CCMS fight for the right provision for their client

Tom is a gentleman in his 50’s with a severe traumatic brain injury. He lives in supported living accommodation, having been discharged in to the community from a residential rehabilitation facility some time ago. Upon his discharge, it was agreed by the Local Authority (LA) that he would be provided with 24 hour 1:1 care and support, including sleeping nights, and it was agreed that his package of care would be reviewed after 6 months.

After spending 6 months in the community, the LA reviewed Tom’s package of care and recommended that the overnight support be removed, and assistive technology implemented. In Tom’s case, Patrick (CCMS Case Manager) felt very strongly that the use of assistive technology to replace overnight support was not enough to keep Tom safe and to address the risks posed to him and would only provide a reactive, not preventative service which would not necessarily keep Tom safe.

Patrick challenged the social worker making this decision and explained his concerns, however it was clear that his concerns were not being taken seriously. Patrick discussed the issue with the court appointed deputy, private occupational therapist and the care provider who were all in agreement with his concerns. Patrick then instructed Jane Humphreys, a former Director of Social Services working as a Statutory Care Consultant, to assist in challenging the LA.

As a result, a new social worker was assigned to reassess Tom’s needs. Patrick developed a very good working relationship with the new social worker, and following a lengthy period of collaboration and a full re-assessment, it was determined that Tom did indeed require 24 hour support, and the LA acknowledged that assistive technology would not sufficiently meet his needs. It was therefore agreed by the LA that Tom’s care package would remain unchanged on a permanent basis.

Had Patrick not have challenged the LA, Tom’s package of care would have been significantly reduced, his safety compromised, and he would have had to spend his very limited personal funds topping up his provision to ensure he remained safe.

This is a great example of how CCMS use their knowledge and skills to fight for what is best for their clients.