In a number of instances, the same "health defect" appears to cross over into several domains' rating. For example, inability to understand risks - cognition - may also be relevant to fall-risk - mobility). In one instance at our CHC checklist meeting the consequences of the same "health defect" were treated as being entirely separate - and I'd appreciate TP views on whether (1) our assessor reached the right decision; and (2) whether other CHC assessors have gone down the same route. The B rating on skin integrity states "Risk of skin breakdown which requires preventative intervention several times each day, without which skin integrity would break down". The family claim the right rating for Mum is a B because "areas of skin likely to be at risk due to her incontinence are creamed every time [she] receives personal care [ie a number of times each day]". The assessor said the right rating should be a C because "the preventative intervention several times each day, without which skin integrity would break down" was an aspect of the continence rating. To my mind, the assessor's comments seem to clash with the description of the B rating (which doesn't say anything about where the skin needs to be on the body to "count"). I'd be interested to hear your views.