Publication - Consultation analysis

Timescales for adult carer support plans and young carer statements: consultation analysis

Published: 19 Aug 2019

Analysis of the consultation on timescales for adult carer support plans and young carer statements for carers of terminally ill persons. This analysis will help inform the development of the terminal illness regulations under the Carers Act 2016.

16 page PDF

280.4 kB

16 page PDF

280.4 kB

Contents
Timescales for adult carer support plans and young carer statements: consultation analysis
Consultation Paper Question 4

16 page PDF

280.4 kB

Consultation Paper Question 4

Question 4a: Adult carer support plans - Please give your views on the pros and cons of requiring the first substantive conversation for the ACSP to take place within the following alternative timescales.

2 days , 4 days, 6 days or 'other'.

We received 46 responses to this question.

Response Total % of total Breakdown
Individuals Statutory organisations Non-statutory organisations
2 days 8 18% 3 1 4
4 days 11 24% 6 3 2
6 days 14* 30% 10 4 0
10 days 2 4% 0 2 0
14 days 2 4% 1 1 0
No time limit 9** 20% 3 5 1

* 3 responses stating 'other': 5-7 days have been counted as 6 days above.
** 1 unanswered response with comments criticising the arbitrary nature of time scales has been counted as 'no time limit'.

The pros and cons identified most frequently for each category were as follows.

2 days

Pros:

  • Certainty over the requirement of this to happen, reassurance.
  • Gets things moving quicker for the carer if these conversations happen sooner (reduce stress / get support in place quicker).
  • Quickly identifies critical support.

Cons:

  • When the diagnosis is very sudden this could be too quick for the carer, unable to focus and identify needs, other priorities.
  • Quality of conversation superficial, planning not thorough.
  • Challenge to get staff and then support in place (particularly rural areas).
  • Potential for delay to other priority cases, should be based on need not arbitrary timescale.

2 days was most favoured by non-statutory organisations, with focus on timely support, with less consideration as to whether this would be meaningful or whether the carer would be able to cope. Some individuals felt this may be too early for the carer to have meaningful conversation.

4 days

Pros:

  • Gives carers more time to come to terms with diagnosis, but allows their needs to be discussed and support put in place relatively quickly.
  • More reassuring for carers as they are aware of support available.
  • More practically manageable for Carer Centres to support.

Cons:

  • Still could be too soon for carer unable to focus and identify needs, other priorities.
  • Taking longer to get critical support, when situation could be changing quickly due to speed of terminal illness.
  • Could still be a challenge for support / services. Appropriate staff may not be available.

4 days was the second most popular option. Comments were similar to those for 6 days (see below) with the additional point: 'would provide more reassurance for carers that support is available and catch crisis situations quicker'.

6 days

Pros:

  • Gives carers more time to come to terms with diagnosis, but allows their needs to be discussed and support but in place relatively quickly.
  • More practically manageable for support staff/services.

Cons:

  • Taking too long to get critical support leaving carer in crisis.
  • The situation changing quickly due to speed of terminal illness.
  • Carers feel unsupported/not a priority and less likely to engage.

6 days was the most popular option. With the majority of responses supporting 4 to 6 days, the main focus was on:

  • Carers being in a position to engage and make process meaningful.
  • Support staff / systems / services realistically being able to provide support.

Other

The majority of responses not opting for the 2, 4 or 6 day categories argued that there should be no time limit because local systems already prioritise urgent cases depending on the individual circumstances. They also argued that time limits do not support a person centred approach.

Pros:

  • People are individuals and have unique situations so therefore there should be no single time limit.
  • Carers are given more time to consider needs.

Cons:

  • If a longer timescale then should maybe have an upper limit 14 days.

Question 4b: Young Carer Statements - Please give your views on the pros and cons of requiring the first substantive conversation for the YCS to take place within the following alternative timescales:

2 days, 4 days, 6 days or other.

We received 41 responses to this question.

Response Total % of total Breakdown
Individuals Statutory organisations Non-statutory organisations
2 days 7 18% 3 0 4
4 days 9 23% 5 2 2
6 days* 9 23% 7 2 0
10 days 4 10% 0 4 0
14 days 1 2% 0 1 0
No time limit** 11 23% 3 7 1

* Includes 2 statutory orgs responses which stated (5-7 days).
** Includes two which were left unanswered but indicated no time limit in comment.

The pros and cons identified most frequently for each category were as follows. Many comments were the same as those for ACSP time limits. Additional points are highlighted in italics.

2 days

Pros:

  • Certainty over the requirement of this to happen, providing reassurance. Possibly more important for young carers as more vulnerable.
  • Gets things moving quicker for the carer if these conversations happen sooner (reduce stress / get support in place quicker).
  • Quickly identifies critical support.

Cons:

  • When the diagnosis is very sudden this could be too quick for the carer, unable to focus and identify needs, other priorities.
  • Quality of conversation superficial, planning not thorough.
  • Challenge to get staff and then support in place (particularly rural areas).
  • Potential for delay to other priority cases, should be based on need not arbitrary timescale.
  • Young carers may not be primary carer, not as easy to contact.
  • The most appropriate support worker may not be available.

4 days

Pros:

  • Gives carers more time to come to terms with diagnosis, but allows their needs to be discussed and support but in place relatively quickly.
  • More reassuring for carers as they are aware of support available.
  • More practically manageable for Carer Centres to support.
  • The most appropriate worker more likely to be available, may be back at school for example.

Cons:

  • Still could be too soon for carer unable to focus and identify needs, other priorities.
  • Taking longer to get critical support, when situation could be changing quickly due to speed of terminal illness.
  • Could still be a challenge for support / services. Appropriate staff may not be available.

6 days

Pros:

  • Gives carers more time to come to terms with diagnosis, but allows their needs to be discussed and support put in place relatively quickly.
  • More practically manageable for support staff/services.

Cons:

  • Taking too long to get critical support leaving carer in crisis, particularly if young carer and they are primary carer.
  • The situation changing quickly due to speed of terminal illness.
  • Carers feel unsupported/not a priority and less likely to engage.

Other

As for ACSPs, the majority in this category suggested no time limit.

Pros:

  • People are individual and have unique situations therefore there should be no time limit.
  • Carers are given more time to consider needs.

Cons:

  • If a longer timescale then should maybe have an upper limit 14 days.

Comparison with responses for ACSP

Only 41 Responses for YCS compared with 46 for ACSP. 5 were left unanswered, either blank or felt they could not comment. Of the 41 responses:

  • 34 answered the same as the ACSP (83%).
  • 3 suggested reduced timescales (6 days to 2 days; 6 days to 4 days; and 14 days to 6 days).
  • 2 who had given a timescale for ACSP stated that timescales for YCS should be in line with child planning.
  • 2 suggested increased timescales (2 days to 10 days; and 6 days to 10 days).

Contact

Email: joanne.pierce@gov.scot