Premium
Developing Good Practice in the Clinical Assessment of People With Profound Intellectual Disabilities and Multiple Impairment
Author(s) -
Carnaby Steve
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of policy and practice in intellectual disabilities
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.592
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1741-1130
pISSN - 1741-1122
DOI - 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2007.00105.x
Subject(s) - terminology , context (archaeology) , psychology , service (business) , intervention (counseling) , intellectual disability , process (computing) , limiting , service delivery framework , relevance (law) , task (project management) , inclusion (mineral) , good practice , face (sociological concept) , work (physics) , applied psychology , medicine , engineering ethics , computer science , social psychology , sociology , psychiatry , political science , social science , philosophy , economy , law , linguistics , engineering , biology , operating system , paleontology , management , mechanical engineering , economics
The task of assessing people with profound intellectual disabilities and multiple impairments can be a daunting one, for experienced and newly qualified clinicians and practitioners alike. Difficulties with definitions in the context of challenging, excluding service delivery models can sometimes lead to incoherent and inconsistent approaches. The author examines a number of issues, including the paucity of adequately sensitive, standardized assessment tools, the importance of collaborative working, and the acknowledgment that services can be ill‐equipped to face the challenges presented by people with such complex and chronic support needs. The role of an overly generic service philosophy in potentially limiting the work of clinicians is noted, and the author notes that evaluating development is a crucial factor in any overall assessment. The author concludes with a number of recommendations for developing good practice in this crucial area of the support process, including: agree on terminology and inclusion criteria; take a transdisciplinary approach; use a developmental model; consider the impact of neurological conditions; select measures and informants carefully; and consider the assessment as an intervention.