It’s important to people who use social care services to identify what personal outcomes and experiences they want to achieve from the support they receive, and so an outcomes-based thought process is also crucial for the modern practitioner.
However, when service users and practitioners work together to agree those outcomes and how to achieve them, it doesn’t always mean they come to fruition.
This can occur for a number of reasons, such as a change of mind or revised goal-setting, but on occasion it can also be due to unwanted practitioner interventions.
Social care practitioners consistently contribute to the achievement of a wonderful assortment of outcomes and experiences, but sometimes their input – whether intentionally or unintentionally – can cause those outcomes not to materialise.
I’ve come to refer to this as ‘outcome sabotage’, which can be grouped into five broad categories, and I’ll attempt to explore the causes of this term with examples:
Communication errors, either within an organisation or between colleagues from partner agencies, can lead to desired goals not being achieved. This is usually unintentional and occurs when relevant information isn’t communicated effectively.
For example, a service user I support, Jim, was temporarily living in an alcohol detox service before a planned return to his tenancy. Positively, he had much input from multiple services. After discussion at a review, he agreed to be discharged and return to his flat on Wednesday, and he made preparations with family members.
The day arrived but at the last minute, he was told he couldn’t be discharged due to the necessary doctor not working on Wednesdays. He patiently waited an extra five days before returning home, but improved communication could have prevented this.
Occasionally, a practitioner’s personal beliefs and value systems will conflict with their service user’s and can result in questionable professional decision-making.
For example, Mark visited his GP to discuss a build up of ear wax that was causing some discomfort. He was advised to use ear drops for two weeks to soften the wax in the hope it would eventually dislodge. He wasn’t keen to wait two weeks, so independently sourced a local private clinic who could remove the wax. They use a small suction device that takes only ten minutes and costs an affordable £50.
The practitioner, however, offered advice by saying they thought it was too expensive and there was no way they would personally pay that kind of price. As a result, Mark decided to cancel the appointment and use the ear drops for two weeks.
Steve has a diagnosis of Korsakoffs syndrome due to chronic alcohol addiction since his early twenties. He hasn’t driven a car for over 30 years, but he requested support to upgrade his paper driving license to a photocard for identification purposes.
The practitioner said Steve couldn’t apply for a driving licence anymore, due to his alcohol related medical diagnosis. This information was incorrect and although he would have an obligation to inform the DVLA of such a diagnosis, it wouldn’t have automatically excluded him from applying or indeed driving a vehicle. This would be assessed on an individual basis.
In this instance, a lack of knowledge and an incorrect assumption led to the practitioner giving inaccurate information, which instantly ended Steve’s desired goal, before it had even started.
This is seldom talked about, but it’s not uncommon for more experienced staff members to take exception to being told what to do by less experienced colleagues.
This can have a demotivating influence and sometimes leads to an intentional decision not to fulfil tasks, when they have been delegated to practitioners by such colleagues. But this act of defiance can ultimately be of detriment to the service user.
For example, a practitioner asked a colleague of the same designation to support Sandra to attend her dental appointment at 4.30pm in the afternoon, the final appointment of a complicated treatment plan. Not only did the worker feel devalued by being told what to do by the relatively new co-worker, they also thought 4.30pm was too late in the day and may cause them to get stuck in traffic if it overran.
So they persuaded Sandra to call the dentist to rearrange the appointment for a time when the co-worker would have to accompany Sandra there themselves. Sandra complied, but needlessly endured dental anxiety for a further week as a result.
Finally, sometimes practitioners deliver a form of care and support to people that might not be in keeping with recovery-focused principles. This type of sabotage is usually borne out of goodness, but can also be due to being too keen to get the job done and evidence to superiors what the worker has done during their shift.
This can cause service user dependency or run the risk of deskilling people.
For example, when a practitioner is tasked with supporting a person to maintain a tenancy and to live independently, promoting independence and as many self-management skills as possible should be at the forefront of a worker’s efforts.
A focus should be on involving a person in preparing and cooking a meal, supporting them to go shopping, utilising public transport to attend community appointments, encouraging them make phone calls, instead of doing these things on their behalf.
The word sabotage suggests a deliberate intention to destroy, damage or obstruct – and I acknowledge that the outcome sabotage I refer to tends to happen unintentionally, with honourable motives present in the practitioner’s endeavours.
Maybe you’re reading this and disagree with my thoughts about outcome sabotage, maybe you have personal examples either as a service user or a health and social care employee that you’d like to share, or maybe you think this isn’t even a thing.
Either way, feel free to comment below or contact me to continue this discussion.
Dan Mushens is a recovery practitioner for Scottish mental health charity Penumbra. He can be found on twitter @danielmushens