Editorial
Article Type: Editorial From: Social Care and Neurodisability, Volume 3, Issue 2
Welcome to volume 3, issue 2 of Social Care and Neurodisability. This quarterly journal aims to be a single source of knowledge on legislation,best practice and research for those working with, and affected by, neurological conditions.
It is with great pleasure that I take over as Editor of Social Care and Neurodisability. This journal not only covers, but endeavours to open up ground that is so very important to social and health care practice, sitting as it does at the junction of social care, health care and the legal professions. Its emphasis on practice and research makes it not just an interesting and educational read, but an organ of practical relevance.
My pleasure and enthusiasm is also tinged with some trepidation as I am taking over from Patti Simonson and Andy Mantell, who have edited the journal from its inception. They have, with distinction, steered the journal successfully through its very early years, and I am personally grateful to both of them for their initial guidance and ongoing support. I aim to build upon and develop their endeavours and hope that my tenure as Editor is as every bit as productive as theirs.
I have ideas about how to develop the journal’s international appeal,but I would like the direction of the journal to be shaped in some part by the readership. Therefore, if you have comments about any aspect of the journal as it currently stands, and/or ideas about how to develop it, then I would like to hear from you.
It is an interesting and challenging time for all involved in the health and social care professions. For those who live and work in England the new Health and Social Care Act has been given Royal Assent, which is likely to have significant implications for professionals and for the people who they serve. The content of a journal such as Social Care and Neurodisability needs to reflect and comment on such developments, including those that happen in the wider social, economic and political arenas. That is why comments from Keith Jenkins in the “Forum” section are important. The reader may or may not agree with his views but, as Editor, I welcome them and will ensure that other views expressed will be given a “voice”. So, if you want to comment on what Keith has written then please write to, or e-mail, either Keith or myself. Alternatively, you may wish to write a full commentary or article which address such or similar matters.
In this issue, Ben Troke’s article on the “The Death of DOLS?”gives a timely and up-to-date account on recent Court of Protection case law on Deprivation of Liberty. This, along with Sarah Rees and Tracey Ryan-Morgan’s paper on maximising capacity for decision making, respectively, extend previous articles on this matter. This is done by critically examining the position to which case law has brought us and by considering ways in which to assess,develop and maximise an individual’s capacity for decision making.
Paul Sandford, Jim Shepherd and Ed Cooper’s paper on “Lost or altered consciousness” builds on their previous papers in Social Care and Neurodisability to provide an update on the legislative framework and address the issue of alcohol dependency – an issue not addressed in previous papers.
Stephen Weatherhead, Gavin Newby and Paul Skirrow’s paper on risk assessment is relevant to all who are involved in clinical and social risk assessment and management, and who endeavour to enable and support people with particular vulnerabilities, including those with brain injuries.
The final paper by Peter Thomas, Sarah Thomas and Helen Allen on the evaluation of a pilot relapse support service for people with multiple sclerosis, is an interesting perspective on the use of individual budgets,relevant not just to people with multiple sclerosis, but anyone with a neurological condition, or indeed anyone with a disability.
In addition, the “Resource reviews” section compiled by Trish Hafford-Letchfield, includes two interesting pieces: one is a guide for working with individuals who may be suicidal, with relevance to Stephen Weatherhead,Gavin Newby and Paul Skirrow’s article on risk assessment, along with a review on an interesting book on explaining and interpreting idioms to children with communication and social learning difficulties. However, I think the latter may be relevant to explaining idioms to wider populations. I am grateful to William Harper and Niall Daly for their reviews, respectively.
I hope you find the contents of this issue both intellectually stimulating and of practical value.
Declan Mc Nicholl
