|
Care should be based on
assessed need
COUNCILS are being asked to ensure that
their care provision is determined by an individual assessment of needs, even in
times of financial pressure.
This is in response to a Local Government Ombudsman investigation which revealed
a Council's attempts to make blanket reductions to the support it gave to
vulnerable people without first assessing their needs.
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council decided to cut the hours it offered for
respite care in order to make budgetary savings, and applied a blanket
restriction of 4 weeks' per annum respite regardless of the individual needs of
carers in its area.
The situation was uncovered after the LGO was contacted by a couple who care for
their sister who has learning disabilities and dementia. They complained their
respite care allowance had been halved by the Council from 8 weeks a year to
just 4, without social workers 1st conducting a needs assessment.
The couple were told by social workers that the decision affected all users and
after complaining to the Council, they contacted the Ombudsman.
The LGO wrote to the Council asking for information about the case. Instead of
providing the information requested, the Council acknowledged it had reduced the
respite in error and offered to settle the complaint, reinstating the couple's
respite to 8 weeks a year and also awarding any respite owed.
Further clarification was sought, and the Council accepted it had reduced
respite care without carrying out a full needs assessment and recognised the
instruction given to social work teams had been too rigidly applied and without
proper regard to people's individual needs and circumstances. The LGO's
investigation identified others may have been affected by the application of the
policy.
Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said:- "Councils have a duty
to assess people's care needs and provide services at a level appropriate to
those needs regardless of the limited budgets they may have. Authorities
cannot simply decide to place restrictions on care without ensuring that it
meets people's needs. I am pleased Knowsley Council swiftly recognised its error
and will now be assessing how this might have affected other service users in
their area. I now would encourage Councils to consider my report and any
implications it may have for their care provision."
To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to reinstate the respite to 8
weeks for the couple, and award any respite missed due to the incorrect
reduction. It will also send a letter of apology and review its process for
allocating respite.
The LGO has also asked the Council to provide a similar remedy to other people
in the area whose respite it cut without assessing their needs. |
