Author Topic: The three conversations model  (Read 404 times)

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
The three conversations model
« on: 23 Sep 2021 11:57AM »
The three conversations is fast becoming the go-to model of needs assessments for care and support and hey ho it's not about providing care, it's about saving the country money.


https://www.scie.org.uk/future-of-care/asset-based-places/case-studies/three-conversations

A relative has their 100 year old mil living in an annex to their home and adult services have refused care support when my relative had a radical mastectomy and more recently surgery for bowel cancer based on the fact that her DH is there. Who's not able to care for his mother. It absolutely shocks me.

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3117
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #1 on: 23 Sep 2021 04:36PM »
The three conversations is fast becoming the go-to model of needs assessments for care and support and hey ho it's not about providing care, it's about saving the country money.


https://www.scie.org.uk/future-of-care/asset-based-places/case-studies/three-conversations

A relative has their 100 year old mil living in an annex to their home and adult services have refused care support when my relative had a radical mastectomy and more recently surgery for bowel cancer based on the fact that her DH is there. Who's not able to care for his mother. It absolutely shocks me.


What is the "three conversations" model?

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #2 on: 23 Sep 2021 05:20PM »
It's the current in-thing in social work assessments.  The government promotes it.

Basically the three 'conversations' are (copied & pasted) -

Conversation 1: “How can I connect you to the things that will help you get on with your life – based on your assets, strengths and those of your family and neighbourhood. What do you want to do? What can I connect you to?”

Conversation 2: “When people are at risk what needs to change to make you safe and regain control? How do I make that happen? What offers do I have at my disposal, including small amounts of money and using my knowledge of the community to support you? How can I pull them together in an ‘emergency plan’ and stick with (like glue) to make sure it works?”

Conversation 3: “What is a fair personal budget and where do the sources of funding come from? What does a good life look like? How can I help you use your resources to support your chosen life? Who do you want to be involved in good support planning?”

(edited for minor typo)
« Last Edit: 23 Sep 2021 06:45PM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #3 on: 23 Sep 2021 05:31PM »
I hadn't heard about it before this thread and went away and looked it up.  There's some criticism of it out there, including by social workers, not least because of the jargon.

E.g. if you're a social worker, are you actually supposed to say "How can I connect you to...?"  What will the person needing help understand by being 'connected to'?  If not, why use that word in the model?

If I've read Fiz right, she's commenting on the emphasis in the model on money.

Personally, I think that's one aspect of the model that's a logical part, but I don't think they need three conversations.  One would be quicker.  "I've got next to no money in my budget to help you with, just lots of  jargon, so is there anything you need help with that I can find some non-state help for or encourage you to find non-state help for?"

At least it's not quite as bad as the SIM model of dealing with people with mental distress seen by the emergency services as a pain in the neck - roughly summarised, it's "Get the police to divert them away from health services and send them home."  But that's going out of favour slightly since various health professionals including A&E doctors got uppity about it.

Come to think of it, though, it's not really different, it's just SIM = "No, we won't help, you're a nuisance, now bog off" and 3C = "We've no money and can't help, so here's some jargon instead, now bog off."

(edited to tidy/shorten)
« Last Edit: 23 Sep 2021 06:48PM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #4 on: 23 Sep 2021 05:32PM »
Of course my views above are my interpretation from the outside.  My guess is that Fiz has just had this annoying twaddle thrown at her.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #5 on: 23 Sep 2021 07:38PM »
My post included an scie link to full explanation but it appears tiny in comparison to my text but is there

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9025
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #6 on: 23 Sep 2021 07:46PM »
(SCIE = Social Care Institute for Excellence) *ironic laugh*
All sounds like a load of old toot to me  :f_erm:

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #7 on: 23 Sep 2021 07:52PM »
I'd like to mention that while the link may show up on other people's screens, and whilst I've already got my screen magnified, I had to enlarge it to 300% (see note below) screen size to realise that the link was what had looked like just a line. 

I wonder why it came out so small? Is there a setting I can adjust on this site that would show links larger or with a symbol next to them without making the rest of the text bigger?

ETA - experimentation shows that I can see it by enlarging to 250%.  But it was a nightmare trying to read stuff even at that, because once I'd enlarged it, some text disappeared completely off my screen, even when I scrolled.  The site would be unusable if I kept my screen set when on it to large enough to distinguish between a line and that link.
« Last Edit: 23 Sep 2021 08:16PM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #8 on: 24 Sep 2021 06:41AM »
I've added links before which have been clearly visible. I've no idea why this particular link is so tiny and I can understand why people missed it. My post must have appeared bizarre without it!




lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3117
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #9 on: 24 Sep 2021 10:02AM »
It's the current in-thing in social work assessments.  The government promotes it.

