A social worker with more than 20 years’ experience has been suspended from the Social Work Register after failing to manage her caseload.
A Health & Care Professions Council conduct panel imposed the 12-month suspension after finding that she failed to follow case management directions, produce adequate reviews on time, carry out visits, assess the risks faced by service users and adequately complete Mental Capacity Assessments.
These failures, which took place between 2009 and 2011, included entering details about one service user into another’s file and failing to provide timely financial management support to a service user, which placed the client at risk of eviction.
The conduct panel found that these failures amounted to misconduct and, specifically, contravened Section 6 of the code of practice, which requires social workers to be accountable for the quality of their work.
The panel did note that the social worker, who had an otherwise unblemished record, had been overloaded with cases and insufficient adjustments had been made for her disabilities, which limit her mobility and prevented her from conducting visits that require the use of stairs.
It also noted that difficult and complex events in her private life, which have not been made public, were also a mitigating factor but criticised her for not informing her employer of how this was affecting her work.
The panel also said the social worker should have sought help for adjustments relating to her disability and had failed to remove herself from the workplace or identify the extent to which her poor relations with her manager where affecting her work.
The panel also took issue with how she had denied the allegations of poor practice and blamed others for her failings until a late stage in the conduct process.
In light of this and the risk her failures posed to service users, the panel concluded that she had committed misconduct and imposed a 12-month suspension order.
“The registrant’s failings had put service users at risk and in some instances her inability to appropriately risk assess each situation and to take timely action may well have increased the risks of each of these service users,” said the panel in its decision.
That the social worker had decided to not to accept social work jobs until the conduct process was over also worked against her.
“The panel accepted that during the course of these proceedings the registrant had undergone a gradual and continual process of realisation and self-assessment,” said panel chair Raymon Pattison.
“Whilst she had been offered positions as a social worker through agencies, she had unwisely resisted these offers of employment until these proceedings had been concluded.
“The registrant therefore was unable to demonstrate that she had remedied the misconduct and that she could work safely.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
This makes sad reading in that the whole blame seems to have landed on the shoulders of the social worker – what action is the HCPC taking against the managers concerned? We know only too well the personal and professional stresses caused by excessive caseloads – also we know how difficult many staff feel to raise those concerns for fear of being seen as the problem and scapegoated with possible future adverse career implications.
The social worker also had disabilities which should have been the responsibility of her employer by exercising the required ‘Duty of Care’ and making all required adjustments.
I can also understand the reluctance to take up further employment during what has to be an extremely stressful time when the HCPC was investigating – for that to be used against her seems profoundly wrong.
It does seem to me that proper professional representation is required in these Hearings but that is often just not available.
The person was stressed because she was over-worked. Management failed to intervene in that it proved itself blind to any tell-tale signs. Management allowed the conduct to continue until it reached a level deemed unsafe for Service Users. The person was investigated for misconduct, adding to her stress levels. She removed herself from the work situation while the process proceded, presumably to diminish some of the pressure.
“Whilst she had been offered positions as a social worker through agencies, she had unwisely resisted these offers of employment until these proceedings had been concluded.” The panel has now racheted up her stress levels.
This is management failure on so many levels – unless the above report omits salient details.
And suspending her helps her how?
I know this Social Worker and briefly worked with her in her 20 year career. I am absolutely gutted for her. HCPC should take into coinsideration case loads, complexity and just how many hours there are in the work day, and the amount of personal time you can give to cases before the office lights get turned off or you burn out.
It can be said that this type of situation can happen to any of us regardless of how many times you tell your manager that enough is enough. That she did not work until an outcome should have worked in her favour but instead it is used against her – I just do not understand.
Decisions like this that seemingly ignore the enormity of our job and the lack of support from managers is disheartening and like a number of my colleagues is prompting us to seek employment outside of the field before we get roped into the disciplinary trap and punishment for not having superhuman abilities.
This decision is not helpful ,what about adequate supervision ? The line manager also has some responsibility in this as do senior managers, the blame culture doesn’t help.
This should have been picked up much earlier and any supervisor worth their salt should have seen the signs and acted sooner
This seems harsh. Whilst we are responsible for our own work, managers are also responsible for the allocation of work and providing support. In my opinion her managers failed her and instead of dragging her through what amounts to an unnecessary harsh hearing, she should have been offered a reduced case load, extra supervision, and better support around her disability. HCPC seem too quick to beat stressed out social workers over the head with a stick.
Sad just does not cover this. I am a frontline manager who supports my staff and on numerous occasions have raised with higher management that caseloads which have increased substantially are just not manageable. Workers are leaving, if they are not leaving they are often sick, crying and feeling overwhelmed. Bureaucracy has increased greatly, timescales and data performance remain a driving factor as we must be “OFSTED ready”. As a manager I have to say I do not feel supported at all, when you do raise issues such as caseload then you are not “playing the game” and higher management really do not like this. If you do not have leadership in place that nurtures and takes care of its staffs wellbeing how on earth do they think social workers can go out and provide what children, adults and families require. Sad to say but I am leaving frontline practice the draconian attitude and inability of higher management to reflect on their own attitudes and faults whilst blaming everyone below them just is not for me.
That the social worker chose not to accept social work jobs while under professional investigation was obviously honourable behaviour. This looks like a vengeful witch hunt. Are social workers not allowed legal representation in conduct cases?
So sad that yet again, the soc wkr seems to have shouldered all the blame for this. Why would the panel choose such a harsh ‘sentence’ and encourage this persistent culture of blame. Sad to read the comment:
‘The panel did note that the social worker, who had an otherwise unblemished record, had been overloaded with cases and insufficient adjustments had been made for her disabilities, which limit her mobility and prevented her from conducting visits that require the use of stairs.’
and then to have the soc wkr face such a harsh sentence. Why was there no mention of supervision or what support the soc wkr was offered to support her in managing an ‘overloaded’ caseload? was there any? why should the soc wkr have to ask for support rather than it not be offered? management are fully aware of a soc wkrs caseload and hence, support should be offered. The culture of blame continues……………