This week Community Care magazine is running a feature on the rise of the paraprofessional. Fears are expressed that they are being used to fill gaps left by a shortage of qualified staff - sometimes putting service users at risk. For the social care paraprofessional to be successful they have clear boundaries and proper supervision. In your experience, do they?  

No they are not, what is dangerous is an individual persons unwillingness to learn and move on, we are all unqualified to start with and we are taught by the people who know best the service user and their informal support. By listening and hearing what a person wants we can learn alot.

 The only reason a person is qualified is because they have worked along side a service user who has educated them. Personal assistance are just that they are there to make a persons life accessable to them, by sticking someone in a uniform and giving them a badge from an agency does not make the qualified and nor does giving someone a degree in a specific field make them qualified or experienced in what someone who is disabled by society wants needs, only they know on an individual basis and train the personal assistance according to there needs and wants.

 A person is not ill or a medical condition just because they can not use some part of their body, and as such this should be recognised both by Social Services and the Department of Health Guidelines.

 The Department of Health also need to make it clear that when a person is a parent that Adult services should pay for that person to buy in assistance to help them as a parent. FACS Guidelines.

 I also feel that informal carers should have the choice of being paid if their loved one the service user receives Direct Payments or any other service from Social Services, this to should be recognised by the Department of Health, when a department is paying in the region of £14/15 an hour or more to agencies it would be far more cost effective to bridge the gap by paying the informal carers, it would save the service user and social service a lot of money and go in the right direction.

Thankyou

They can be. But so can qualified staff be dangerous if they do not maintain professional standards. Ive worked with many "untrained" people who have been excellent and inspiring. Some people just have what it takes . On the other hand I have worked with some real dough balls (trained and untrained). Clear boundaries and professional supervision are key to maintaining standards. in any setting. If someones just not interested no amount of training will transform them. Unfortunately in my recent experience (learning/intellectual disability) there are organisations out there who do a grand job and there are others who pay lip service to current policies and guidelines. I am one of those people who believe you can never get enough of good training but some organisations in service training is almost offensive and serves little or no purpose. But it keeps the regulators happy. What I am seeing is lots of well meaning (but often misguided) staff working in isolation, in institutions in the community,with minimal support, little encouragement and no thanks. On the whole its a tough job but many are not being rewarded and complacency sets in.Wherever there is complacency you will find danger.

I agree even qualified people can be dangerous if they do not keep up to date with research and/or adhere to the policys and proecedures. I have worked with quite a few assessing officers and welfare officers and find that they are good at their roles, however, I have also found that it is when the staff shortages occur, these unqualified workers have more and more pressure put on them to take on cases that the would otherwise not have. For example a case was transfered from another team with a Section 47 Child Portection Assessment. This had been undertaken by an assessing officer. It was ok but quite wishy washy when the plan put forward was for care proceedings to be undertakne. This could have been done by co-working with a qualified member of staff or with close supervision by a manager and be better managed. In this case obviously this had not happened, but it could. As I said even qualified staff can be dangerous and given the same task who could say if the outcome would be different.

On a brighter note assessing officers are so valuable when it comes to assessing contact needs they have the ability to work with families without conflict and I have found that they are a great support when having to deal with difficult situations surrounding contact issues as service users see them as non-confrontational.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here in terms of unsuitable work being put onto unqualified staff when staff shortages are an issue. Unqualified staff are all well and good but they need to have clear boundaries for what they are expected to do. These must not be breached as this is when things can potentially become dangerous.

Sorry to be late joining the discussion! 

There appears to be a culture in both Health and Social care of using unqualified staff to carry out increasing numbers of tasks that qualified social workers previously completed. I'm not 'precious' about my own role as a social worker but I am aware that, having completed a two year DipSW, I am more competent than I was before the training. 

I have experienced a number of situations where pevious interventions from unqualified staff have, (in my opinion), been to the disadvantage of service users, in some instances resulting in unnecessary long term residential care for service users who could have been more appropriately supported in their own homes. I have observed the interventions of unqualified staff causing service users with dementia additional difficulties by disrupting their familiar routines. I am aware that some service users have not been given the opportunity to be considered for Continuing NHS Health Care funding and have paid for their own accommodation because unqualified staff have no knowledge of the process.

If paraprofessionals were competent then we wouldnt need social workers! Call me cynical but this seems to be driven by financial imperitives and lack of adequate recruitment and retention planning. The priority should be 'who is competent to meet the needs of service users'. Training and assessment is the best way to identify who those people are.

I do not accept your assertions - many unqualified staff have many years of experience and are superb workers. They too are subject to professional Supervision so the problem lies with the local authority for any errors not with the workers.

Dont get me wrong Rupert, I am not blaming the workers, and I am sure that there are many unqualified staff doing a superb job. I agree with you that it is the responsibility of the Local Authority to ensure that its staff are competent. It is also the responsibility of the Authority to ensure that staff are paid fairly for the work that they do. Employing unqualified (usually lower paid) staff to do the job of qualified staff seems to be unfair. The solution is for an appropriate career structure and training to be provided so that all staff are competent, up-to-date in their training, receive the appropriate recognition and are paid fairly for the work they do.

I would agree that for very simple, non complex stuff paraprofessionals social work assistants can be invaluable, however I have also come across cases where unqualified staff have not really had the confidence or competence to progress cases as they should; often leading to more work for  qualified staff when a crisis occurs. Most people would have regarded the people I have in mind as sensible people with years of experience and who had good relationships with the service users. There's the rub, the job is about more than being a good egg, it is complex and difficult, and without proper professional training you are likely to screw up.

Some people think that the only qualification you need is "common sense"  but they are wrong. Most older social workers studied at post graduate level and non graduates would be required to demonstrate that they were intellectually able to withstand the rigours of the course, now the qualification is a degree in itself. We may or may not have been blessed with common sense prior to training, but following training social workers will be equipped with the knowledge and expertise required to start working in a profession which has a major impact on peoples lives; they will have been thouroughly put to the test and they will have had all their assumptions challenged, I hope. And now, the public is further protected by the requirement of all us to register and to demonstrate continued professional development.

When the parawhatsits go through all that, then I will have faith in them.

I think it is more about the individual worker rather than if they are qualified or not.  I've worked with some unqualified care managers who were great at their jobs.  A qualification is worthless if you don't have dedication,competence, respect, empathy, the ability to reflect and make use of supervision etc.  Without these you will not succeed in these jobs whether you are qualified or not.