Search results

Apprenticeships in England, while defined by level and typical duration, are not quantified regarding the number of learning hours required to achieve the outcomes specified, as with other regulated qualifications and accredited programmes. This paper proposes an approach to ascribe credit to apprenticeships recognising both on-and-off-the-job learning to remove some of the existing barriers to accessing higher education (HE) and the professions.

A mixed methodological approach resulting in a total learning hours/credit value was proposed.

There is significant HE-wide confusion regarding the amount of learning/training that is required to complete apprenticeships in England. Whilst sector guidance made it clear that there was no prescribed method to ascribe credit to qualifications, programmes, modules, units or apprenticeships by drawing out the core principles within current practice, a key outcome of this project was the development of a method to ascribe a credit value to apprenticeships.

There is potential to support further research into the recognition of prior learning as a specialised pedagogy and for reflecting on apprenticeship practice in other roles and sectors.

Whilst the project underpinning this paper focused on the healthcare sector, the method used to ascribe credit to the level-3 healthcare support worker apprenticeship was not sector specific and can therefore be applied to apprenticeships within other contexts providing more widespread benefits to workforce development.

Policy makers must ensure that employers and providers are clear that the minimum statutory off-the-job hours constitute an apprentice employment entitlement, which must not be conflated with total apprenticeship learning hours requirements. This recommended policy clarification could assist in simplifying the process required for ascribing credit to apprenticeships and at the same time support a move towards better and more consistent recognition of the value of apprenticeship learning.

It is a first attempt to ascribe a credit value to an apprenticeship in England for the specific purpose of facilitating progression to HE.

Disabled women are reported to be between twice and five times more likely to experience sexual violence than non-disabled women or disabled men; when these are hate crimes they compound harms for both victims and communities.

This user-led research explores how disabled and Deaf victims and Survivors most effectively resist the harm and injustice they experience after experiencing disablist hate crime involving rape.

Feminist standpoint methods are employed with reciprocity as central. This small-scale peer research was undertaken with University ethics and supervision over a five year period. Subjects (n=522) consisted of disabled and Deaf victims and Survivors in North of England.

The intersectional nature of violence against disabled women unsettles constructed macro binaries of public/private space violence and the location of disabled women as inherently vulnerable. Findings demonstrate how seizing collective identity can usefully resist re-victimization, tackle the harms after disablist hate crime involving rape and resist the homogenization of both women and disabled people.

The chapter outlines inequalities in disabled people’s human rights and recommends service and policy improvements, as well as informing methods for conducting ethical research.

This is perhaps the first user-led, social model based feminist standpoint research to explore the collective resistance to harm after experiencing disablist hate crime involving rape. It crossed impairment boundaries and included community living, segregated institutions and women who rely on perpetrators for personal assistance. It offers new evidence of how disabled and Deaf victims and Survivors can collectively unsettle the harms of disablist hate crime and rape and achieve justice and safety on a micro level.

This chapter is set within global public sector reform processes, as policing is part of public service delivery. It explores the question of who is “vulnerable”, how vulnerability is assessed, and why? It considers the measurement of vulnerability, and how this influences policing practice and the role of the Police in contemporary policing.

The research is qualitative in nature and reliant on interview and documentary source data. It draws on concepts such as resilience, co-production, professionalisation and training as organising themes in which to make sense of how we reimagine the management of Vulnerability and the demands they place at the “core, the heart and the centre” of policing today.

Police management in the UK are attempting to stay true to the Peelian Principle of police efficiency alongside balancing the changing remit of what they have to contend with on a day-to-day basis – this is the paradox. Both Vulnerability and Risk are demonstrated to be increasingly interconnected alongside the developments of public health policing in the UK and elsewhere. Collectively, these concepts help to examine an increasingly complex landscape for the police to manoeuvre within, as they respond to a myriad of competing demands on services.

Vulnerability is the core, the heart and the centre of meaningful human experiences. With increasing pressures on resources, political scrutiny and changing roles and responsibilities, the police as an organisation (both in the UK and internationally) are increasingly responding to competing demands for their service. These demands are represented in this chapter as a paradox of change.

The purpose of this paper is to comment on Brown and Marchant's analysis of the complexity that can arise when applying the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to the care and support provided to people with learning disabilities.

A theoretical approach to explore the implications of Brown and Marchant's paper for the relationship between the law and practice in this area.

The complexity accounted for by Brown and Marchant lies in the tension between the procedural requirements of the MCA and the practical realities of the support provided to individuals with complex and long‐term needs. This tension cannot be addressed simply by focusing on improving training or better implementing the law in practice.

It is important to further examine and explore the relationship between new legal principles to govern decision making and the complex ways in which people with learning disabilities and other individuals need to be supported in practical situations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and critique the conceptual and terminological shift – particularly from “vulnerability” to “adult at risk” – in adult safeguarding under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

The paper compares the notion of the vulnerable adult in safeguarding, with the notion of an adult at risk under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and questions to what extent such a shift addresses existing criticisms of “vulnerability”.

The paper criticises the notion of the “vulnerable adult” for perpetuating the stigma associated with an impairment or disability, and for the types of legal and policy responses deemed appropriate under such an understanding of vulnerability. While efforts to replace the term “vulnerable adult” with “adult at risk” are, to some extent, to be welcomed, “adult at risk” under the legislation relies on the same characteristics for which the “vulnerable adult” has been criticised. Nevertheless, the safeguarding provisions under the two Acts have made some strides forward in comparison to their legal and policy predecessors and the notion of the “vulnerable adult”.

