This is a solution of Understanding Specific Needs in Health and Social Care that describes about Developing business
Understanding Specific Needs in Health and Social Care
|Edexcel BTEC Levels 4 and 5 Higher Nationals in Health and Social Care|
|Unit Title: Understanding Specific Needs in Health and Social Care||Unit : 16||Date Issued: 6/05/2014|
|Student Name||Student ID No.:||Date of final Submission:|
2nd August 2014
|Unit Leaders:||Internal Verifier Name:|
The IV TEAM
Rules and regulations:
|Plagiarism is presenting somebody else’s work as your own. It includes: copying information directly from the Web or books without referencing the material; submitting joint coursework as an individual effort; copying another student’s coursework; stealing coursework from another student and submitting it as your own work. Suspected plagiarism will be investigated and if found to have occurred will be dealt with according to the procedures set down by the College. Please see your student handbook for further details of what is / isn’t plagiarism.|
- 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
- Details of submission procedures and penalty fees can be obtained from Academic Administration or the general student handbook.
- Late coursework will be accepted by Academic Administration Office and marked according to the guidelines given in your Student Handbook for this year.
- 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.
- General guidelines for submission of coursework:
- All work must be word-processed and must be of “good” standard.
- Document margins shall not be more than 2.5cm or less than 1.5cm
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Layout of essay:
- Have a cover page for your essay (the template can be found on stponline).
- Font should be either Times Roman or Arial, 1½ or 2-line spacing.
- Referencing style: Harvard.
- New paragraphs are indented 5 spaces.
- Number and label all diagrams with their source.
- Make sure all the assessment requirements are addressed.
- Include all the references in your text on the last page of the essay.
- Make sure material is correctly referenced. Plagiarised essays are not marked. (e.g. ukessays.com).
- Do not use Wikipedia or any site with wiki….
- Do not exceed 3,300 words.
Outcomes and assessment requirement
|Learning Outcomes||Assessment requirements|
|To achieve each outcome a learner must demonstrate the ability to:|
|LO 1.Understand perceptions of health, disability illness and behaviour|
|1.1 Analyse concepts of disability, illness and behaviour in relation to Health and social care service users.|
|1.2 Assess how perceptions of specific needs have changed over time.|
|1.3 Analyse the impact of legislation, social policy, society and culture|
on the ways that services are made available for individuals with
|LO 2.Understand how health and social care services and systems support individuals with specific needs||2.1 Analyse the care needs of individuals with specific needs.|
|2.2 Explain current information systems for supporting individuals with specific needs.|
|2.3 Evaluate the services available in a chosen locality for individuals|
with specific needs
Understand approaches and intervention strategies that support individuals with
|3.1 Explain the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs.|
|3.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies for an individual with specific need(s).|
|3.3 Discuss the potential impact of emerging developments on support for individuals with specific needs.|
for coping with challenging behaviours associated with specific needs.
|4.1 Explain different concepts of challenging behaviour.|
|4.2 Describe the potential impact of challenging behaviour on health and social care organizations.|
|4.3 Analyse strategies for working with challenging behaviours.|
Description of problem to be solved
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
Learning Outcome 1
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.
Learning Outcome 2
Use the Bournewood 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 specific need 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.
Learning Outcome 3
Explain the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs. Use both 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.
Learning Outcome 4
The last part of the assignment concerns your understanding of the strategies for coping with challenging behaviours associated with specific needs. Students are expected to explain the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs. Read more : New Product Development Assignment Help
Furthermore, students must describe the potential impact of challenging behaviour on health and social care organizations and analyse strategies for working with challenging behaviours.
*Please see the Merit and Distinction criteria below.
Merit and Distinction Descriptors
|Merit descriptors||Indicative characteristics||Contextualised Indicative characteristics||ü|
Identify and apply strategies to find appropriate solutions
Effective judgments have been made
Has analysed concepts of disability illness and behaviour in relation to health and social care service users. (L1.1)
|M2||Select/design and apply appropriate methods/ techniques||A range of sources of information has been used||Has used information in the literature effectively to support concepts used, showing sources of information used, with citation given.|
|M3||Present and communicate appropriate findings|| |
A range of methods of presentation have been used and technical language has been accurately used
|Has analysed strategies for working with people with challenging behaviours and has justified the methods used.|
|Distinction Descriptors||Indicative characteristics||Contextualised Indicative|
|D1||Use critical reflection to evaluate own work and justify valid conclusions||Conclusions have been arrived at through synthesis of ideas and have been justified||Has critically evaluated the effectiveness of intervention strategies for an individual with specific need and has arrived at the right conclusions. (L3.2)|
|D2||Take responsibility for managing and organising activities||Substantial activities, projects or investigations have been planned, managed and organised||Has demonstrated understanding of the approaches and interventions available to support individuals with specific needs.|
|D3||Demonstrate convergent/ lateral/creative thinking||Ideas have been generated and decisions taken.||Has generated ideas on how to assess specific needs of people and identified available services to support people with disability, within a chosen locality.|
Case Study 1
Baby Peter ‘was failed by all agencies’
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.”
“Their approach was completely inadequate and did not meet the challenge of the case,” it argued.
Case study Two:
The Bournewood Case
Rights for vulnerable people in the care system
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, the hospital trust, supported by the Department of Health, appealed to the House of Lords over the ruling. The Mental Health Act Commission suggested that 22,000 people being detained informally would have to be detained formally under the Mental Health Act if the ruling were upheld. In 1998, the House of Lords overturned the ruling that HL’s detention had been illegal. Mr. and Mrs. E decided to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, which in October 2004 ruled in HL’s favour. As a result the government introduced the new Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which came into force in April 2009.
Btech HND Assignment Help Australia provide best quality assignment writing service in affordable prices and we are providing most flexible assignment writing according to Students need, so book your Assignment with us, Order Now