Basically the three 'conversations' are (copied & pasted) -

Conversation 1: “How can I connect you to the things that will help you get on with your life –




£1 million in used notes in a suitcase.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #10 on: 24 Sep 2021 11:06AM »
I've added links before which have been clearly visible. I've no idea why this particular link is so tiny and I can understand why people missed it. My post must have appeared bizarre without it!

My only concern was whether I'd got my settings wrong.  As things going wrong with posting messages, your tiny link is an, erm, tiny problem...

ETA -  I just re-read my earlier post on this.  It sounds like I'm grumpy with you, Fiz, whereas I my grumpiness was about what I thought were site settings or something and with my inability to recognise the link.  I apologise. 
« Last Edit: 24 Sep 2021 11:10AM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #11 on: 24 Sep 2021 11:08AM »
...£1 million in used notes in a suitcase.

But make sure you spend them quick before the government does an 'India' on us and suddenly invalidates whatever sort of notes they are.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #12 on: 24 Sep 2021 04:11PM »
It's the current in-thing in social work assessments.  The government promotes it.

Basically the three 'conversations' are (copied & pasted) -

Conversation 1: “How can I connect you to the things that will help you get on with your life –




£1 million in used notes in a suitcase.


That would certainly solve almost all of my problems

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5417
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #13 on: 25 Sep 2021 04:03PM »
Quote
That would certainly solve almost all of my problems

But how long for?

I'm thinking about when Dad was in a care home and then briefly in a nursing home.  I'm trying to remember what it cost and can't but typically round here a care home is £30k - £40k a year.  I think some nursing homes may come in at under £40k, but I wouldn't count on it.

Now factor in extra costs.  E.g. I used to take him to his psychiatric appointments, but the nursing home rearranged one and took him to it.  They charged a ridiculous amount for staff time that wouldn't have been needed anyway had they not done what they did.

And with a shortage of care home staff, firstly from the loss of many EU staff, then from the pandemic.  We can argue until the cows come home about how reasonable it is for the government to say care home staff should be vaccinated, but personally, I'd like the choice of being cared for by vaccinated staff.  This is on top of investors having, for a number of years, been buying up care homes and nursing homes and asset-stripping.  That's already hitting them, but will get worse.  I reckon care homes will be coming in at over £60/year soon.

If you get cared for at home, well we know how that can pan out.

Yes, this all sounds negative about the ridiculous costs of it all.  Personally, I'm only getting through all this financial nastiness by clinging onto my belief that there is, mediated by the extra networking the internet can provide, a level of community mutual support growing that is fighting back.

Round here, more and more mutual support.  That's our hope for making what I'll broadly call extra needs affordable.

I've ranted elsewhere about intergenerational divides and mentioned merged care homes & student halls of residence.  Here's when I get personal.  My parents were able to buy a house because we had lots of lodgers.  Students.  It meant one of my grandmothers slept in the living room and I slept in the dining room, which was also my mother's study.  But it worked.

I've also been an au pair and would have been as happy looking after an elder as looking after children.  Or looking after a disabled working-age person.

So when I read all these expletive gimmicky ways of handling people who need help that, bluntly, various people don't want to provide, whether that's politicians with their policies or frontline staff with variously exhaustion or bias or, sometimes, horribleness, I say if they're not going to provide the help we need, we can at least cling onto hope.

And who knows - maybe at some point we'll have care homes, residential units etc. that are run either by a different sort of government (local or regional) or by community groups.

As I say this, I have a lovely notion of a group of students arranging their digs, looking at renting a house and thinking "If we 'adopted' an oldie, would they chip in a bit more than we do in exchange for us helping them with stuff?"  I keep using student + 'oldie'  or child + 'oldie' illlustrations, but there are multiple alternatives that aren't about those demographics.  What about working parents with children + people with certain sorts of disabilities?  Depending on the age, savvy and independence of the child, the adult could actually be quite significantly physically disabled.

I nearly forgot - could you set me up a couple of 'companies' based in tax havens and put the bulk of the funds in their accounts, please?  Oh, and to be on the safe side, could you give me £5million in mixed currencies?
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4505
Re: The three conversations model
« Reply #14 on: 25 Sep 2021 06:31PM »
A million pounds would do me. I have no plans to stick around long enough to need residential care hence being a member of dignitas and a million pounds would cover that cost and help all my loved ones overcome their problems. Thankfully the BMA has finally taken a neutral stance on the subject of assisted dying rather than being against it so hopefully one day people can choose to go when they feel the time is right.
My recent attempt to get care at home showed me it's not available. Or only the help they have available at times to suit them whether or not that care is the care you need and not at the times you need it and that's as good as hopeless. Worse than hopeless. So once I am no longer able to function then I am happy to bow out, I know where I am going thankfully.