Helping Adults
Social Care Policies and Legislations are the governing force that underpins the perplexed structure and delivery of Adult Social Care. With reference to the case study ‘Anne’, this assignment will aim to demonstrate a critically analytical understanding of such foundations. Accompanied with, an analytical exploration of the Personalisation agenda and its application within the case study. Furthermore, effective multi-agency working is said to be at the forefront of ‘Personalisation’, promoting an individual’s welfare and protecting them from abuse and neglect. Within this assignment an analytical focus will be given to the effectiveness of these multi-agency processes and question their dexterity for ‘Anne’ whilst giving consideration to a fictional dilemma that would require a practical application of the law.
For many years’ disability campaigners have been called for the transformation of adult social care, demanding a personalised approach that incorporates more choice upon who, where and how an individual’s needs are met (Clements and Read, 2008:11). In 2006, the government published the ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’ (2006) white paper acknowledging such visions that would later inspire the development of the, ‘Common Assessment Framework’, ‘Personal Budgets’ and ‘Direct Payments’, forming the central ingredients of ‘Personalisation’ (DH, 2008).
A definition of ‘Personalisation’ is described to be a new way of thinking that refers to any individuals who requires funded or independently-purchased support to have maximum choice and control over the shape and delivery of their care (DH, 2006). Post assessment, individuals are provided with an ‘Indicative budget’ which is used as a base to inform a person-centred plan, matching provisions to desired outcomes (Mithran, 2013). Once authorised by local authorities, individuals are then allocated with a final ‘personal budget’ (Carr, 2010:8). Within the ‘Putting People First 2007’ guidance, this process is
For many years’ disability campaigners have been called for the transformation of adult social care, demanding a personalised approach that incorporates more choice upon who, where and how an individual’s needs are met (Clements and Read, 2008:11). In 2006, the government published the ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’ (2006) white paper acknowledging such visions that would later inspire the development of the, ‘Common Assessment Framework’, ‘Personal Budgets’ and ‘Direct Payments’, forming the central ingredients of ‘Personalisation’ (DH, 2008).
A definition of ‘Personalisation’ is described to be a new way of thinking that refers to any individuals who requires funded or independently-purchased support to have maximum choice and control over the shape and delivery of their care (DH, 2006). Post assessment, individuals are provided with an ‘Indicative budget’ which is used as a base to inform a person-centred plan, matching provisions to desired outcomes (Mithran, 2013). Once authorised by local authorities, individuals are then allocated with a final ‘personal budget’ (Carr, 2010:8). Within the ‘Putting People First 2007’ guidance, this process is