Criteria for care

ONE would think that Peter Catchpole, West Sussex County Council Cabinet Member for Adult Services, would know better, or is he trying to change the criteria for providing care to vulnerable people by subtle back-door methods?

He suggests (WSCT March 31 2011) that each of a person’s “needs” can be classified as “moderate”, “critical” etc and that using this classification some needs might not be met because they are “low” needs.

He suggests that this is in accordance with national guidance and eligibility criteria.

Mr Catchpole is wrong, and he only needs to read the county’s own leaflets on eligibility criteria to find this out.

The eligibility criteria categorise PEOPLE as having “moderate”, “critical” etc needs. They DO NOT classify the individual needs of those people.

Once a person has been classified as having, say, “critical” needs there is no suggestion in the County’s current literature to suggest that some of their needs will not be met because they are “low” needs.

Those “low” needs contribute to the overall classification of the person as having “critical” needs and, if not met, might place the person at even greater risk.

These are very complex issues and it seems that the county is seeking to pull the wool over the eyes of the most vulnerable people in our society. Words to describe this practice fail me!

JOHN BAUGH

Worthing Road, Horsham