AC M4 Person-centred practice, choice and independence (H/650/1369)

1.1 Explain how person-centred values can be applied in a range of situations

Person-centred values form the foundation of many health and social care practices. These principles empower individuals by putting their preferences, needs, and interests at the forefront of care decisions.

Beginning with individuality, each person’s situation and circumstances underscore the importance of tailoring support to fit one’s unique lifestyle and aspirations. Considering individuality in care planning leads not only to higher satisfaction but also promotes well-being (Rogers, 1959).

When addressing rights, we navigate the legal setting; everyone is entitled to human rights. In health and social care settings, this translates into informed consent for treatments and a resolute stance against discrimination, as Beauchamp and Childress (2013) stated in their discussion on biomedical ethics.

Likewise, choice remains a salient factor; it liberates and indicates respect for an individual’s autonomy. For instance, in mental health services, offering choices can significantly influence recovery outcomes, as demonstrated by Anthony (1993), who emphasises the role of personal agency.

Privacy, another critical aspect, demands that confidential information be guarded ardently—a sine qua non for trust between clients and professionals. The GDPR and Data Protection Act regulations provide a legal framework, but practitioners should continually ensure privacy beyond compliance requirements (Annas, 2003).

As for independence, Spector (2006) underscores its centrality to self-efficacy; enabling doing things unaided denotes faith in someone’s capabilities while fostering self-confidence.

Notably, respecting an individual’s dignity remains paramount—honouring their worth irrespective of condition or dependency status. Jacobson (2009) discusses dignity within health and social care contexts as fundamental to humane treatment.

Furthermore, addressing clients respectfully engenders rapport-building—acknowledging them as equals supports collaborative relationships. This view aligns with Watson’s Theory of Human Caring, articulating the moral ideal within nursing professions where respect is essential (Watson, 2008).

Lastly, effective partnership includes clients in decision-making processes—their input is invaluable. Shared decision-making models have demonstrated improved care outcomes when service users actively participate in developing their care strategy (Elwyn et al., 2012).

In essence, employing these person-centred values across various situations acknowledges humanity’s diverse spectrum while achieving exemplary service provision that respects the whole person beyond ailment or their current condition.

1.2 Describe ways to build relationships with individuals effectively

When creating robust and meaningful relationships with individuals who require care and support, one must consider a broad spectrum of relational dynamics. This extends to familial connections, intimate partnerships, friendships, animal companionships, and professional liaisons.

Creating Trust: Trust is a foundational element in crafting effective relationships. Establishing reliability through consistent behaviour, respecting confidentiality (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2016), and making oneself available demonstrates a commitment to the individual’s well-being (Thompson, 2015). Walker and Avant (2019) underscore the necessity of trust for successful interaction within support services.

Communication Nuances: The exchange of thoughts and opinions necessitates adept verbal and non–verbal communication skills. Active listening is paramount; it validates the person’s feelings and experiences (Egan, 2014). Transparent communication encourages understanding and reduces ambiguity (Peterson, 2007).

Cultural Sensitivity: A culturally sensitive perspective acknowledges diversity in beliefs, customs, and lifestyles – embracing them enhances relationships (Purnell & Fenkl, 2019). It is crucial to recognise cultural specificities when supporting individuals where familiarity might not naturally emerge.

Empathy & Emotional Intelligence: Exhibiting empathy equips one to resonate with another’s emotional state (Goleman, 1995). High emotional intelligence propels caregivers to address feelings delicately, leading to stronger connections (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

Respect for Individuality: Acknowledging an individual’s unique identity is vital. The heterogeneous nature of preferences regarding intimacy or sexuality demands respect for personal choices without imposing judgments or biases (Sandfort & Ehrhardt, 2004).

Collaboration with Others: Establishing networks with neighbours or professionals can enhance the overall support systems provided to the individual. Collaborative engagement may present diverse benefits, as per research by McMillan et al. (2020).

Incorporating these elements into interactions requires reflection on one’s practices and adaptive strategies that evolve in line with each individual’s changing needs.

It is paramount that practitioners continually refine their approach tailored towards each unique individual they are assisting – acknowledging that dynamic human relations are ceaselessly fluid.

