After being on continuing care for 12 months, my wife has been assessed and now has no primary health needs. She has advanced alzheimers & dementia, following a fall where she suffered fractures she has been bed bound for over 12 months and now suffers from severe contractures and is totally immobile and helpless. She has been assessed as having NO Psychological or emotional needs and is not regarded as having a severe score under mobility. in section 12 I included Contractures and scored this as severe, which is indisputable. I have had my appeal turned down with no explanation as to why my arguments were considered invalid. I intend to keep appealing until the cows come home. Has anyone succeeded in their appeal against an unjust decision? Would an advocate help, I cannot afford a solicitor?
Misleading DST scoring
- Thread starter Hereabout
- Start date
Sorry I have no knowledge of appeals so can't give any advice there.
My thoughts about mobility is that the severe and high scores come from being mobile but at risk of falling and the problems that come from falls. Once mobility has gone then the risks have gone too. My friends husband had vascular dementia and he fell and hit his head. The knock to his head caused a brain bleed that was inoperable and he died two weeks later.
So maybe the loss of mobility so loss of risk of harm is the reason for the severe no longer being considered.
My thoughts about mobility is that the severe and high scores come from being mobile but at risk of falling and the problems that come from falls. Once mobility has gone then the risks have gone too. My friends husband had vascular dementia and he fell and hit his head. The knock to his head caused a brain bleed that was inoperable and he died two weeks later.
So maybe the loss of mobility so loss of risk of harm is the reason for the severe no longer being considered.
My husband was unable to walk, even able to lean forwards in his special electronic chair in which he was only allowed to sit for 4 hours a day due to his fragile skin.
He had had a radical amputation a few months prior to entering a nursing home.
He too suffered from both leg and hand contractures, the latter resulting in a grade 4 pressure sore which no professional was able to improve before he died.
He had bed rails after a fall but then had to have a low rise bed due to his having fallen between the upper and lower rails.
He was rated a low in mobility needs.
He also did have other serious health issues but was refused CHC funding.
Sometimes one just has to accept that life isn't fair and move on. I have.
He had had a radical amputation a few months prior to entering a nursing home.
He too suffered from both leg and hand contractures, the latter resulting in a grade 4 pressure sore which no professional was able to improve before he died.
He had bed rails after a fall but then had to have a low rise bed due to his having fallen between the upper and lower rails.
He was rated a low in mobility needs.
He also did have other serious health issues but was refused CHC funding.
Sometimes one just has to accept that life isn't fair and move on. I have.
Last edited:
The condition for high is:-
Involuntary spasms or contractures placing the individual or others at risk.
If the contractures are permanent and not spasmodic the individual or others are not placed at risk.
Are the contractures permanent?
Involuntary spasms or contractures placing the individual or others at risk.
If the contractures are permanent and not spasmodic the individual or others are not placed at risk.
Are the contractures permanent?
Last edited:
I think you are correct Jay,
When Pete had his CHC checklist looked at the CHC bod asked for a falls assessment. Pete was walking but he needed an escort as 1-he was very unsteady and had a few non serious falls. 2 Pete was aggressive at times and would at the least invade other residents space. There was a worry that the 'minor incidents' (pushing etc) would lead to something more serious. That's how he scored highly on the mobility domain.
"So maybe the loss of mobility so loss of risk of harm is the reason for the severe no longer being considered."
The sole condition for severe is:-
Completely immobile and/or clinical condition such that, in either case, on movement or transfer there is a high risk of serious physical harm and where the positioning is critical.
Note that complete immobility in itself does not qualify.
The sole condition for severe is:-
Completely immobile and/or clinical condition such that, in either case, on movement or transfer there is a high risk of serious physical harm and where the positioning is critical.
Note that complete immobility in itself does not qualify.
Thanks Nitram, I am aware of the wording used to score severe in the mobility Domain.i argued that because my wife has severe contractures in arms, hands and legs and her limbs are set in an unnatural poison any attempt to move her or transfer her from her room to another location there is indeed high risk of physical harm and positioning would indeed be critical. This has presumably not been upheld as the score on the DST following my first appeal on her reassessment has not changed. I was not given an explanation as to why none of the reasons I gave disputing their DST were dismissed.
QUOTE=nitram;1318696]"So maybe the loss of mobility so loss of risk of harm is the reason for the severe no longer being considered."
The sole condition for severe is:-
Completely immobile and/or clinical condition such that, in either case, on movement or transfer there is a high risk of serious physical harm and where the positioning is critical.
Note that complete immobility in itself does not qualify.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=nitram;1318696]"So maybe the loss of mobility so loss of risk of harm is the reason for the severe no longer being considered."
The sole condition for severe is:-
Completely immobile and/or clinical condition such that, in either case, on movement or transfer there is a high risk of serious physical harm and where the positioning is critical.
Note that complete immobility in itself does not qualify.[/QUOTE]
I was told that because my husband did not - in truth was not able to - struggle against being hoisted then there no risk and hence the low rating.
It is similar to the fact that severe aggression will qualify for the funding but once a sufferer is too weak to be aggressive, they no longer qualify.
It is similar to the fact that severe aggression will qualify for the funding but once a sufferer is too weak to be aggressive, they no longer qualify.
Saffie, that's it in a nutshell. I think the only score that can't potentially go down is Cognition!
xx
xx
Was your argument backed up by reference to the need for special care to be taken when transferring her being recorded in any care plan?
Are there any contemporaneous care records that a transfer was stopped or the method changed because she appeared to be in pain?
Are there any contemporaneous care records that a transfer was stopped or the method changed because she appeared to be in pain?
I came across this web site caretobedifferent.co.uk. There is a mass of information and advice about claiming allowances.
Best wishes
