Talk

Advanced search

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.

Grrr OT report

(13 Posts)
debs40 Sat 06-Nov-10 00:31:14

Well I have been handling the statementing process quite well to date.

I am expecting lies and evasions and everyone telling me DS is fine etc and I am gathering my own evidence so I have been kind of taking things that aren't quite clear enough (like crappy summaries on provision) with a ppinch of SALT grin

However, I had to ask our OT to forward on a copy of her report which arrived today.

She has basically just reproduced te diagnostic report which is fine and added a para on 'educational implications'. I woouldn't really care what she says because DS is being seen at Gt Ormond St (GOSH) now anyway, but, we have been seeing this woman for a year and she blows hot and cold.

She has added to her summary the term 'mild proprioceptive difficulties'. She has already noted in the main report that DS is incredibly floppy and cannot sit still or keep himself upright. Yet come to SA she says 'mild'. She has never used 'mild' before.

GOSH say he has Ehlers Danlos Type III and pointed out that his floppiness is almost certainly due to this. OT told me not to bother to go to GOSH as there was nothing you could do for hypermobility and he certainly didn't have EDS or anything like that.hmm Of course, I have now told her what GOSH say.

We also agreed at our last apppointment that she would comment on the need to consider the use of a laptop. Of course, she has not added this.

She has promised all year to go into school and talk to them but never has. She has now put down that OT staff will do this to train staff and set out the type of adjustments that are required for DS but she has not set out what they are or the provision needed to achieve them

She is head of the dept and has told me before that the LA have told them off for saying things in reports about provision that is a matter. I feel a bit let down by her as she clearly just doesn't want to piss people off. She also doesn't know what she is talking about but is prepared to make bald, sweeping statements.

Oh like the time that she wouldn't help with DLA forms as children had to be 'very poorly before they got DLA'. DS has now middle rate care and lower rate mobility DLA.

bullet234 Sat 06-Nov-10 00:33:53

She doesn't sound much help.

goingroundthebend4 Sat 06-Nov-10 07:27:05

Debs how quick was you seen at Gosh about the eds am asking as ds was refused first time as he has other problems but orthopeadics are now talking trying to get him seen

Lougle Sat 06-Nov-10 07:51:31

SEN Code Of Practice:

"7:79 LEAs should make clear that the Regulations54 require that the advice must relate to the
educational, medical, psychological, or other features that appear relevant to a child’s
current and future educational needs. *The advice must also set out how those features
could affect the child’s educational needs and the provision that is considered appropriate
in the light of those features. Those giving advice may comment on the amount of
provision they consider appropriate. Thus LEAs should not have blanket policies that
prevent those giving advice from commenting on the amount of provision they consider a
child requires.*

I think you need to email the OT, quote that section of the SEN CoP and ask that she ammend her report to meet the requirements set out by the SEN CoP.

debs40 Sat 06-Nov-10 13:07:07

Lougle, do you not think it is worth 'keeping my powder dry' at the moment? I think it is to their detriment that the reports have not specified provision - the EP report is particularly bad at this as it contains a very long list of recommendations but no comment on the assistance needed to support/meet needs.

This is something I raised in my parental advice where I quoted the section yoou mention and then made a list of alll the recommendations from all the reports and, where this was not coommented on by the 'expert' in terms of provision, I put 'the provision needed to meet this recommmendation must be specified and quantified'.

I think this leaves the door open for my own experts to set out the provision required.

debs40 Sat 06-Nov-10 13:09:13

goingroundthebend4 - we paid to be seen so we were seen quickly. I couldn't face another battle to try and get DS seen 'out of area'

Lougle Sat 06-Nov-10 13:20:41

I see what you mean - possibly. Although you know that is quite high risk? I think you are perhaps more likely to end up taking it to First Tier Tribunal that way. Having said that, I can see that you wouldn't want the NHS experts to give the LA wriggle room.

goingroundthebend4 Sat 06-Nov-10 19:21:26

can i ask if you dont mind how much it was and how quick and how you went around it know we might get efeal but might have to fight and cant be fussed wonder if we can get first seen privatley then if needs switch to his nhs clinics ,

If you rather not say on here could you inbox me please

debs40 Sat 06-Nov-10 19:33:43

Lougle, why is it high risk? Not being confrontational about it, just woudl genuinely like to know.

These people are deliberately not specifying and quantifying provision in their reports. Not just the OT - all of them are vague.

Having had the reports, I pointed out in my parental statement that they have not specified and quantified and I have explicitly drawn up a list of the provision I think DS needs. I have referred in that statement to the SEN COP para you mention.

I could write individually to each and every expert and the LA and tell them that I don't think the precise provision required to meet their recommendations has been appropriately sepcified but it is unlikely to change their reports. Also, para 7.79 does only say "those giving advice may comment on the amount of provision they consider appropriate", so there is no legal basis for me to compel them to do so.

I have already spent time pointing this out to them and I think there is every possibility that this will end in a Tribunal anyway. I could spend more time trying to change reports but I would never rely/trust them anyway. In the end, the only reports I'll trust are the ones I've obtained myself.

goingroundthebend - it was £350 for a joint appointment with physio and OT.

Lougle Sat 06-Nov-10 20:00:45

I wasn't very clear, was I? blush

I just meant that there is a risk that they think 'OT hasn't specified', ignore the private OT, and therefore stick in generic 'ASD' outcomes.

If you want to avoid tribunal, then you give them every opportunity to get it right. If you think on balance that you will end up in Tribunal anyway, then it is less important.

I don't think you've got it wrong, at all. Just many ways to skin a cat.

goingroundthebend4 Sat 06-Nov-10 20:59:53

oh thank you that is doable after xma sif find we either cant get referal or going to be months .How did you get seen gp or you just call them up?

debs40 Sat 06-Nov-10 23:08:35

goingaround - you can contact the international and private patients dept for an appointment. If you google it, you should get the web page. If not, I will dig out an email for you. They are really lovely and DS enjoyed his visit.

Lougle - I completely get your point. I suppose I just feel that I have little chance of making anyone alter their report in a way which is favourable as they are actually being deliberately obtuse about provision. The OT wasn't even going to send me the report until I chased it. I know she is trying to get away with being as non-specific as possible.

Similarly, the EP 's report had three pages of recommendations with no specifics about provision (although she does comment on the need for a 'keyworker'). This is deliberate - it gives them wriggle room to say no statement required.

goingroundthebend4 Sun 07-Nov-10 07:41:25

Ty debs

oh and on the matter of private reports ,ds ep ,salt Ot etc were like yours did not quantify and qualify .I then had private reports from Ican and they were extremley specfic in reccomendations

I moved to Herts who are not known for their statements and they wanted to redo statements so I dumped all my private reports on them and in the end they lifted every reccomendations into statement even though they had nhs ones that were more wushu washy they knew I had evidence and would challenge them so on read through

Then challenged Ot report in end they wrote to Ot asked for more specfifcs only after I filed for tribunal .

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: