Brief – Understanding Specific Needs in Health and Social Care
Description of problem to be solved
As a Health and Social Care Practitioner, your responsibilities include, among others, assessing specific needs of people with disabilities, analyzing their care needs and also, evaluating strategies for giving support to people with challenging behaviours. You are therefore required in this assignment to demonstrate your understanding of Specific needs in Health and Social Care
Learning Outcome 1
The first part of your essay requires you to analyse concepts of disability, illness and behaviour in relation to Health and Social Care service users and give your assessment of how perceptions of specific needs have changed over time.
You are to examine the impact of legislation, social policy, society and culture on the ways that services are made available for individuals with specific needs. You may use the case study given or any case study of your choice, to illustrate the impact of legislation on the ways that services are made available for individuals with specific needs.
Learning Outcome 2
Use the Bournewood case or Baby-P case below to support this part of your essay, refer to stponline for further reading materials and learning resources.
This section of your essay requires you to describe the Care needs for specific needs of the individual, informing your audience about his condition and how it affects well-being and capacity. Discuss the systems available to support such individuals and link this to the case study. Build your arguments for and against and include your final decision in relation to the assessment criteria.
Learning Outcome 3
Explain the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs. Use both case studies as benchmarks and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions strategies use. Discuss the potential impact of emerging developments on support for people with specific needs. Again use either of the case study.
Learning Outcome 4
The last part of the assignment concerns your understanding of the different concept and strategies for coping with challenging behaviours associated with specific needs. Students are expected to explain the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs.
Furthermore, students must describe the potential impact of challenging behaviour on health and social care organizations and analyse strategies for working with challenging behaviours.
Case Study 1
Baby Peter ‘was failed by all agencies’
Peter Connelly (also known as “Baby P”) was a 17-month-old English boy who died in London after suffering more than fifty injuries over an eight-month period, during which he was repeatedly seen by Haringey Children’s services and NHS health professionals.
Peter Connelly was born to Tracey Connelly on 1 March 2006. In November, Connelly’s new boyfriend, Steven Barker, moved in with her. In December, a GP noticed bruises on Peter’s face and chest. His mother was arrested and Peter was put into the care of a family friend, but returned home to his mother’s care in January 2007. Over the next few months, Peter was admitted to hospital on two occasions suffering from injuries including bruising, scratches and swelling on the side of the head. Connelly was arrested again in May 2007.
In June 2007, a social worker observed marks on Peter and informed the police. A medical examination concluded that the bruising was due to abuse. On 4 June, the baby was placed with a friend for safeguarding. Over a month later, on 25 July, Haringey Council’s Children & Young People’s Service obtained legal advice which indicated that the “threshold for initiating Care Proceedings…was not met.
On 1 August 2007, Baby Peter was seen at St. Ann’s Hospital in North London by locum paediatrician Dr. Sabah Al-Zayyat. Serious injuries, including a broken back and broken ribs, very likely went undetected.
The next day, an ambulance was called and Peter was found in his cot, blue and clad only in a nappy. After attempts at resuscitation, he was taken to North Middlesex hospital with his mother but was pronounced dead at 12:20 pm. A post-mortem revealed he had swallowed a tooth after being punched. Other injuries included a broken back, broken ribs, mutilated fingertips and fingernails missing.
The police immediately began a murder investigation and Baby P’s mother was arrested. So too were Barker, his brother Jason Owen and his 15-year old girlfriend, who had fled to and were hiding in a campsite in Epping Forest.
Baby P’s real first name was revealed as “Peter” on the conclusion of a subsequent trial of Peter’s mother’s boyfriend on a charge of raping a two-year-old.
The case caused shock and concern among the public and in Parliament, partly because of the magnitude of Peter’s injuries, and partly because Peter had lived in the London Borough of Haringey, North London, under the same child care authorities that had already failed ten years earlier.
Peter’s mother Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend Steven Barker, and Jason Owen (later revealed to be the brother of Barker) were all convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child, the mother having pleaded guilty to the charge.
The child protection services of Haringey and other agencies were widely criticised. Following the conviction, three inquiries and a nationwide review of social service care were launched, and the Head of Children’s Services at Haringey was removed by direction of the government minister.