1.3 Explain how and why person-centred values and strength-based approaches must influence all aspects of care work

In care work, person-centred values are the underpinning ethos whereby every individual is seen as a unique entity with intrinsic worth and potential. Applying person-centred values requires that care practitioners regard those they support unconditionally, acknowledging their individuality and ensuring that their needs and preferences direct all aspects of service delivery (McCormack & McCance, 2017). Such a focus ensures that individuals are not just passive recipients of care but active partners in shaping the services they receive.

However, to deeply root these values into care work, one must explore beyond surface-level interactions. For example, Beck (2014) highlights that empathy alone does not suffice; one has to actively demonstrate respect for an individual’s autonomy while offering support tailored to their abilities. This dual recognition respects a person’s current and latent potential.

Simultaneously, strength-based approaches, occasionally termed ‘asset-based approaches,’ serve as a complementary framework emphasising the importance of identifying and leveraging an individual’s strengths or resources (Saleebey, 2013). Instead of highlighting what individuals cannot do or deficits they may have, this approach pivots attention towards capacities, talents, and knowledge—essentially all attributes contributing to their well-being- and autonomy.

Both methodologies imply that every aspect of care—from planning to execution—must be infused with such values (Rapp et al., 2005). Whether it is goal-setting during initial assessments or everyday interactions between caregivers and those receiving care, both practices should be explicitly apparent. A study by Bigby et al. (2019) reveals how integrating these methods enhances self-esteem among users by focusing on what they can achieve rather than their shortcomings.

Critical reflection on existing practice is essential to realise these methodologies entirely within care work settings. Le Boutillier et al. (2015) posited that organisational culture plays a fundamental role in cultivating these values among care workers, thus suggesting that staff need ongoing training to reflect these core principles.

The cohesion between person-centred planning and strength-based strategies naturally feeds into building more effective supports that address immediate needs and foster long-term resilience and independence in individuals requiring assistance (McMillen et al., 2005). Notably, if either element falters—the person-centred essence or strength perspective—the overall efficacy of caregiving risks significant diminution.

In conclusion, person-centred values alongside strength-based approaches represent two sides of the same coin—a coin spent toward the currency of holistic wellbeing. Their influence shapes all aspects of care work from conceptual frameworks to practical interventions—with profound implications for both the caregiver approach and recipient experience.

1.4 Describe how care plans and other resources can be used to apply:

• person-centred values

• strength-based approaches

Care plans, encompassing support or individual plans depending on the context, are pivotal in operationalising person-centred values and strength-based approaches. These documents serve not as mere lists of daily requirements but as dynamic scripts for a narrative that centres the individual—each page inscribed with preferences, needs, and aspirations.

When considering executing person-centred care effectively, one must recognise one’s role within the care plan’s implementation. It is a blueprint that ensures caring acts reflect the unique tapestry of an individual’s life (Brooker & Latham, 2016). As a caregiver, it is my task to consult this plan diligently—imbuing my actions with respect for client autonomy while observing their stipulated wishes and choices.

Incorporating strength-based approaches requires us to pivot from traditional deficit-focused paradigms, highlighting individuals’ capabilities rather than their limitations. This perspective resonates through well-crafted care plans, which reflect potential rather than dwell on challenges (Saleebey, 2006). Within these documents lies an affirmation: each person holds inherent strengths and assets that are the bedrock for their journey toward well-being.

The effectiveness of a care plan hinges on its collaborative foundation. It materialises through dialogues among professionals hands-on in caregiving realms—with crucial input from those who know the cared-for best: family members or significant others (Brownie & Nancarrow, 2013). The beauty of this collaboration lies in its fluidity; it allows for adaptations ensuring aspirational alignment over time—a testament to the dynamism inherent in human growth and change.

Furthermore, supplemental resources such as one-page profiles crystallise vital personal information into tangible insights for those involved in care provisions (Sanderson & Goodwin, 2005). Advanced directives accommodate future care preferences, bridging current desires with prospective care continuity (National Institute on Aging [NIA], n.d.). Assessments from other organizations act as additional threads interweaving external expert perspectives into holistic understanding.

Embodying these principles authentically means rejecting a single-thread viewpoint—instead acknowledging a spectrum of contributions wherein transparency is expected and celebrated. Care plans thus transform from static documents into realistic records being written collaboratively—wherein diversity of voice enriches the quality of care delivered and embraced by all stakeholders involved in nurturing one’s path towards self-actualisation.

