Hi
As a 'newbie' to the Forums, I would appreciate members experiences and comments regarding the following.
I am in the process of gathering information to request an Independent Review Panel after it was decided that my late father did not meet the eligibility criteria for retrospective NHS Continuing Healthcare.
BACKGROUND -My late father was diagnosed with Alzheimers. Whilst at home on his own the local authority arranged for carers and nurses to attend to his needs under the direction of Social Services. But after a while it was suggested that he go into a home with a locked door policy as he was at risk of wandering, and a risk to himself . He moved to another care home with a locked door policy in another part of the country. He repeatedly tried and succeeded in getting out of both these homes. There were instances where he physically and verbally attacked residents and care staff, and needed long term medication (administered by trained staff) to treat this behaviour. He also needed medication and assistance to control his anxiety, occasional aggressive behaviour, low moods, poor memory, and later prostate cancer, and ongoing skin treatments for eczema and other skin and scalp conditions.
The Multidisciplinary Team stated that there was no indication of a level of intensity of need that required additional care or carers, and his unpredictability of needs did not constitute a primary health need. They concluded that although he had severe cognitive impairment and episodes physical and verbal aggression that non of these increased the overall complexity,unpredictability or intensity of his needs.
Has anybody had the experience of successfully achieving Retrospective NHS Continuing Healthcare?
The main areas I aim to highlight to the IRP are :
1 ... quote the landmark "Coughlan Case" and hopefully prove his needs were more than " incidental and ancillary to accommodation ."
2 ... disagree with many of the levels of need the MDT applied in the eleven domains in the Decision Support Tool,and the reasons why I disagree.
3 .. how the needs in one domain impacted on another other domains were not taken into consideration.
Your comments ,thoughts, advice would be much appreciated.
Kind regards
BillDe
As a 'newbie' to the Forums, I would appreciate members experiences and comments regarding the following.
I am in the process of gathering information to request an Independent Review Panel after it was decided that my late father did not meet the eligibility criteria for retrospective NHS Continuing Healthcare.
BACKGROUND -My late father was diagnosed with Alzheimers. Whilst at home on his own the local authority arranged for carers and nurses to attend to his needs under the direction of Social Services. But after a while it was suggested that he go into a home with a locked door policy as he was at risk of wandering, and a risk to himself . He moved to another care home with a locked door policy in another part of the country. He repeatedly tried and succeeded in getting out of both these homes. There were instances where he physically and verbally attacked residents and care staff, and needed long term medication (administered by trained staff) to treat this behaviour. He also needed medication and assistance to control his anxiety, occasional aggressive behaviour, low moods, poor memory, and later prostate cancer, and ongoing skin treatments for eczema and other skin and scalp conditions.
The Multidisciplinary Team stated that there was no indication of a level of intensity of need that required additional care or carers, and his unpredictability of needs did not constitute a primary health need. They concluded that although he had severe cognitive impairment and episodes physical and verbal aggression that non of these increased the overall complexity,unpredictability or intensity of his needs.
Has anybody had the experience of successfully achieving Retrospective NHS Continuing Healthcare?
The main areas I aim to highlight to the IRP are :
1 ... quote the landmark "Coughlan Case" and hopefully prove his needs were more than " incidental and ancillary to accommodation ."
2 ... disagree with many of the levels of need the MDT applied in the eleven domains in the Decision Support Tool,and the reasons why I disagree.
3 .. how the needs in one domain impacted on another other domains were not taken into consideration.
Your comments ,thoughts, advice would be much appreciated.
Kind regards
BillDe