In a clash of priorities, the government’s call for swift action is locking horns with the regulator’s steadfast commitment to upholding rigorous standards in the realm of adult social care, according to insights from Andrew Cozens, a distinguished independent specialist in social care and health.
A fresh controversy is now brewing at the heart of the adult social care arena, pitting the government directly against the regulatory body over the intricacies of tackling waiting lists and the protocols governing assessments for individuals awaiting care provision.
Central to this dispute are enduring questions surrounding the roles of qualified social workers and occupational therapists. The crux lies in determining whether the focus should be solely on addressing immediate issues or if a more comprehensive review of an individual’s circumstances is warranted. Amplifying these concerns is the growing apprehension regarding concealed safeguarding matters, which has gained prominence as partner agencies shed light on its pervasive nature.
The urgency attributed to expediting hospital discharges and managing crises has further exacerbated this conundrum, resulting in an influx of triaging mechanisms, prioritisation endeavours, and pending procedures.
The dearth of staff within these professions, coupled with broader financial constraints, has fortified the argument for swift, pragmatic strategies in addressing these challenges.
While this discourse has simmered over the years, it is once again reaching a boiling point. The Care Quality Commission (CQC), initiator of the assurance process, has set its sights on assessing how local councils discharge their responsibilities as stipulated in the Care Act 2014, a pivotal legislative framework governing these intricacies.
At the crux of the CQC’s scrutiny is the efficacy of how individuals with care requirements are shepherded toward optimal outcomes, accomplished through timely and uniform assessment procedures. Evidential trails are being pursued, revealing the collaborative development, currency, and periodicity of care plans through a transparent lens. Simultaneously, the aspiration is to empower individuals to make choices that harmonise risk mitigation with the pursuit of autonomy and control in their lives.
Such aspirations hinge upon finely-tuned competencies, sound judgement, and a judicious approach. Individuals must not be drawn into labyrinthine processes disproportionate to the gravity of their circumstances. Local councils are well within their legal rights to devise streamlined protocols that factor in the prudent utilisation of increasingly constrained resources.
The seismic shift brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic has ushered in novel paradigms for interactions with assessors, contemplating the mediums, timings, and methodologies best suited for engagement. Can assessments be adeptly conducted via telephone or online interfaces? Could the responsibility be delegated to alternative entities? How can the capacity and willingness of individuals to engage be accurately gauged, safeguarding them against coercion or jeopardy?
Anticipating the very concerns now at the forefront of the CQC’s agenda, the Chief Social Worker at the Department of Health & Social Care has issued a comprehensive guideline. This edict provides direction on executing proportionate assessments, detailing the authorised personnel for the task and delineating circumstances necessitating the involvement of qualified experts. A noteworthy aspect is the collaborative genesis of this guidance, developed in tandem with principal social workers specialising in adult care across local councils. Their collective voice resonates in emphasising that proportionality should never be a mere conduit for financial expediency.
At the core of the looming standoff lies a fundamental tension: the regulator’s meticulous evaluation of prevailing legal stipulations and professional benchmarks, juxtaposed with the government’s ardent pursuit of swift, pragmatic solutions amid an increasingly constricted fiscal backdrop.