1.5 Evaluate how active participation of individuals and others in care planning promotes person-centred values and strength-based approaches when:

• meeting an individual’s holistic needs

• planning for their futures

When discussing active participation in care planning, particularly concerning meeting an individual’s holistic needs and planning for their future, several fundamental aspects come into focus. Active participation ensures that care is designed with the person rather than for them (Morgan & Yoder, 2012). This approach fundamentally supports person-centred values by advocating respect for the individual’s preferences, needs, and strengths.

Meeting an Individual’s Holistic Needs

Incorporating active participation in care planning can entail thoroughly considering the individual’s life as a diverse blend of social, emotional, physical, and spiritual domains. By actively engaging individuals in their care planning, we recognise them as experts in their lives (Brownie & Nancarrow, 2013). The presence of choice and partnership enables a framework where goals are generated collaboratively—paving the way for tailored health outcomes (Thompson & Choi, 2007). This process can be realised through shared decision-making modalities, which actuate empowerment and engender autonomy (Coulter & Collins, 2011).

Planning for Their Futures

Within the context of devising plans, these may be considered:

• Living Arrangements: Determining living arrangements becomes an exercise of personal preference—be it home adaptations or alternative residential options conducive to independence.
• Health and Wellbeing: Strategies that accentuate preventative measures can fortify long-term health sustainability; De Jong et al. (2009) emphasise participatory self-management routines.
• Relationships: Fostering support networks correlates with enhanced psychological well-being—an assertion substantiated by Cornwell and Waite (2009).
• Education or Employment: Vocational pursuits lend dignity and purpose, a sentiment echoed by Lysaght et al. (2012).
• End-of-Life Care: Transparent discussions surrounding end-of-life preferences mitigate future distress while ensuring dignity at this critical juncture (Hebert et al., 2011).

Active involvement in care planning is undeniably instrumental. It spawns a dynamic wherein person-centred values flourish alongside strength-based approaches. Client input transforms abstract policy into substantive actions that embrace individual priorities. Although with diverse variables, each plan resounds uniqueness, defying straightforward anticipation.

Studies underscore active participation’s role in augmenting quality care experiences when viewed through a person-centred perspective—from micro decisions on everyday activities to macro considerations like choosing one’s residential setting (Elwyn et al., 2012).

When individuals carve out futures with professional guidance respecting their know-how and dedication, they invariably embark upon journeys both suited and enhanced by their distinctiveness.

1.6 Explain how to collate feedback to support delivery of person-centred care in line with roles and responsibilities

In health and social care, understanding the nuances of feedback collection is essential. Our roles as support workers obligate us not only to provide care but also to improve our interactions with service users continuously. Indeed, collating feedback should not be seen merely as an administrative task; instead, it is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of those we assist.

Collecting Feedback: A Multi-Source Approach

Gathering feedback is relatively straightforward but inherently sophisticated. It requires consulting diverse stakeholders—service users, their families, and care colleagues—and instruments such as surveys or interviews-based insights (Doyle et al., 2013). Equally important are informal service user conversations that often yield candid observations about their experiences.

Utilising structured questionnaires has been documented in literature as an effective means of quantitative analysis (Burt et al., 2016). Meanwhile, qualitative aspects might emerge more effectively during one-on-one discussions where vulnerability can manifest inherently (Bell et al., 2014).

Analysing Feedback: From Raw Data to Actionable Insights

Once collected, data becomes meaningful only after thorough analysis. This process must align with roles and compliance regulations on service user confidentiality and data protection laws (Health Research Authority, 2021). The findings should be consistent with one’s responsibilities, highlighting areas where one—directly or indirectly—can implement changes.

The next step involves identifying recurring themes or patterns within feedback content that could suggest improvements in service delivery (Moser et al., 2018). For example, reviewing the booking system becomes pertinent if multiple service users mention their difficulty scheduling appointments (Gerteis et al., 1993).

Implementing Changes: A Continuous Journey

Armed with insight, one is now at the core—the application stage. Recommend changes reflective of your designated role without overstepping professional boundaries (NHS England – Person-Centred Care Team, 2017). One must implement practical strategies like better communication protocols or additional staff training sessions on cultural competence if necessary. Maintaining an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders post-implementation is vital to validate that alterations resonate positively with service users’ necessities and expectations (Coulter & Ellins, 2006).

