Critically analyse the ways in which the personalisation agenda might impact on the protection of vulnerable adults.

Abstract personalizedisation has been described as a initiation of the modernisation of public services ( incision of Health, 2008 4) however at that place has been more than banter as to how this impacts upon the shelter of open adults. Thus, it seems as though the current employs sedulous by accessible roleplayers will move over to be adapted in order to integrate personalisation into their schedules. This is credibly to register extremely building complex given the conflictions that atomic number 18 likely to arise. This study will thus cont obliterate such difficulties in more detail.IntroductionThe miens in which the personalisation docket might impact on the protection of defenseless adults will be critic in ally discussed in order to consider the difficulties that are likely to be associated with personalisation. This will be done by firstly looking at cordial work practice implications, ethics and values. This will allow a determination to be make as t o whether changes to such practices will compulsion to be made. The effect personalisation has on anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practices will therefore be discussed followed by a review of the current HCPC standards, legislation policy and guidance. Once all of the applicable information has been gathered a conclusion will then be drawn. companionable Work Practice Implications, Ethics and ValuesIn improving social consider standards in England, the G all oernment published the personalisation agenda in their position People First (Department of Health, 2007 1) give out. This is a shared allegiance and vision that seeks to ensure all adults can have understand over their birth lives and thus live independently. This is likely to have a earthshaking impact on the protection of indefensible adults since the main objective of the report was to ensure vulnerable adults have the best quality of life. It was also made excrete that the quality of independent living i s fundamental to a socially just society (Department of Health, 2007 2). A Local Authority circular Transforming hearty billing (Department of Health, 2009 4) strengthened this vision further by placing additional responsibilities on Local Authorities. Accordingly, it was reno(prenominal)ned in the circular that Local Authorities essential take a more pro-active role when dealing with vulnerable adults and that they must make applicable steps towards re-shaping their adult social care services, which was also supported by the Secretary of State for Health (Lansley, 2010 5).In malignity of such governments policies, it is dubious whether vulnerable adults will be better safeguarded since there appears to be little guidance into how this agenda sits alongside that of personalisation in practice (IPC, 2010 3). In addition, it has been argued that both personalisation and the protection of vulnerable adults, although share the same end goals, their approaches actually conflict (G ray and Birrell, 2013 207). Thus, personalisation is generally about change single(a)s to live their own lives, whilst the safeguarding of vulnerable adults is about ensuring the safety of such individuals by conforming to a set of policies and procedures that have been created specifically for this purpose. Arguably, by giving vulnerable adults the dexterity to control their own lives is likely to undermine the safeguarding principles that currently exist. This carries a substantial risk since vulnerable adults whitethorn non actually have the capacity to take control, and this may subsequently expose them to harm and impact the protection that they are to be afforded. Whilst personalisation encourages independence, safeguarding is about playing on behalf of vulnerable adults.Personalisation and Anti-oppressive and Anti-discriminatory PracticesIt body to be seen how personalisation can be implemented, whilst ensuring that the protection of vulnerable adults is maintained, ye t noted by Carr (2010 2) The goal is to get the balance right, moving away from existence risk averse while still having appropriate regard for safeguarding issues. It is questionable whether a balance is easy to achieve since personalisation is all about reduction the levels of control Local Authorities place upon vulnerable adults, yet high levels of control are needed to protect such adults from harm. This can be extremely difficult for social workers who must employ anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practices by exploitation an understanding of structural inequalities so that they can be pro-active in their work with vulnerable adults (Hopton, 2012 47). As personalisation is contrary to this, problems are likely to arise since social workers are inevitable to develop creative ways of working by a critical, politicised and geographical view of our culturally plural society (Gardner, 2011 30). This is much more difficult to achieve when adopting the personalisation agen da as social workers are required to take a step back and allow vulnerable adults to take control.HCPC standards, legislation policy and guidanceThe current HCPC standards that are required of social workers are also likely to conflict with the personalisation agenda since social workers are required to act in the best interests of their service users (HCPC, 2012 3). Accordingly, enabling vulnerable adults to live independently may not be