This paper’s originality and value lie in its scrutiny of the notion of “vulnerability” in adult safeguarding, in comparison to the newer terminology of an “adult at risk”, whilst also suggesting that in important respects – in relation to the interventions deemed appropriate where an adult is perceived to be at risk – the two pieces of legislation are a marked improvement on their predecessors. It also offers some thoughts as to how criticisms of the new legislation may be overcome.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from a study exploring the understanding of vulnerability and adult safeguarding within Christian faith-based settings. The paper concludes with recommendations for practitioners involved in safeguarding adults in faith-based Christian settings.

The paper considers a survey (n=3,182) into understanding of vulnerability and adult safeguarding for individuals who attend Church regularly or work in a Christian organisation

This study is the first to be undertaken with a UK sample and highlights a range of factors informing adult safeguarding practice within Christian organisations. This includes: complexity linked to understanding vulnerability and its role in safeguarding activity; lack of clarity about what to do with a safeguarding adult concern; and the need for safeguarding training pertinent to the particular needs of faith-based settings.

As there is currently a dearth of research in this area this paper makes a valuable contribution to the developing knowledge base around safeguarding and vulnerability within faith-based organisations.

Professionals need to develop increased understanding of the complexities involved in safeguarding activity, and specifically how those working in the wider context of supporting vulnerable adults make sense of safeguarding processes and procedures.

It is important that all organisations, including faith-based settings, working with adults have an understanding of their roles and responsibilities with respect to safeguarding those at risk of harm.

This paper is the first UK study to consider safeguarding adults at risk of harm in Christian faith contexts.

Chronic health conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes are higher in individuals with learning disabilities and significantly affect both quality of life and longevity. Healthy eating is an important factor in preventing these chronic conditions. The study reported here explored the role paid carers played in promoting healthy eating and how they managed the daily dilemma of balancing residents’ right to make unhealthy food choices against carers’ “duty of care”.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of six residential paid carers. Interviews were transcribed and then analysed using a thematic approach.

This small study highlights the challenges that staff face when balancing food choice against “duty of care”. It highlights that when working with less able residents, carers are motivated by “best interests”, to place boundaries and restrictions on food access and choice. It confirms previous studies that increased levels of choice for higher ability residents, often results in less healthy food choices. The study describes a lack of policy, guidance and specific training for paid carers which results in them using their personal subjective values as a basis for decision making.

Since the publication of “Valuing People” (Department of Health, 2001) the core principles of residential services changed direction towards independence and choice. This study expands our knowledge on how paid carers make sense of the everyday conflicts between choice and “duty of care” when residents continue to make unhealthy food choices affecting their physical health.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of the Confidential Inquiry into premature deaths of people with intellectual disabilities (CIPOLD) in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (England and Wales) (MCA) 2005.

CIPOLD reviewed the deaths of all known people with intellectual disabilities (ID) aged four years and over who had lived in the study area and died between 2010 and 2012.

The deaths of 234 people with ID aged 16 years and over were reviewed. There were two key issues regarding how the MCA was related to premature deaths of people with ID. The first was of the lack of adherence to aspects of the Act, particularly regarding assessments of capacity and best interests decision-making processes. The second was a lack of understanding of specific aspects of the Act itself, particularly the definition of “serious medical treatment” and in relation to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation guidelines.

CIPOLD did not set out to specifically evaluate adherence to the MCA. It may be that there were other aspects relating to the MCA that were of note, but were not directly related to the deaths of individuals.

Addressing the findings of the Confidential Inquiry in relation to the understanding of, and adherence to, the MCA requires action at national, local and individual levels. Safeguarding is everyone's responsibility, and in challenging decision-making processes that are not aligned with the MCA, the authors are just as effectively protecting people with ID as are when the authors report wilful neglect or abuse.

CIPOLD undertook a retrospective, detailed investigation into the sequence of events leading to the deaths of people with ID. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that such research has associated a lack of adherence to the MCA to premature deaths within a safeguarding framework.

An earlier study of health and social services professionals in community teams for people with intellectual disabilities (CTIDs) identified a number of significant gaps in their knowledge of mental capacity issues. The present study aims to ascertain the knowledge of staff working in residential services for people with intellectual disabilities.

Participants were staff working in three specialist residential settings catering to people with intellectual disabilities: qualified nurses working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and in independent‐sector continuing health care settings; and senior staff in residential houses. They were administered the same structured interview as in the earlier study, which was constructed around three scenarios concerning a financial/legal issue, a health issue, and a relationships issue, as well as a set of ten “true/false” statements. Their performance was compared with that of two reference groups, the earlier CTID participants, and a group of staff working in generic (i.e. other than specialist intellectual disability) NHS services.

No differences in interview performance were found between the three groups of residential carers, who performed better than generic NHS staff but worse than CTID professionals. However, the three residential groups did differ in their self‐ratings of how well‐informed and confident they felt in relation to mental capacity issues.

The study shows that staff working in residential services for people with intellectual disabilities have only a limited understanding of mental capacity issues and their confidence in their own knowledge may not be a good guide to their ability to deal with such issues when they arise in practice.