While gathering feedback may seem daunting initially due to its complexity and variability, it opens avenues for significant enhancements in delivering care. Accepting criticism and translating it into positive change epitomises actual person-centred care–a journey not just for service users but caregivers alike.

1.7 Describe how to support individuals to question or challenge decisions made about them by others

The role of a support worker is integral in empowering individuals under care. It is about implementing care plans and advocating for the individuals’ rights to question or challenge decisions made about them by others.

Firstly, engage in active listening. People must feel heard and understood (Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2011). When they express concerns about decisions that affect them, attentiveness goes a long way. A support worker should create a safe space for individuals to share their thoughts and fears.

Secondly, educate on rights and processes. Many people might not know their rights or the routes available to voice their concerns (Thompson & Thompson, 2008). Arm them with knowledge – information on consent, the right to participate in decision-making, and how to appeal decisions- which are essential tools for empowerment.

Additionally, it fosters self-advocacy skills. This includes helping them develop the communication skills necessary to assertively articulate their viewpoints and preferences (Martin & Marshall, 2006). Role-playing scenarios can prepare individuals for real-life conversations where they must stand up for themselves.

Next comes the process of navigating formal procedures. If an individual disagrees with a decision made by a professional body or institution, understanding formal complaint channels or appeal processes is critical (Department of Health & Human Services [DHHS], 2017). Skyrocketing complexity ensues when legal jargon enters the picture—decipher it together.

Another vital step is networking with advocacy groups. Connecting individuals with advocacy services like the Citizen’s Advice Bureau provides additional support from professionals who navigate these disputes regularly (Citizens Advice Bureau [CAB], n.d.).

Equally important is engaging in regular reviews. Consistent reflection sessions help identify ongoing issues with current plans, thus creating leeway for adjustments (National Institute for Care Excellence [NICE], 2020).

A concrete strategy involves developing a personalised action plan, outlining steps the individual can take when they want changes made (Empower Healthcare Solutions LLC., n.d.). Lastly, it is crucial to remember that emotional support during challenging times cannot be overstated. Support workers must offer reassurance that it is within the individual’s rights to have a say in matters concerning them and that their opinions matter enormously (American Psychological Association [APA], 2013).

2.1 Identify different relationships and people who may be important to individuals, including intimate or sexual relationships

As a support worker, one must deal with the complexity of human relationships influencing the individuals under care. When considering these connections, it is crucial to recognise that they encompass various forms, each carrying its weight and significance.

Intimate or Sexual Relationships: The importance of intimate connections cannot be overstated. For many, these bonds foster deep emotional support and fulfilment (Johnson & Zuccarini, 2010). Support workers should affirm the value of such romantic ties, ensuring spaces for privacy and understanding unique needs within consensual adult relationships.

Family Ties: Undeniably, family relationships form a substantial share in an individual’s life. These might include parents, siblings, or extended family members whose interactions range from guardianship roles to emotional support structures (Walsh, 2016). Support workers must navigate these dynamics with sensitivity and respect as a conduit between individuals and their families.

Friendships: Friends act as essential companions in one’s journey through life. They provide a platform for social engagement and can improve mental health (Adams & Blieszner, 2005). A supportive network of friends often acts as a buffer against life’s stresses.

Community Links: Connection with wider community groups —such as religious organisations or clubs— enhances the sense of belonging and purpose (Putnam, 2000). Such affiliations may also offer practical assistance and advocacy avenues.

Professional Relationships: This refers to individuals’ formal interfaces with service providers such as doctors or social workers. Though distinct from personal relationships, they undeniably impact well-being (Thompson et al., 2017).

A good support worker recognises these variegated affiliation patterns and proactively facilitates nurturing conditions where necessary. In this endeavour, ethical considerations — ensuring confidentiality while balancing the duty of care— are paramount (Corey et al., 2010).

Given this broad spectrum of relationships dictating individual experiences and needs, harnessing them constructively within a caregiving context requires knowledge and empathy (Miller et al., 2011).

