Comments on: Second Sight in Risk Assessment

By: cb

cb — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:55:20 +0000

Risk is a funny thing. We are by our nature very risk averse. And sometimes they are just paper exercises that seem to achieve very little. I think my point was trying to be that risk can’t always be ‘assessed’.
And sometimes you just try not to think about it too much. CM.

By: colouredmind

colouredmind — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:21:04 +0000

That is such a sad story, I feel angry for the man feeling so desperate that he killed himself, and angry that they left it until a friay afternoon to do anything. I wouldnt want your job the decisions you make on a day to day basis about clinical decisions would be too hard. X

By: silvawingz

silvawingz — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:30:46 +0000

I guess we all would find some benefit from a retroscope! I think risk assessment is an often used phrase, often used with little understanding. I think there is a general perception that risk assessment (and carrying one out) somehow negates risk. This perception is perhaps reinforced by policies put in place in large, often state run, organisations. Ergo a risk assessment has been done so there is no risk. Risk assessment is about reducing risk wherever possible and there is a risk with most things. In the tragic case above I would speculate the risk was not apparent.

By: cb

cb — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:27:23 +0000

That’s tragic, BJ – but it’s true that you can only go so far. That’s what risk assessment is all about. With all the tools in the world, it’s still about having the right to manage risk.

By: Reas

Reas — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:53:17 +0000

You’ve both said it: It’s the human element. We ultimately have no control over that.

By: bluejeansocialwork

bluejeansocialwork — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:43:26 +0000

Inasmuch as we believe clients should be entitled and empowered to be their own human beings, there must always be things we cannot control, including risks that become lethal. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and it is often made most clear by friends and relatives who believe social workers should have stepped in and taken all control from the self-destructive client.

Last year our agency reviewed a case we had served where children were improperly supervised because their mother had severe mental health issues. Things looked safe when we closed out; we had thorough safety plans around supervision, including lots of supportive baby-sitters. Then, a year after we were involved, the children were found dead in a neighbor’s swimming pool. Things had deteriorated substantially and the very young children went wandering. As a team we reviewed the case, and still agreed that based on our knowledge at the time, the intervention seemed appropriate. We felt sick for the children, but could not imagine much in the way of improvement for the intervention.

As long as we value human independence, which we must, some clients will make tragic choices or otherwise wind up in horrible situations. Even if we act with utmost professional competence in these situations, the frustration is that certain non-social workers will always believe we’ve dropped the ball. And worst of all, in the U.S., we can always get sued for it.