Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on the article by Flynn et al.

In this commentary, the authors will develop some further thoughts about the importance of empathy, its relational nature and place in practice. The authors use some examples from systemic practice to illustrate.

Social psychological research underlines the importance of empathy in practice. Systemic practice and other collaborative approaches that ask about the experiences and abilities of people with a learning disability and their networks can support new possibilities as network members are listened to, included and respected.

The relational nature of empathy and its connection with practice is explored in this paper.

This paper is a commentary inspired by Laura McKenzie-Smith’s review paper.

This commentary provides a personal perspective on the intersections of narrative practice and the support of people with a learning disability.

This commentary highlights some further possibilities of narrative ideas beyond therapy. This paper explores examples of record keeping and research as sites for story construction about lives and identities.

This is a personal perspective of a systemic psychotherapist and academic working with people with a learning disability.

This paper argues that the stories we tell ourselves and others about our work and the people we support are powerful in ways of which we may not always be aware.

In common with person-centred planning, narrative ideas highlight the power of the stories circulating about a person and their network and the implications they may have for their lives and identities.

This commentary explores narrative practices beyond the context of therapy, highlighting organisational, administrative and research practices as story-constructing activities that co-create identities of persons with a learning disability, their networks of support and health and social care professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to review two studies concerning referrals for challenging behaviour to community learning disability teams (CLDTs). The social constructionist approach to research taken by the studies is introduced.

The studies used critical discourse analysis and thematic analysis to analyse referral texts and interviews with referrers.

The studies found referral processes locating service problems within the bodies of persons with intellectual disabilities whilst constructing the actions of services as appropriate. This was in part achieved by employing the discourses of the total institutions. The referral process often served the purposes of the referring service.

The research took place in a small geographical location across two learning disability teams.

The process of referring to CLDTs and the language used in these referrals is an under researched area. This paper shows how the language and documents of services are rich sources of data. Services exist in a network and understanding how this network functions is important to understanding the function of referrals.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the findings of the research studies on referral to a community learning disability team presented in “Causing trouble: the language of learning disability and challenging behaviour”.

The commentary is based on a review of the article and associated literature.

The studies were undertaken from a social constructionist perspective. It is argued that the use of language in referral texts and the way they represent people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour is influenced by wider social and historical ideas of what is accepted knowledge. The analysis of these texts contributes to the understanding of how outmoded responses to challenging behaviour are maintained and has potential benefits when used in the context of positive behaviour support.

The commentary considers the studies presented from a practitioner perspective.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s work on modes of “thinking” provides a comprehensive text which is little explored in respect of work with people who have an intellectual or developmental disability. This paper aims to explore the potential of this work to change staff development and practice.

Key themes from Thinking Fast, and Slow (Kahneman, 2011) are described and applied to current staff practice.

Modes of thinking are relevant and important to understanding and improving manager and staff practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to describe and understand staff thinking and practice using Kahneman’s ideas.

Social work is integral to community learning disability teams (CLDTs), however there is little research on how social workers discharge their statutory duties within them. The purpose of this paper is to report a study designed to describe what social workers do within a CLDT (anonymised as Maples). The question addressed is: what is the social work role in CLDTs and how is this accomplished?

Ethnographic fieldwork was conducted in a CLDT in London during 2011/2012. This involved interviews of professionals and observations of “everyday” social work practice. Data were analysed using constructivist grounded theory.

Social work practice in Maples could be categorised along five domains of practice, namely: case management, safeguarding, assessments, mental health practice, and duty. The accompanying professional activities within these domains are described in Table I, with a subsequent focus on the less researched domains of case management, assessment, and duty.

This research is one of the few to delineate the professional activities of social workers within CLDT. By showing what professionals do, it has important implications for policy – example personalisation – and role effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to present the service model and evaluation of Southwark Enhanced Intervention Service (EIS). EIS is an intensive community service for adults with intellectual disabilities whose behaviours challenge in the context of the Transforming Care agenda.

The service model is described and the following evaluation data over four years are presented: key performance indicators, descriptive data, clinical outcomes, financial outcomes and qualitative feedback on users’ experience.

The EIS has demonstrated good outcomes for a small number of adults with complex needs by supporting them at crisis point locally and preventing hospital admission or a move to a restrictive environment out of area. EIS has also supported the successful transition back to area of a small number of adults with complex needs. The evaluation has shown improvements in behaviour, wellbeing and quality of life as well as demonstrating financial savings. Families’ and providers’ qualitative feedback indicates that the service has been highly valued and in particular the access to timely multidisciplinary coordination of input.

The service was developed around the same time as the start of the Transforming Care agenda. It presents findings of a four-year evaluation at a time when there is limited evaluation of such service models focusing on the Transforming Care aims. The paper presents significant findings in support of guidance and recommendations published more recently as well as reflections on components of effective service delivery.