2.2 Analyse the impact maintaining and building relationships can have on individuals

In the context of health and social care, maintaining and cultivating relationships is paramount. It is a significant determinant of both the quality of outcomes for service users and the professional fulfilment of care providers.

Building Trust and Cooperation: Cultivating enduring rapport among service users, their families, and care practitioners yields a trust-rich environment conducive to cooperative efforts. Research highlights that when service users perceive a genuine connection with their caregivers, they are more inclined to adhere to care plans (Beach et al., 2006). This mutually beneficial dynamic fosters an integrated approach towards care delivery.

Enhancing Communication: Solid interpersonal connections facilitate robust communication channels. Enhanced dialogue enables professionals to gain deeper insights into the needs of those in their care (Stewart, 1995), which can be pivotal in tailoring interventions that resonate with the individuals’ values and preferences.

Support Networks: Continual nurture of relationships extends beyond immediate interactions; it catalyses more robust support networks. These networks are essential buffers against stressors for caregivers (Adams et al., 2008) and receivers (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). We witness improved resilience during crises by anchoring individuals within a supportive community.

Promoting Emotional Well-Being: Individuals’ emotional well-being is irrefutably linked with committed relational engagements from care providers. When individuals sense they are not just recipients but active participants in their care journey, psychological health is demonstrably boosted (Reblin & Uchino, 2008).

Professional Growth: For practitioners themselves, engaging deeply with clients potentiates introspective reflection and continuous professional development. It hones their empathic abilities (Halpern, 2001) and contributes to job satisfaction – ultimately reflecting on the overall care quality (Burtson & Stichler, 2010).

2.3 Describe own role in supporting individuals to maintain and build relationships

As a support worker, my role is crucial in facilitating individuals, particularly those vulnerable or with special needs, to foster and sustain meaningful relationships. Much of this hinges on understanding the unique preferences and requirements of each individual I aid (Hooley T. et al., 2017).

Communication as a Foundation: My first step often involves identifying communication styles suited to the individual, whether verbal or non-verbal. According to Martin and Finn (2018), effective communication strategies are vital in initiating interactions that can blossom into relationships.

Creating Opportunities: Secondly, I arrange activities that encourage social engagement. Structured social opportunities are significant for individuals struggling with spontaneous interaction (Smith & MacDougall, 2019).

Emotional Support and Encouragement: Additionally, I serve as an emotional anchor—listening empathetically when facing challenges—while emboldening them to step outside their comfort zones (Barker, P., 2021). It is about balancing giving them the push they need and ensuring they feel safe and supported.

Skill-Building: Teaching skills like active listening and empathy are integral in helping them understand how to nurture connections independently (Thompson, N., 2020).

Individual-Centered Support: An Individualized support plan is pivotal; it considers each person’s level of independence regarding relationship maintenance (Brown & Brown, 2019). Some may require more direct help than others—it is about tailoring my approach accordingly.

Collaboration With Others: Working alongside families and other professionals also has profound implications for continuity in building societal ties for the individual under care. Goldman’s research elucidates the need for collaborative practice among stakeholders involved in an individual’s life (Goldman J.D.G., 2020).

Consistency Is Key: Consistency aids individuals in feeling secure enough to make lasting bonds; this means being regularly present and reliably supportive (Wilkins D. et al., 2021).

In summary, my role is dynamic and requires agility in adapting strategies that align with each person’s distinct personality and capabilities. While assisting someone may take various forms—from planning connection-fostering events to teaching relational skills—I am guided by overarching principles such as respect for autonomy and a supportive presence that fosters growth through secure relationships.

6.1 Explain how risk assessments can be used to promote and enable individuals’ choice, independence and right to take risks

Risk assessments are a critical tool in the support worker’s resource, serving as robust navigational aids to balance safety with empowerment. At their core, risk assessments examine potential hazards within an environment or activity but never at the expense of undermining an individual’s autonomy. Instead of being mere preventative checklists, they actively facilitate choice and independence while cautiously taking responsibility.

Indeed, when properly conducted, a risk assessment empowers those in our care by meticulously outlining potential dangers without descending into paternalism. Titterton (2005) posits that they should foster safe risk-taking, coaxing individuals out of overly restrictive confines to engage meaningfully with their world. It is not about confining someone within a bubble but crafting a buffer zone where choice and safety coexist harmoniously.

