Two questions about work.

elsien

Martynb_ wrote: »

And are you a troll? I ask because although my performance is not 100%, if those service users didn't have me to support them, they would be lost.

Oddly enough, I was wondering the same about you. Or they could have someone else to support them who appreciates the value of supervision and appraisal in improving performance.

However to answer your question, no-one is expected to endanger themselves to save someone else. But if someone is likely to run off under a bus, then the risk assessment should cover that. Yes people can behave unpredictably, but people who behave impulsively are generally known to do so, and this should be planned for.
As to not being able to run after someone, why might you not be able to go after them?

bluenoseam

elsien wrote: »

Oddly enough, I was wondering the same about you. Or they could have someone else to support them who appreciates the value of supervision and appraisal in improving performance.

However to answer your question, no-one is expected to endanger themselves to save someone else. But if someone is likely to run off under a bus, then the risk assessment should cover that. Yes people can behave unpredictably, but people who behave impulsively are generally known to do so, and this should be planned for.
As to not being able to run after someone, why might you not be able to go after them?

Because he feels it is not his job to put his life in danger in the process of doing his job. One could argue the toss about that until the end of time but in the end it comes down to the risk factor, if it's high enough then it's clear that the service user should not be considered safe for activities near a road, period. In the end the service provider has a dual duty of care, not only to the service user but to it's employees. In working in these situations it's *possible* that the person involved may be exposed to a greater risk of harm - but the employer has to assess the risk so as to avoid unnecessary risk.

Gosh that sounds fairly heartless, but in the end you have to consider that for all it's about the quality of life for the service users there has to be some controls in place to avoid catastrophic harm. I'd suggest that the possibility of being run over would qualify as a catastrophic harm scenario!

Martynb_

elsien wrote: »

Oddly enough, I was wondering the same about you. Or they could have someone else to support them who appreciates the value of supervision and appraisal in improving performance.

However to answer your question, no-one is expected to endanger themselves to save someone else. But if someone is likely to run off under a bus, then the risk assessment should cover that. Yes people can behave unpredictably, but people who behave impulsively are generally known to do so, and this should be planned for.
As to not being able to run after someone, why might you not be able to go after them?

No-one. Really? I was supporting a group some time ago and one service user would wonder off and sometimes run and she doesn't realise what is going on. She would stand on the precipice of the curb with cars and trucks whizzing past. I had a wheelchair with me including one person on my right harm, and two people walking ahead. I shouted her but she thinks it is funny. I stop the wheelchair, go over to her and bring her back and then it happens all over again. I cannot keep her with me at my side all the time when we are near busy roads.

Martynb_

bluenoseam wrote: »

Because he feels it is not his job to put his life in danger in the process of doing his job. One could argue the toss about that until the end of time but in the end it comes down to the risk factor, if it's high enough then it's clear that the service user should not be considered safe for activities near a road, period. In the end the service provider has a dual duty of care, not only to the service user but to it's employees. In working in these situations it's *possible* that the person involved may be exposed to a greater risk of harm - but the employer has to assess the risk so as to avoid unnecessary risk.

Gosh that sounds fairly heartless, but in the end you have to consider that for all it's about the quality of life for the service users there has to be some controls in place to avoid catastrophic harm. I'd suggest that the possibility of being run over would qualify as a catastrophic harm scenario!

In the scenario I was given in staff training, the service user could have been anyone. They could have been anyone who was not a known risk; who had their wits about them and could even walk on their own It could have been anyone using my/our service.

TBagpuss

Martynb_ wrote: »

No-one. Really? I was supporting a group some time ago and one service user would wonder off and sometimes run and she doesn't realise what is going on. She would stand on the precipice of the curb with cars and trucks whizzing past. I had a wheelchair with me including one person on my right harm, and two people walking ahead. I shouted her but she thinks it is funny. I stop the wheelchair, go over to her and bring her back and then it happens all over again. I cannot keep her with me at my side all the time when we are near busy roads.

In that case, surely the appropriate thing to do would be to raise the issue with your supervisor at the earliest opportunity, express your concerns that this user beahves in a risky way and that the number of users in the group mean that you cannot provide the level of supervision you feel is appropriate due to her behaviour.

That way, they can consider whetrher a different or higher level of supervison or assistance is required for her.

Your duty of care would, I would imagine, extend to flagging up concerns about the safety of your clients.

bluenoseam

Martynb_ wrote: »

In the scenario I was given in staff training, the service user could have been anyone. They could have been anyone who was not a known risk; who had their wits about them and could even walk on their own It could have been anyone using my/our service.

I get that, in all reality as unlikely as it is to happen any person can take a sudden episode & run out in front of oncoming traffic & wholly understand that. The nature of the human condition is such that you cannot accurately predict something like that happening as no two cases will ever be the same.

But there will be cases where the risk of it happening is dramatically increased & in those cases the client should not be considered for activities near a road. Problem is you cannot completely eliminate the possibility of harm coming to the service users without there being severe restrictions on the quality of the service provided.

I'm not exactly in a position to say what I'd do, I'm not a care worker & if I can avoid it I will never be a care worker - I lack the relevant compassion to do so. But I can guess that if I was in the position & someone did that, I'm afraid I would not be putting my life in danger.