The Strengths And Limitations Of Personalisation Social Work Essay

The Strengths And Limitations Of Personalisation Social Work EssayWith the continuously emergence number of older population in the country and the life forecast that keeps on change magnitude, the demand for the elderly cover is in addition equally on the accession. Consequently the regime ar also bewilderting in political campaign in frame to continue up(p) the inspection and repair provided for the elderly vex such as the introduction of personalisation into the assist function in the government policy in December 2007, when the Putting population First concordat was published. This is the antecedent why this assignment will be looking into this judgment of personalisation in further depth along by looking at the strengths and limitations of implementing it into the social apprehension.CONTENTThe term personalisation as picked up by the discussion section of health and is being used as a term to unwrap the series of reforms drawn break through in the 2007 c oncordat Putting commonwealth First. In its formulations the policies hit been set within the following framework of improving access to universal wait ons, the prevention and early intervention, the increase of survival and check into by the users and also growing social capital for the disquiet (Department of Health, 2009). In addition to this, personalisation is about giving people more choice and hear over their lives in all social c be settings. It also nitty-gritty to recognise the user as a person with strengths and preferences and it starts with the user or else of the service (Social tuitionfulness Institute for Excellence, 2012).The reasons why personalisation is introduced in social care is because the government is against the one size fits all conception in harm of providing care as it has been lay out to have not met most of the demand of the user especially with the fact that all users are different. The second reason is to finish up the The 1988 Gr iffiths Report on Community Care in which it advises that social services should become brokers to a range of care and maintain providers. It also proposed that social workers should take on a care oversight role.Thirdly is to combat the McDonaldisation in social care. This McDonaldisation thesis consists of five primary components of qualification (minimising time in delivering care), calculability (trying to get user to believe that they are acquiring feel care for lesser funds spent), predictability (where the care provided are passing routine and predict satisfactory), control ( evaluate and uniform care provider) and also, culture (as part of the standardised control). Finally, personalisation is implemented overdue to the convergence of disability movement and also the increasing neo-liberal marketisation. The disability movement as a part of service user movement and the social model of disability have been a touchablely powerful driving take ups in lobbying for gove rnment reforms. An evidence for this is the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act, 1996 where the direct payments have been made available to the disabled adults of working jump on in England and have since been ex head for the hillsed to other groups (Carr, 2010). The popularity and success has stimulated very much of the personalisation around service users and also the development of personal budgets (Glasby and Littlechild, 2009).In November 2010, A vision for adult social care capable communities and active citizens account was published, with personal budgets and personalisation, put central along with prevention, health and social care integration and the development of a plural and creative social care market to enable choice forming central aspects of the continuing social care reform. In this document too, it was made clear that personal budget wholly does not in itself mean that services are automatically personalised. People should get personal choice and control over their services sort of than the inflexible block contracts from supported ho employ to personal care (Department of Health 2010). Glasby (2012) explained that the concept of personal budgets is rather than assessing the users inevitably and selecting services from fairly express menu of options, personal budgets start by placing each individual into a cost band and being up front about the resources available. By knowing how much of money is available for them to spend on their fates then allows them and their circle of support to make decisions about how the money could go around be spent (by direct services, direct payments, public services, the fissiparous sector, nonrecreational family and friend or any of the combination).Some of the strengths of victimization personalisation concept are the users outcomes poop be improved and at the same time, costs merchant ship be reduced as people who control their own budgets are able to find smarter solutions for meeting their necessitate and can reduce their get for paid support. This is possible because the person is empowered to make the better, right material body of decisions, seize new opportunities and respond more quickly to their own worrys. In the old welfare system the government pushes resources into those services that it believes people need. Users can provided receive little benefit from these resources because it is unlikely that the services are perfectly tailored to meet their needs and there is no chance for the user to mobilise those resources to pull in in other resources. However, when mortal has a Personal Budget they are able to make quality, effectual use of those resources. Such as rather than paying 10,000 per year at the day centre and the user will simply have to put up with whatever services offered there that they do not value. Instead, if the user is given a 10,000 Personal Budget they then can rattling spend some of their budget on those particular services they v alue, e.g. only coming into the centre on the true(p) days. This process explains why people can get better lives with less money as the