For instance, in practice, assessing an activity might reveal specific hazards. A well-crafted plan would subsequently be developed, which limits these risks yet still ensures that the activity can proceed—reflecting what is known as “positive risk-taking” (Morgan 2004). By involving individuals in this process, we respect their rights; for example, partaking in cooking might carry potential risks, but depriving someone of this skill imposes unwanted limitations upon them.

Here’s how it unfolds. Through dialogue and collaboration during risk assessments:

• Individuals express their desires.
• Both parties identify risks.
• Mitigation strategies are discussed.
• The person learns about consequences and gains insight.
• A shared agreement on how to move forward is crafted.

These steps pave the way for agency within a framework of informed decision-making—an approach supported by Alaszewski (2006), who convincingly argues for incorporating risk negotiation into care practices. Furthermore:

• Risk assessments should be dynamic (Gillespie & Reader 2018), constantly adapting to the evolving capabilities of individuals.
• They promote educational moments where learning about risks occurs alongside mitigation strategies (Adams & Payne 2007).
• Such participatory approaches receive endorsement from bodies like the CQC, underlining legal and ethical imperatives behind engagement (Mandelstam 2016).

6.2 Compare the different risk assessment methods that are used in different situations and own role within these

Risk management is essential in health and social care to protect clients, staff, and the organisation. As a care worker, my role within these methodologies is predominantly implementation-focused but requires understanding several methods to suit varying circumstances.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Assessments:

The qualitative approach involves subjective judgment based on observation, interviews, and expertise (Carayon et al., 2014). We might use this method during initial client evaluations or when numeric data is insubstantial. Conversely, quantitative assessments employ statistical data – for example, the frequency of falls (Runciman et al., 2013) – particularly useful when comparing or tracking trends over time.

Generic vs. Individual Assessments:

Generic risk assessments offer a broad-brush approach suitable for common risks in the care setting, like slips and trips (Hignett et al., 2007). However, I often utilise individualised assessments tailored to specific client’s needs, assessing potential dangers unique to their medical condition or environment (Wachter & Pronovost, 2009).

Through dynamic risk assessment, I make real-time evaluations based on changing situations during care provision. This adaptability is critical in emergencies or with unpredictable behaviours (Hollnagel et al., 2015).

Employing standardised tools such as the Waterlow score for pressure ulcer risk (Waterlow, 1987), aids in maintaining consistency across assessments. Meanwhile, incorporating clinical judgment cannot be undervalued – a mix of structured tools and professional intuition fosters comprehensive client assessments (Levitt-Jones & Bourgeois, 2011).

Distinctly, there is also a place for risk matrices, where severity and likelihood are plotted to prioritise attention areas (Kumamoto & Henley, 1996), guiding interventions that pertain most urgently.

Each method presents its utility; thus, critical evaluation becomes necessary before selecting the most appropriate one corresponding to the particular predicaments we face as carers. Fundamentally, within these extensive engagements lies our goal: Safeguard those under our vigilant supervision while ensuring judicious risk considerations inform our actions.

6.3 Explain the importance of reviewing and updating individuals’ risk assessments

Risk assessments are snapshots, capturing specific moments in an individual’s care needs, but these moments are not stationary. Changes in a person’s physical health, mental well-being, or environment necessitate continually adapting their care plan.

Engaging in this dynamic review process ensures that care remains aligned with current needs. As their circumstances evolve, so should the strategies to ensure their safety. For example, recovering from illness might reduce certain risks while introducing new challenges that must be accounted for.

Furthermore, legislation often mandates persistent vigilance regarding risk assessments to ensure compliance with legal standards (Health and Safety Executive [HSE], 2019). This procedural diligence safeguards the individual receiving care and the caregiver from potential liabilities. An outdated assessment can have dire consequences if it fails to prevent an incident due to negligent oversight.

Moreover, proactive risk management is aligned with ethical practice principles outlined by the National Health Service (NHS) – it is about imbuing every action with thoughtfulness and caution (Department of Health & Social Care [DHSC], 2018). Failure to update can result in guise care practices that inadvertently compromise dignity and quality of life.

The individual’s involvement in their risk assessment reviews fosters a sense of agency and empowerment, which can have therapeutic benefits on their own. Including individuals gives them a voice – allowing for personalised insights into risks that only they might fully understand or anticipate.

