Risk Judgements and the Handling Task
At the top of the risk view is a title showing the patient this set of risk judgements is for, and the specific handling task being addressed.
Then we have the patient’s information (date of birth, height range, BMI range, consent and capacity status).
Then a switch to flag the risk judgement as being completed.
Only activate this switch once you are sure that the statement covers all relevant details for the handling task being covered by this handling plan record and there is agreement among the team.
From the ‘Patient Detail’ view go to the handling plan record you wish to edit and click on the ‘Risks’ button.
This will take you into the ‘Risk’ view ready to enter your judgements concerning risk for the handling task.
Below this there is a Matrix allowing you to select a category of risk for a number of different areas.
This is NOT a risk assessment and it is not a replacement for an organisation’s formal risk assessment processes. It is a subjective take on the assessment and its purpose is to develop consensus amongst the team on what level of risk is in each area.
Different disciplines/organisations/agencies may have very different ways of categorising risk. By approaching risk in this manner the team can come to a common understanding of what is meant by a level of risk in the handling task.
Much of this consensus development will be performed through the comments and reflected in the risk level selections (discussed more in the comments section).
Again, as the discussion develops the team may identify extra tasks and these can be added using the ‘Add Assessment Task button’ (see the section on tasks).
A Note On Risk
There are many differences in risk assessment between disciplines/organisations/agencies. Assuming everyone is talking the same language is a recipe for mistakes.
When multi-agency/departments/ services are involved with a person, they may have regulatory definitions of risk or developed their own pre-formulated versions of risk assessments, management documentation and terminology. For example social care often use a red, amber, green categories to measure risk, other organisations may have high, medium, low categories or even numbered categories.
In such a varied risk formulation environment, it is important for a team to agree on a common or synthesised form of measurements and terminology to reduce the risk of ambiguity and mistakes.
Movementor drives this common understanding through its Risk Judgement view. By providing its own level statements and through the comments the team is encouraged to surface their differences and then arrive at a commonality of understanding