1 Students are required to submit their coursework on-line through online e-learning system http://stponline.org.uk. Detailed information about this is available in the student handbook submission
2 Details of submission procedures and penalty fees can be obtained from Academic Administration or the general student handbook.
3 Late coursework will be accepted by Academic Administration Office and marked according to the guidelines given in your Student Handbook for this year.
4 If you need an extension (even for one day) for a valid reason, you must request one, using a coursework extension request form available from the Academic Administration Office. Do not ask the lecturers responsible for the course - they are not authorised to award an extension. The completed form must be accompanied by evidence such as a medical certificate in the event of you being sick.
c) Font size in the range of 11 to 14 points distributed to including headings and body text. Preferred typeface to be of a common standard such as Arial or Times New Roman for the main text.
d) Any computer files generated such as programme code (software), graphic files that form part of the course work must be submitted either online with the documentation.
e) The copy of the course work submitted may not be returned to you after marking and you are advised to have your personal copy for your reference.
f) All work completed, including any software constructed may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose of intended study without prior written permission from St Patrick’s International College.
I certify that the work submitted for this assignment is my own and research sources are fully acknowledged.
8. Make sure material is correctly referenced. Plagiarised essays are not marked. (e.g. ukessays.com).
Unit 16: Understanding Specific Needs inHealth and Social Care Unit code: QCF level: 5 Credit value: 15
The aim of this unit is to enable learners to gain insight into the ways that health and social care services empower users with specific needs to access the services they need easily.
Because meeting the diverse demands of individuals with specific requirements is integral to the work of our health and social care services, learners considering a career in these fields will need to know the ways that services respond to these demands. Learners will find out how a specific need is defined and how perceptions of individuals with such needs are influenced and can change over time. The care requirements of individuals with specific needs will be investigated, together with the way in which legislation, organisations and services support such needs. Learners will have the opportunity to develop understanding of the impact the approaches and interventions have on individuals (particularly those who display challenging behaviour) and how, in turn, their needs affect the ways that services are provided. Whilst learners will be able to develop an overview of the range of specific needs, they may focus their study on those special needs relevant to their employment, voluntary work or placement.
Attitudes over time: historical perspectives, social and political developments, medical and technological advances
Legislation and social policy: reflects changes in attitude, modifies attitudes and practices, inclusion, policies, community care initiatives; recent and emerging change; relevant acts e.g. Human Rights Act 1998, Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 2005, The Mental Health Act 2007, The Health and Social Care Act 2008, The Children Act 2004: Every Child Matters; relevant policies e.g. Putting People First 2007, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say 2006
2 Understand how health and social care services and systems support individuals with specific needs
Services: health, social care; day, residential; education, recreation, transport; access e.g. geographical, physical, financial
Approaches and interventions: self-help, direct action, partnerships, evidence-based practice, advocacy, guardianship, autonomy and empowerment, risk management; medical, technological, therapeutic products, lifestyle choices and therapies
Potential tensions: rights versus protection of self and others; alleviation of needs versus remedial therapy; risk versus autonomy and independence; choices and preferences; service dilemmas and policies eg cost benefit analyses, priorities
Emerging developments: medical and technological advances, changes to legislation and policy, local, national and international perspective
Challenging behaviours: learning disabilities, physical disabilities, ill health (physical and mental), physical impairment, acquired brain injury, drugs and alcohol
Methods of working: communication, setting clear boundaries/targets, time out, rewards and sanctions, medication
Organisational implications: legal framework, professional standards, codes of practice, policies and procedures
Links may be drawn to National Occupational Standards in Mental Health though it is stressed that the unit is not intended to contain all underpinning knowledge.
• MH3: Work with service providers to support people with mental health needs in ways which promote their rights
• MH19: Coordinate, monitor and review service responses to meet individuals’ needs and circumstances
This unit also has links with the National Occupational Standards in Health and Social Care. See Annexe B for mapping.
This unit also has links with the National Occupational Standards in Leadership and Management for Care Services. See Annexe C for mapping.
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
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.
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.
Explain the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs. Use either of the 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.
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 Challenging Behaviour.
Furthermore, students must describe the potential impact of challenging behaviour on health and social care organizations and analysestrategies for working with challenging behaviours.
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."
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, thehospital trust, supported by the Department of Health, appealed to the House ofLords over the ruling. The Mental Health Act Commission suggested that 22,000people being detained informally would have to be detained formally under theMental Health Act if the ruling were upheld. In 1998, the House of Lordsoverturned the ruling that HL's detention had been illegal. Mr. and Mrs. Edecided to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, which inOctober 2004 ruled in HL’s favour. As a result the government introduced thenew Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which came into force in April 2009.