money that can be controlled works better with the new found liberty than the money that cannot be controlled (Duffy, 2010).Other than offering better quality choices and empowering the service user, personalisation also is shown to be consistently cost effective of the public finance as found by Glasby and Littlechild (2002) that direct payments support are on average 30-40 per cent cheaper than the equivalent directly provided services. In addition to this, it was sight that carers feel the relationship between them and the service user has improved due to them or their relatives being able to access the direct payments (Rethink Mental Illness, 2011). Finlayson (2002) also suggested that this positive relationship between the carer and service user is central to carers theorise motivation and satisfaction as in turn it will increase the quali ty of care provided. other advantage of this concept as suggested by Zarb and Nadash (1994) is that the flexibility of the service is enhanced. The service provided is fitted around the users time on conduct of their different needs rather than fitted around the carers timetable.Although according to the findings discussed earlier that verbalised the positive outcomes of personalisation, there are fewer limitations associated into practicing it. The first one is that it is unfitting to some users especially those who are mentally incapable and the elderly. It is found to be a daunting experience as they are suppose to carry off their own financial arrangements directly which will also add additional burden and unwanted stress for them. On top of this, most of service users are also anxious by becoming employers and having to deal with responsibility particularly when they are unwell. This is especially with regard to assistance with the direct payments managing of the servic e user, either by family member, friend or support agency on the users behalf. In addition to this issue, the potential problem that could possibly happen regarding the under fire(predicate) user is being exploited and potential for their money to be thespian (Leece and Bornat, 2006). On the other hand, as suggested by Glasby and Littlechild (2009) the local authorities have a key role in making their systems as frank as possible and also proportionate to the risk, along with the availability of independent support (such as peer support and support agency) and the advent of self-reliant support to reduce potential hassle from this concept should any problem arise.Another limitation of this concept is the community care assessments that are carried out sometimes underestimated the needs of user, especially those with mental illness as their needs are subjective (for instance, not so obvious on a good day) and therefore failed to be met. To make matter worse, these assessments are oft not person-centred as it lacks of users involvement in decision making thus, they tend to be passive recipients and disempowered. This highlights the need of a better person-centred assessment by the tradingals involved as the central element in the direct payments is good assessment. Hence, a better, different kind of relationship needs to be positive between the professional and the users as well as other rise to allocate the community care resources for this particular service user (Leece and Bornat, 2006).Another problem is direct payments and personal budgets are identified as a threat to the professional expertise of the social workers, as well as the longer hours due to the flexibility needed. It was also suggested that at one censorious point, services will not be able to be managed flop as more users are becoming employers thus, changing the balance of the services(Leece and Bornat, 2006). In contrast, direct payments and personal budgets are able to free social workers up to focus on people who are in greater need of support and thus, reconnect their value base and principles of profession (Glasby and Littlechild, 2009).Furthermore, the monopoly of market with the increasing choice through the direct payments is seen to be a problem. This will someway force the existing providers to make more attempt to be more harmonic to the service users in order to avoid of going bust. Additionally the real goals of these providers are often doubted as whether they will put quality care over profit-making (Leece and Bornat, 2006). The argument against this is that with the presence of competition, the providers will struggle to increase their quality of care along with a better value in order to keep up with the other providers.The strengths of the concept of personalisation as per discussed have found to be outweighed by the limitations that are associated to it. This is also proved to be the suit of clothes as nearly all users is found to be satisf ied with their experiences of using the direct payment as they found it to be more commodious and secure in the research carried out for the Department for Work and Pensions (2004). divulge of the total participants, 75% reported to have found no disadvantages when using the direct payment.CONCLUSIONThe concept of personalisation has had a long history on why the government want to put it into practice as a way of reforming the social care particularly in the last few years when the direct payments and personal budgets were introduced. This was proved to be a huge success with majority of the users are extremely satisfied with how it has changed their lives in hurt of empowering and giving them better quality of choices. Moreover, it was also found to be cost-effective and thus, able to save large amount of the public fund. However, as this concept was also subjected to few arguments against it, such as it not being able to cater certain types of user, there is also backup plan, support and effort made by the local authorities to minimise this. Moreover, the arguments that it threatens the social workers profession and the market balance are found to be ungrounded. Thus, the benefit of implementing personalisation in social care was found to overshadow the limitations as discussed earlier.