Purple Futures have issued new guidance for OASys:
1) All standalone UPW to have basic layer within 10 days.
2) All ISPs to be completed within 10 days on the info to hand.
3) When ROSH & RoR are both low then no need to fill in text boxes - just score sections 3-13.
4) If criminogenic ROSH fill in appropriate text box.
5) If after 10 days info from FCIU etc still missing the ISP must be locked and a review must be done within 8 weeks.
6) OMs to make assessments concise, no need to write numerous paragraphs.
7) Section 2 needs completing fully.
8) A risk of harm screening is to be done in all cases.
9) All ISPs must demonstrate client involvement ie include ENAM/SAQ items in the sentence plan.
10) All sentence requirements to be included in the plan.
11) Always put delius entry that OASsys has been completed - this can be done prior to OASys countersignature as we are being marked on timeliness and not quality!!
Definition of ROSH: many offences of assault where an injury's been caused which isn't life threatening or traumatic and where recovery will not be difficult or impossible are not viewed as 'serious' therefore no ROSH needs completing because although the offender poses a risk it is not a serious risk. We're to avoid using 'risk of harm' and focus upon risk of SERIOUS harm.
Despite the rights and wrongs of the above it is going to save me some serious time.
Yes until your interviewed for an SFO and you will be asked "serious" questions about your assessment and your ability to risk assess.
I don't think so as the assessment is based on the information to hand ie even if it's an assault, so long as no harm done then we're clear. We are no longer expected to have crystal balls and that will always be my defence. Very interesting the timeliness is prioritised over quality. Oh my word!
SFO's will not be about crystal balls. It will be about information that is already available but the worker 'failed in their duty to investigate further'.
But we're being encouraged not to enter text in boxes and only to score. Therefore keep Delius brief and they will have to prove we were aware of information and didn't investigate. Don't forget if it's not written down it didn't happen.
I agree with your comments, although I would have to question what kind of culture are we being made to develop and what is our responsibility in that? Yes you have to look after yourself, but we also have a responsibility to challenge the oppressive nature of our working environment in which we are required to practice. We can't let our professional integrity become undermined.
Important to raise the issues of good and safe practice at every team meeting and at every supervision meeting. Self refer to occupational health and leave a paper trail of evidence of concerns. Have it recorded and have it documented, so when something does happen you can say..."see, I told you so, but I was ignored in favour of profits for shareholders".
Sounds dreadful. How can they demand that?! They don't know anything about OASys and ROSH.
Thank goodness, some sense at last. Hopefully this will provoke a long overdue review of exactly what is risk of serious harm, and what is meant by high, medium and low is actually meant to be about.
It wouldn't hurt to get people to actually read OASys before filling it in either, ie; it says insert language if other than English and what is consistently in the box? Provide the exact detail of the offence it says and what is in the box?, not the exact detail, the why and how.
Risk of Serious Harm, insert detail of the most recent offence/behaviour that raises the risk of serious harm and what is in the box? The current offence is not indicative of serious harm or the pulled through detail of the current shop theft. Over the page in previous behaviour is the sentence along the lines of convicted of, lets say, Indecent Assault, no detail available.(detail there in full in the assessments completed when that was current), but hey who has time/cares enough or even thinks of reading the previous sentences assessments?
Oh and score the sections according to the analysis in the guidance, rather than 0-2 as least to worst. (It's guaranteed that there is at least one person happily completing assessments, hitting the targets, doing it without even speaking to the person concerned, oblivious to the impact of what they write on the person concerned,(bet they would love to be told in supervision that they have a number of 'deficits') and is totally oblivious to the existence of help and scoring guidance. Oh and don't forget that if it's written down it certainly doesn't mean it DID happen.
OASys at birth was a somewhat agricultural tool which was originally a useful concept, i.e. Bring all assessments together in one place. OASys now? Try to imagine a transatlantic aircraft intended to carry 500 passengers with all modern luxuries, but built upon the original Wright Brothers' flying machine. It's utter bollox, well intentioned but nevertheless bollox. And worse still, NOMS got their grubby mitts on it & decided to build in a spy network. Result - uberbollox.
Good points raised above, but it's difficult to make those points because of the complexity of the bolloxing stoopid tool and the lack of clarity of definitions. How many different systems now refer to "risk" as high, medium or low? How many different forms of "risk" are there - serious harm? Serious sexual harm? Serious psychological harm? Red, amber or green? Reoffending - same type of offence? Any offence?
For me, the tool should be an ever-expanding chronologically aligned single record. No locking off, guillotines or multifarious versions where data is abandoned or deleted - simply one continuous rolling assessment with key milestones/markers, e.g. new offence, start of order, new offence, hospital admission, transfer to prison, release, etc. Then, at any point, assessors can review without having to close & open multiple documents hoping to find if/where/when certain data was entered/deleted.
Recent example - new case, name was familiar, looked at last OASys, nothing to link with what seemed familiar. Out of curiosity I looked back at random assessments as far as records went and found one with mental health report attached. All reference to that had been deleted on the subsequent OASsys and thus any "pull thru" after that contained none of that vital information. I have now resurrected that historical information because it informs the why & how of risk to female staff. Last known officer told me "it all makes sense now. We couldn't work out why he kept on about being a risk to women when his offences were shoptheft."