A report by Graham Badman suggested that Baby Peter’s “horrifying death” was down to the
incompetence of almost every member of staff who came into contact with him.
The report stated that “the practice of the majority, both individually and collectively was incompetent.”
“Their approach was completely inadequate and did not meet the challenge of the case,” it argued.
Case study Two:
The Bournewood Case
Rights for vulnerable people in the care system
Mr. and Mrs. E live in a picturesque cottage in a quiet Surrey Village. Inside, the house is buzzing with activity: three Old English sheepdogs, rescued from a home for abandoned animals, roam about the kitchen and patio. Photos of family outings cover the walls. Footsteps on the stairs signal the entrance of HL, the autistic man for whom Mr. and Mrs. E are carers. He pauses for a silent greeting before making his way swiftly to the fridge. “He knows exactly where we keep his favourite juice,” laughs Mrs. E.
Mr. and Mrs. E, are remarkable people, whose struggle for HL’s human rights has changed the way vulnerable people are treated under British law.
HL came to live with Mr. and Mrs. E in 1994, under a resettlement scheme from Bournewood hospital where he had lived for 32 years. With their children grown up, the couple had decided to open their home to someone who needed it. Looking after HL was no easy task: he cannot talk, and needs help with basic tasks like washing and dressing himself. Mrs. E says: “It’s fair to say that it was a challenge – but it was rewarding to see how much HL benefited from living in a family setting. At first he was very institutionalised, but he gradually became more confident and progressed beyond all expectations.”
A requirement of his placement was that HL would attend a day centre once a week, to which he travelled by the centre’s transport. On July 22nd 1997, three years after he had come to live with Mr. and Mrs. E, it was not the usual driver who collected from their home. Rather than taking him straight to the day centre as normal, the driver took a different route, collecting others on the way. HL became increasingly agitated.
The next thing Mr. and Mrs. E knew was that HL had been taken back into Bournewood hospital and detained there. He had been admitted informally, using a clause in the Mental Health Act 1983 under
which the hospital simply had to argue that it was in his “best interests” – and as HL cannot speak, he was unable to object. Mr. and Mrs. E were not allowed to visit him, apparently in case he wanted to leave with them. “They sent us a letter thanking us for agreeing not to visit,” says Mrs. E. “We hadn’t agreed anything – they had decided, without any consultation.”
When Mr. and Mrs. E realised that HL was not going to be allowed home, they engaged a solicitor on his behalf and took a case for unlawful detention to the High Court, which ruled against him. The Appeal Court overturned the decision in October 1997, and the hospital chose to section HL, although he did not meet the criteria, and in December that year he was finally discharged by the hospital managers. “When he got home he was in a terrible state,” says Mrs. E. The couple has a video showing the abuses to which HL had been subjected in the hospital: he looks half-starved, with blackened toenails and scabs on his face. “When he came home he just ate and slept for three weeks.”
Meanwhile, the hospital trust, supported by the Department of Health, appealed to the House of Lords over the ruling. The Mental Health Act Commission suggested that 22,000 people being detained informally would have to be detained formally under the Mental Health Act if the ruling were upheld. In 1998, the House of Lords overturned the ruling that HL’s detention had been illegal. Mr. and Mrs. E decided to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, which in October 2004 ruled in HL’s favour. As a result the government introduced the new Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which came into force in April 2009.
Layout of essay:
1. Have a cover page for your essay
2. Font should be either Times Roman or Arial, 1½ or 2-line spacing.
3. Referencing style: Harvard.
4. New paragraphs are indented 5 spaces.
5. Number and label all diagrams with their source.
6. Make sure all the assessment requirements are addressed.
7. Include all the references in your text on the last page of the essay.
8. Make sure material is correctly referenced. Plagiarised essays are not marked. (e.g. ukessays.com).
9. Do not use Wikipedia or any site with wiki….
10. Suggested word count 4000 words………………………
For a custom paper on the above topic, place your order now!
What We Offer:
• On-time delivery guarantee
• PhD-level writers
• Automatic plagiarism check
• 100% money-back guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• High Quality custom-written papers