I've had the pleasure to read blogs and articles from learned folk on Dr Peter Jansen and his baby, The Clinical Pathway. Although mostly enlightening and born out after the fact, the really interesting read happened when I stumbled on the ANZASW report written by Cathy McPherson in 2009. It is a report that deals with the way Dr Jansens baby was Rushed Out into the public arena that is ACC and it's workers.
Now I had understood that on many occasions workers in the child sex abuse field were suddenly hamstrung in what they could do with regards to ACC claims. The Clinical pathway eroded any sympathetic attitudes to ACC by the likes of psychologists, assessors, and counselors, to name a few. And without reinventing the wheel (the ANZASW report above covers) it's fair to highlight that right from even before the Pathway was implemented, warning bells were ringing.
Let's look at the Clinical Pathway subjectively. The current Minister of ACC was in the seat in 2009 when Dr Jansen submitted his baby for ACC to run with it and implement it right away. Despite protestations, the programme was pushed into service. Now a little analogy. Let us look at a ship in the process of being built. Dr Peter Jansen who is the ship builder, has his ship (further called HMNZS Clinicall Incompent Pathways) in the process of being built at an extreme rate. Now when you do things quickly, you tend to overlook design features, misplace rivets, leave welds unmade, and you end up with a ship that may look on the surface to be sleek and fast where in actual fact you have something that slides off the slip and goes straight to the bottom of the river. HMNZS CIP was just rushed through too quickly to be affective!
Unless Nick Smith, the man financing Jansen's Shipbuilding projects, had a hand in how much could be spent on ships, and how many rivets would be littering the docks (they're the ones hired by ACC to actuate HMNZS CIP, assessors, counsellors the likes) and the welding machines that failed to stop the leaks, (they're ACC's new planners), but what defies belief is that amount of steel that has gone to waste and is now covered in muddy water and going nowhere, the claimants to ACC's SCU. Instead of being happily involved in what should have been a top of the line ship, they are the ghosts of the Yard, and their pain is just not going away?
It's plainly obvious after Nick Smith's unfounded comments after the shit hit the fan, he is not in touch with his designer and builder. Seems like Nick Smith (Spongebob Squarepants) and Dr Peter Jansen (Bob the Builder or may be The Fat Controller??) are poles apart and maybe have been since at least 2009.
Yes, welcome to the SCU pathway and that despite all the submissions and discussions Dr. Jansen went right on ahead. I was at a meeting where people just walked out after Dr. Jansen started ranting.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I would be interested in your comments on the Report the Independant Review Panel did last year. Maybe another blog maybe? :)
http://admin.beehive.govt.nz/webfm_send/13
I thank you for that link. Still reading but this makes for sober reading:
ReplyDelete"In April 2008 ACC published a set of practice guidelines for sexual abuse and mental injury that it had
commissioned from Massey University. ACC used these as part of the rationale for the subsequent
ACC Framework and Pathway. The Panel concludes that in general these Massey Guidelines are wellresearched
and well-accepted. Links between the Pathway and the Guidelines are not strong. In a
number of ways the Pathway aligns poorly with key Massey Guidelines principles particularly safety,
the importance of the therapeutic relationship, and client focus (paragraph 67, page 14).
The Panel is of the opinion that the Pathway was planned and implemented with too much haste.
ACC did not adequately consult with the relevant government and non-government agencies, with
the sector, or with its own Sensitive Claims Advisory Group (section 5.2, page 17).
The Pathway has resulted in a precipitous drop in the number of claims submitted (close to a 50
percent reduction comparing the first three months of 2009 and 2010 – see Table 1, page 21). The
Panel concludes that the Pathway requirements are discouraging sexual abuse victims from lodging a
claim. It is reasonable both clinically and legally for ACC to require the use of standardised systems to
show that a person has a mental injury meeting the legislated requirements before making a decision
about cover. However, there are no good legislative or clinical reasons to restrict access to cover to
only those who have a DSM-IV diagnosis"