In essence, staying abreast of each person’s evolving situation guarantees that the most relevant protection measures are always in place. A steady cadence of reviews acts as both a safeguard and an instrument for enhanced well-being within caregiving environments.

6.4 Describe when risk assessments should be reviewed and updated and who should be involved in the process

Risk assessments are dynamic tools within health and social care settings that require frequent evaluation to ensure ongoing safety and compliance with health regulations. As situations evolve, so should the risk assessments designed to safeguard clients and care professionals.

Firstly, risk assessments should be reviewed periodically. The general rule of thumb is annual; however, this can vary depending on specific circumstances. If substantial changes, such as new equipment, alterations in client needs, or updates in legal requirements, may necessitate a more immediate review (Health and Safety Executive, 2019).

Additionally, risk assessments demand attention after any incident or near miss occurs. These events indicate potential risks not adequately foreseen or mitigated (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], 2013). Learnings from these incidents must be incorporated to enhance overall safety protocols.

Furthermore, when introducing new information concerning hazards – perhaps emerging research reveals that certain substances or practices pose more significant risks than previously understood – it becomes imperative to reassess risks promptly (Royal College of Nursing [RCN], 2020).

Who, then, should be involved? The responsibility falls on a collective comprising:

• Health and social care professionals who interact daily with the areas being assessed;
• Those possessing expert knowledge of risk assessment procedures;
• Representatives from management, ensuring organisational support;
• And importantly, service users, as their insights on personal experience can reveal hidden vulnerabilities.
• Collaborating with outside experts is also required when specialised knowledge is necessary, such as when dealing with hazardous substances.

Reviewing and updating risk assessments are not static activities; they are cyclical processes that require vigilance to adapt effectively to change and continuously promote a safety culture within health and social care environments.

