1. The issues: An Adult Protective Services (APS) investigation has revealed that Ms. S. needs to be placed in a facility where she will have more care, but Ms. S. has refused the assistance. The APS worker is convinced that Ms. S. will die if she continues living on the streets.
2. Stakeholders: Ms. S. is the largest stakeholder in this situation. This worker, APS and the APS worker, Community Hospital and the hospital social worker are also stakeholders.
3. At stake: Ms. S. has her independence at stake in this dilemma. While Ms. S. disagrees, her health and safety are also at stake. The hospital social worker is concerned for the client’s safety. The APS worker is also concerned for Ms. S, and has an obligation to her employer. …show more content…
Convergence: The theoretical checks and balances of the Identify, Analyze, Justify and Decide Model (IAJD Model) don’t perfectly converge on the decision that Ms. S. should be placed in a facility, but the Consequences and Aspirations tools are in agreement.
If this worker did not take the law into account, then Ms. S.’s personal rights would be sacrificed for the greater good; however, there is no legal way to force Ms. S. into compliance, unless she is proven mentally incompetent. For now, this worker will do everything possible to persuade the client to submit to treatment and move to a stable environment.
6. Decision: I will spend more time speaking with Ms. S. to ensure that she understands the gravity of her condition, and discuss the pros and cons of her situation. Even if she is unwilling to move, this worker will try to persuade Ms. S. to consent to treatment for her immediate medical needs. This worker suspects that Ms. S.’s street friends are also her drinking companions and would not be helpful in persuading Ms. S. to take care of herself. The client states that she is not in touch with any of her family; perhaps now is the time to reestablish contact. If Ms. S agrees and there are openings at multiple facilities, this worker will take Ms. S. to visit each, giving the client final approval for her
2. Stakeholders: Ms. S. is the largest stakeholder in this situation. This worker, APS and the APS worker, Community Hospital and the hospital social worker are also stakeholders.
3. At stake: Ms. S. has her independence at stake in this dilemma. While Ms. S. disagrees, her health and safety are also at stake. The hospital social worker is concerned for the client’s safety. The APS worker is also concerned for Ms. S, and has an obligation to her employer. …show more content…
Convergence: The theoretical checks and balances of the Identify, Analyze, Justify and Decide Model (IAJD Model) don’t perfectly converge on the decision that Ms. S. should be placed in a facility, but the Consequences and Aspirations tools are in agreement.
If this worker did not take the law into account, then Ms. S.’s personal rights would be sacrificed for the greater good; however, there is no legal way to force Ms. S. into compliance, unless she is proven mentally incompetent. For now, this worker will do everything possible to persuade the client to submit to treatment and move to a stable environment.
6. Decision: I will spend more time speaking with Ms. S. to ensure that she understands the gravity of her condition, and discuss the pros and cons of her situation. Even if she is unwilling to move, this worker will try to persuade Ms. S. to consent to treatment for her immediate medical needs. This worker suspects that Ms. S.’s street friends are also her drinking companions and would not be helpful in persuading Ms. S. to take care of herself. The client states that she is not in touch with any of her family; perhaps now is the time to reestablish contact. If Ms. S agrees and there are openings at multiple facilities, this worker will take Ms. S. to visit each, giving the client final approval for her