Service Users, Clients, customers and other names

[jenniferpa]

Then do you have a better suggestion?

[Jancis]

Then do you have a better suggestion?

Yes, "patients" for those that are patients. For the carers, then why not "patients' carers". Why do the terms have to be basic and generic?

[garnuft]

I think the point is you don't have to be aged, disabled (that is another term where one size doesn't fit all), drug user, alcoholic, have mental health issues....it's a name that takes away the conotations and immediate mental decisions about people that labels I've listed bring with it. I agree it isn't the right description but for now it's not too bad in that it doesn't pigeon hole. Service users are householders who get their bins emptied or alcoholics in re-hab or ....It's a way of referring that doesn't push you into one box, is all. Until we think of something better.......

[jenniferpa]

I totally agree Gwen

[Sue J]

Maybe I am old fashioned but I see nothing wrong with patient!!

Old fashioned I am too then

I hate the term service user, client etc. The fact that mentally ill people frequently don't recognize being called patients is, in my view, because of the continuing stigma re. mental health - it is still around, it may be better but it's still around.

Fellow human being might be a better term?

[JPG1]

Gwen, I think it was my comment on another thread that prompted you to start this discussion, within minutes of my making that comment, so here’s my few pennorth. A purse full of pennies.

I don’t like the term service user because I find it impersonal. IMO, it removes the person from having much involvement, other than in a passive way. It gives the impression of inferiority, with the service provider being dominant. I know it’s been used for years now in social care, but so have terms like “partners” and “stakeholders”. I’d rather be seen as an active stakeholder in partnership than a passive service user.

If I live in a care home (with or without nursing), I’m a resident. If receiving treatment in hospital, I’m an in-patient or an out-patient. I’m the relative of a resident in a care home and of a patient in hospital.

If I’m in receipt of Direct Payments and arranging for my own care to be provided, am I a ‘service user’ or a ‘service provider’?

Solicitors provide a service. Clients ‘retain’ solicitors for as long as they choose to, ‘instruct’ them (tell them what they want the solicitor to do for them), ‘brief’ them (tell them how they want them to act on their behalf, as their advocate if you like), pay for the service. The client is active, rather than passive. Clients can also ‘terminate the relationship’, i.e. sack their solicitor, which is something social care recipients can’t do to their social worker.

What solicitors call their clients is another matter! What social care workforce call those in receipt of care may also be another matter.

If the words ‘service user’ are an administrative term only, for internal use in exchanges between various parts of the system, that may be acceptable. So I'm with Charlyparly on that one.

In a recent survey of almost 1000 social care workers, 33% preferred the word ‘client’; 28% preferred ‘service user’; 16% preferred the word ‘person’; 10% ‘person who uses services’. (Others liked ‘patient’, ‘customer’, ‘citizen’ for example.) Not a global survey, but as valid as this thread.

You linked the discussion of ‘names’ to having “unrealistic expectations of what the State can provide”. We are the State. The State is us. We delegate the responsibility for the provision of what we, as civilised people, want and expect to be provided in return for our taxes and other contributions.

One way or another, we pay for the ‘services’ we receive, including the services provided by the social care system. Social workers are called professionals. If they act in a professional manner, they deserve respect. If they don’t act in a professional manner, knowingly and willingly, they don’t deserve respect. If they abuse their power, they definitely don't deserve respect. It's just a job, after all, a job they do by choice, not by force.

Budget constraints are a fact of life for all of us – not an excuse for providing a less than good service.

So, no, I don’t think our expectations are unrealistic. We have a duty to raise our expectations. But never to lower them, especially where the needs of the most vulnerable people are concerned.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

So true.

Yours truly,
A person.

[garnuft]

I made a new post as I did not to take over Marvins'thread. We are of course in principle 'The State' but it is Parliament who acts on our behalf. We elect our MPs and they dictate Social policies and direct the finances. We give them the power to act on our behalf. A persons' problems are subjective. All needs cannot be met to the satisfaction of us all. Some services are essential in some peoples eyes, not essential to others. Hopefully we choose an MP that represents our way of thinking. The 'State' cannot provide to meet every individuals needs, there will never be sufficient money to do that. That doesn't mean lowering expectations it means compromising. Should Child benefit be means tested? Winter fuel allowance? for example, in my opinion it should. Should the tax avoidance loopholes of big companies and rich individuals be closed, I think they should. This would put more money in the pot to spend on plans for better social care and a better NHS.
As to the term Service User. It is, again in my opinion, a term that affords people who access services some privacy as to the nature of their use of services. I have no problem with the term, it doesn't matter to me, it's just the current term. I wish services were better and whether you're a client, customer or service user it's the help you get that matters, in my opinion.
As for as anyone whether it's policeman, MP or social worker if they do their job badly, it is the individual that should be condemned not the whole profession and I have no respect for anyone who doesn't do their job properly as I have said in previous posts. I think it is unrealistic purely because of cost to expect the 'State' to provide the high level of care families provide, a compromise has to be reached while we push our MPs to raise standards. It's the best we can do, as a Society,

[ggma]

Hi Gwen, Your thread is very interesting and has some interesting replies. You talk about MP's, but one of the things that many people seem to miss is the power rested with locally elected councillors. Local elections are not well supported, and yet these people who live in our communities have the responsibility to allocate the funds which are raised by our local taxes and from central government. They decide how much to put into social care, roads etc.

So if we want better social care, people should lobby their local councillor let them know when they fail, also the elected council member with responsibility for adult social care.

We can move dementia services up their priority lists, but will only suceed if enough local people let them know how we feel and where there are gaps in services, and people actually care enough to vote in local elections.