Reference

• Annas G.J. (2003). HIPAA regulations—a new era of medical-record privacy? New England Journal of Medicine, 348(15), 1486-1490.
• Beauchamp T.L., & Childress J.F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Elwyn G., Frosch D., Thomson R., Joseph-Williams N., Lloyd A., Kinnersley P., … & Barry M.J.(2012). Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361-1367.
• Anthony W.A. (1993). Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16(4), 11–23.
• Jacobson N. (2009). A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 9(1), 1-9.
• Rogers C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S.Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science study. McGraw Hill.
• Watson J. (2008). Nursing: The Philosophy and Science of Caring.University Press of Colorado.
• Spector P.E. (2006). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
• Egan, G. (2014). The Skilled Helper. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
• McMillan H.H., Morris L., & Atienzo E.E. (Eds.).(2020). Supporting Complex Needs: A Practical Guide for Support Staff. Psychology Press.
• Peterson C.H.(2007). Skills for Direct Practice in Social Work. Columbia University Press.
• Purnell L.D., & Fenkl E.A.(Eds.).(2019). Handbook for Culturally Competent Care.Springer Publishing Company.
• Salovey P., & Mayer J.D.(1990). Emotional Intelligence.Imagination,Cognition,and Personality ,9(3),185-211
• Sandfort T.G.M.,& Ehrhardt A.A.(2004).”Intimacy and Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare”.Journal of Interpersonal Relations.Intimate Behavior Association ,15(1),25-44
• Thompson N.(2015).Understanding Social Work: Preparing for Practice.Palgrave Macmillan Publishing Company
• Walker O.L.,& Avant S.K.(Eds.).(2019).Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing.Pearson Education Limited
• Zastrow C.,& Kirst-Ashman K.K.(Eds).(2016).Understanding Human Behaviorand the Social Environment.Brooks Cole
• Beck, A.S. (2014). Empathy: Evidence-based co-regulation in nursing practice. Nursing Science Quarterly, 27(1), 58-64.
• Bigby C., Frawley P., Ramcharan P. (2019). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32(2), 330-340.
• Le Boutillier C., Leamy M., Bird V.J., Davidson L., Williams J., Slade M. (2015). What makes recovery-oriented mental health services function? An empirical investigation into recovery-oriented practices at an organizational level: Study protocol – REFOCUS-PULSAR project team – final report. BMC Psychiatry, 15(1), 123.
• McCormack B., McCance T.V. (Eds.). (2017). Person-centred Practice in Nursing and Health Care: Theory and Practice. Wiley Blackwell.
• McMillen J.C., Morris L., Sherraden M.S. (2005). Ending Homelessness: Why We Haven’t How We Can_. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Rapp C.A. & Goscha R.J.,(2005). The Strengths Model: Case Management With People Suffering From Severe And Persistent Mental Illness_. Oxford University Press.
• Saleebey D.(Ed.).(2013).The Strengths Perspective In Social Work Practice(6th ed).Allyn & Bacon.
• Morgan, S., & Yoder, L. H. (2012). A concept analysis of person-centred care. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 30(1), 6-15.
• Brownie, S., & Nancarrow, S. (2013). Effects of person-centered care on residents and staff in aged-care facilities: a systematic review. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 8, 1-10.
• Thompson, A. G., & Choi, J. J. (2007). Patient preferences in practice guidelines: The case of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Health Expectations, 10(3), 224-233.
• Coulter, A., & Collins, A. (2011). Making shared decision-making a reality: No decision about me, without me. King’s Fund.
• De Jong, P., Schouten, H., & Abu-Saad, H. H. (2009). Promoting physical activity in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 4, 289-309.
• Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(1), 31-48.
• Lysaght, R., & Jakobsen, M. (2012). Career development for people with disabilities: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37(1), 1-6.
• Hebert, R. S., Schulz, R., & Copeland, V. C. (2011). Pilot testing of a peer support intervention for dementia caregivers in long-term care. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 30(5), 615-630.
• Cottrell, E., & Russell, S. (2010). Patient-centered care: An overview of definitions and concepts. In Patient-Centered Care and Nursing Education (pp. 15-27). Springer, New York, NY.
• Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., … & Barry, M. (2012). Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361-1367.
• Corey, G., Corey, M.S., & Callanan P. (2011). Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions.
• Thompson N., & Thompson S. (2008). The Social Work Companion.
• Martin G.W., & Marshall V.E., Jr..(2006). Choice Theory: A Guide To Therapeutic Counselling.
• Department of Health & Human Services [DHHS].(2017). Your Rights When Using DHHS Services.
• Citizens Advice Bureau [CAB].(n.d.). Advocacy Services.
• National Institute for Care Excellence [NICE].(2020).Experiences of adult social care services.
• Empower Healthcare Solutions LLC.(n.d.). Personalized Recovery Oriented Services – PROS.
• American Psychological Association [APA].(2013). Patient Rights Advocate
• Adams, K.B., Matto, H.C., & LeCroy, C.W. (2008). Limiting factors for effective communication between clients and counselors in the clinical setting. Administration in Social Work, 32(2), 29-47.
• Beach, M.C., Keruly, J., & Moore R.D. (2006). Is physician-patient race concordance associated with greater satisfaction with care? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 17(3), 580-597.
• Burtson P.L., & Stichler J.F. (2010). Nursing work environment and nurse caring: relationship among motivational factors. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 66(8), 1819-1831.
• Halpern J. (2001). From Detached Concern to Empathy: Humanizing Medical Practice.* Oxford University Press.*
• Holt-Lunstad J., Smith T.B., Layton J.B.(2010) Social Relationships And Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review.* PLOS Medicine,*7(7):e1000316.
• Reblin M., Uchino B.N. (2008) Social And Emotional Support And Its Implication For Health.* Current Opinion In Psychiatry,*21(2),201–205.
• Stewart M.A.(1995). Effective Physician-Patient Communication And Health Outcomes: A Review.* Canadian Medical Association Journal,*152(9):1423–33.
• Vincent C. (2010). Patient Safety.
• Huber D. T. (2014). Leadership and Nursing Care Management.
• Stanton N.A., Salmon P.M., Walker G.H., Baber C., Jenkins D.P.(2013). Human Factors Methods.
• Reiling J.G., Hughes R.G., Murphy M.R. (2003). The Impact of Facility Design on Patient Safety.
• Glickman T.S., Bagian J.P., Lee K.Z. (2007). The Patient Safety Handbook.
• Haynes A.B., Weiser T.G., Berry W.R., Lipsitz S.R., Breizat A.H.S… Gawande A.A.(2009).A Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population.