acting in their best interests as certain individuals will require constant quantity supervision and will need the help and support from social workers. Hence, redden if it appears as though a person is capable of taking control of their own life, this may not always be the case and so it is important that social workers continue to take a pro-active role in the lives of vulnerable adults. Thus, under the No Secrets (Adult Protection) guidance managers with the responsibility of overseeing and supervising the probe of, and response to, adult abu se are required to ensure that all appropriate agencies are involved in the investigation and the provision of support, and that honest standards of practices are maintained (Department of Health, 2000 16). However, personalisation is likely to have an impact on such responsibilities as it will require a change in the way welfare services are existence delivered and the ways vulnerable adults are being supervised.Direct Payments, Exploitation and Fairer Charges As personalisation allows the individual to have a greater choice, the government will have less control over individual budgets. Accordingly, those in need of care will thus have a choice whether to accept direct payments in order to grease ones palms their own social care services or allow local anaesthetic authorities to arrange their care (MNDA, 2010 2). Whilst it has been said that this new approach helps those in need of care to attain a program suited to their individual needs ( while UK, 2013 1), this can actually have dangerous consequences. This is because the service user may be at risk of abuse and exploitation by family members and unscrupulous carers (8). However, provided that this risk can be managed appropriately it has been said that the personalisation agenda may actually provide individuals with a fairer charging system (Duffy, 2011 4). However, this will not be the case for everyone and whilst some individuals may end up with a better deal, others may be expected to meet the costs of their care themselves. Arguably, whilst this system is workable in meeting the needs of certain individuals, it may actually penalise others. In addition, as put by (The insurance Press, 2011 96) it increases the costs of disability, encourages institutionalisation and works against independent living and person-centred support. This is not what was intended by the establishment of the personalisation agenda and unless these inherent risks can be managed, it is likely that vulnerable adults will su ffer. Conclusion Overall, it is evident that the personalisation agenda is likely to have a significant impact upon the ways in which vulnerable adults are likely to be protected in the future. This is because, the main objectives of personalisation are to enable vulnerable adults to take control of their own lives and live independently. This agenda, nevertheless, conflicts with the current practices that are being adopted by social workers in protecting vulnerable adults and as a result of this many changes are likely to be required. Whilst it is clear that a balance needs to be struck, it is likely that this will prove extremely complex when trying to put this into practice. Yet, it remains to be seen, if any, what measure will be taken by social workers in ensuring that the personalisation agenda is being employed, whilst at the same time maintaining the protection of vulnerable adults.References Age UK. (2013) Personal Budgets More control over Your Care, Online, lendable htt p//www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/help-at-home/self-directed-support/ 13 January 2014.Carr, S. (2010) SCIE Report alter risk, ensuring safety Self-directed support and personal budgets Enabling Risk and Personal Budgets, accessible Care Institute for Excellence.Department of Health. (2000) No Secrets Guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse Home Office.Department of Health. (2007) Putting People First A shared vision and commitment to the innovation of Adult Social Care HM Government. Online, Available http//www.cpa.org.uk/cpa/putting_people_first.pdf 10 January 2014.Department of Health (2009) Transforming Adult Social Care Local Authority Circular.Duffy, S. (2011) A Fair Society and the Limits of Personalisation. Sheffield Centre for Welfare Reform.Gardner, A. (2011) Personalisation in Social Work, SAGE, Social Science.Gray, A. M. and Birrell, D. (2013) Transforming Adult Social Care, The Policy Press .HCPC. (2012) Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics Health & Care Professions Council, Your duties as a registrant, Online, Available http//www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10003B6EStandardsofconduct,performanceandethics.pdf 10 January 2014.Hopton. J. (2012) Anti-discriminatory practice and anti-oppressive practice A extremist humanist psychology perspective Critical Social Policy, volume 17, no. 52.IPC. (2010) Safeguarding vulnerable adults through better commissioning A Discussion opus for Commissioners of Adult Social Care, Institute of Public Care.Lansley, A. (2010) Speech to the 5th worldwide Carers Conference The Royal Armouries, Leeds.MNDA. (2010) Direct Payments and Personalisation, Information Sheet No 22B, Online, Available http//www.mndassociation.org/Resources/MNDA/Life%20with%20MND/Information%20sheet%2022B%20-%20Direct%20payments%20and%20personalisation.pdf 13 January 2014.The Policy Press. (2011) Supporting People Towards a Person-centred Approach, Social Sci ence.