By Lucy Caulkett-
A social worker who recommended an intervention “outside the scope of practice” has been suspended by the HCPC.
The social worker, who worked in Child and Adolescent Mental health Services (CAMHS), proposed an intervention where a girl would only self-harm on set days and times, with her mother attending to wounds without comment
The unnamed social worker, who worked in Child and Adolescent Mental health Services (CAMHS), proposed an intervention where a girl would only self-harm on set days and times, with her mother attending to wounds without comment.
Despite her qualifications and training, the social worker used the systemic practice technique, but was found by a conduct panel to have acted “outside the scope of social work”. His failure to conduct a proper risk assessment or discuss the approach with other professionals before proposing the approach amounted to misconduct, it added.
IMPROPER
The panel concluded that the social worker had been improperly managed or supervised for a “significant period of time”. This had left him working “with little or no constraints” on his practice which contributed to his “serious error”.
“Innovative and creative interventions in social care are permitted, however, such interventions are expected to be carefully thought through and based on proper risk assessment and good communication with professional colleagues,” the conduct committee said.
Social workers work through very demanding situations and sometimes have to improvise in dealing with certain circumstances. In this case, the specific intervention recommended by the social worker was not an approach advocated by CAMHS, but the panel accepted that his use of systemic techniques was approved by CAMHS and his local authority employer. In this respect, there was no impropriety on his part.
However, it found he had performed a risk assessment “on the hoof” and “in his head”. These actions were “foolhardy in the extreme” as the girl was in the highest category of risk.
FUTURE
The social worker was apologetic, and told the panel he would act differently in future, but this would only be “to avoid the ‘fuss’ that had been created by his actions, not because he acknowledged that he made any error of judgment”.
The social worker contested that his actions were in the course of his ‘practice’ as a social worker .
However, the panel concluded that he had shown no insight into his failings, and this created a risk of him repeating them. It said there was “no doubt that the registrant’s intervention was motivated by a desire to do his best” for the service user, but his practice was impaired. As a result, he was suspended for six months.
Another issue that arose as part of the complaint was that social worker was also found to have used his personal mobile phone to take a picture of a scar on another service’s arm.
Although this made the girl identifiable, it was concluded that the social worker had acted out of a “desire to secure an appointment for her, with a psychiatrist, as soon as possible” and this was not misconduct. In assessing misconduct, the panel looks at the intentions and purpose of the social worker, and weigh them up against the standards of the industry.