I think this was, to my knowledge, the last attempt at such a survey - it contains accounts by frontline workers that basically reflect all the discussions in this threat. The report contains the following shocking account from one social worker:
"I have had physical threats I mean every week, I had a car blown up...a family attacked ... people have found my
home address, get my phone number and they would do me in basically. ...the problem for me is when the placements don't go well in view of the
parents ... it is my fault, you ***, I'll get you for this, and I have this like almost every day, and I have been verbally abused when I get to court, and
they say I will get you for this, it has become like almost normal to me ...Verbal threats of abuse to me, weekly, from the parents and their extended
family"
I knew Phil and his family. He was a caring pleasant person and enjoyed music. We went to a 50th birthday party where he entertained the guests with his singing and dancing. I feel very sad for his wife, sons and extended family. Words can not express my deepest sorrow and shock.
Hi Steller would be good to get your tribute and tributes from other friends/colleagues of Philip into Community Care - do you want to send an email to deputy news editor maria.ahmed@rbi.co.uk? Up to you of course.
I heard the town hall flag flew at half-mast yesterday, the day of the funeral