Choosing an appropriate review period between 2 and 10 years
Generally, review periods should be set between 2 and 10 years. There are exceptions to this rule. For more information, read the Exception: Review periods under 2 years page.
When setting a review period, you should schedule the review to take place at the point by which the individual’s needs relating to their conditions or disability could be likely to have changed. The relevant factors to consider when determining when that would be are set out in the Relevant considerations for setting a review period section in this chapter.
When setting a review period, it is essential that you take a person-centred approach. The review period must be appropriate for the individual. It must be set at a point where the individual’s award might not be at the right level for them anymore. By reviewing their award at that point in time, this will make sure that they receive the appropriate level of support.
It is not appropriate to set shorter review periods as a default, as this:
- does not take a person-centred approach
- will lead to the individual having to engage with the review process sooner and more often, potentially leading to a negative experience
It is not appropriate to set longer review periods as a default, as this could:
- lead to overpayments for the individual if they fail to report a change of circumstances (e.g. increase in needs or going into a residential or educational establishment)
- make individuals feel like they’re not treated in a person-centred and supportive way by Social Security Scotland.
There is no specific guidance on review periods for individual conditions. This is because an individual’s condition is just one of many factors that you need to take into consideration when setting a review period. However knowledge of the condition and developments typical for it can be helpful. Medical guidance should be consulted as needed for this. ( A to Z list of common illnesses and conditions | NHS inform ; Health A to Z - NHS (www.nhs.uk)(link is external) ; Scottish health information you can trust | NHS inform)
You should consider all of the available and relevant information about the individual when reaching a decision.
Review dates should be set at the point where there is a reasonable expectation that the individual’s needs may have changed in a way that their current award might not be right for them anymore.
Setting a review period can be a complex decision. If you are unclear as to how the individual’s level of need is likely to develop over time, they must request a case discussion with a Health and Social Care practitioner.
Shorter review periods (2 to 5 years)
You should select a review period between 2 and 5 years if the individual is likely to experience a change in their level of need, but not in the immediate future. This might be due to, for example:
- the individual becoming able to manage their condition more independently as they reach milestones in their childhood development
- the individual’s condition being expected to improve
- treatment being expected to reduce the impact of the individual’s condition(s)
- the individual’s needs are expected to increase in the near future, e.g. because they have a progressive condition
This list is not exhaustive
If it is more likely than not that the individual’s needs will change before the 2-year mark, you should refer to the exceptions section on Review periods under 2 years before making your decision.
Example: An individual's award of Child Disability Payment will be reviewed in 2 and a half years
Kinjal is 12 years old and was diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis five months ago.
The case manager reviews Kinjal’s application alongside the supporting information provided. Kinjal has inflammation in their fingers, hands and wrists as well as her feet and ankles. This causes Kinjal to experience swelling and stiffness, alongside tiredness and fatigue when moving around indoors and outdoors, as well as with daily tasks such as eating and drinking, washing, dressing and using the toilet.
Based on this, they determine that Kinjal is entitled to the middle rate of the care component and the higher rate of the mobility component of CDP.
They then consider what review period is appropriate. The case manager notes that Kinjal is currently receiving non steroidal anti inflammatory medication, but is due to begin a new treatment which may be more effective in managing her condition and could reduce her level of pain.
Taking this into account, the case manager recognises that Kinjal’s needs may change depending on how she responds to the new treatment. They therefore determine that a longer review period would not be appropriate as Kinjal’s level of need might change and decide to set a review period of 2 and a half years, at which point her award can be reviewed based on her new level of needs.
The determination letter explained that a review has been scheduled for 2 and a half years to allow time for Kinjal to begin and respond to her new treatment. The case manager advised that we will need an update on how effective Kinjal’s treatment has been in managing their needs arising from her juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.
Example: an individual receives a review period of 4 years
Vijay is 8 years old and has recently been diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes.
Vijay’s parents provide information on his current care needs. They explain that they carry out frequent finger prick blood glucose tests throughout the day and closely monitor his food intake.
They are also supporting Vijay to make changes towards a healthier and more active lifestyle.
They describe that Vijay is struggling to come to terms with his diagnosis. He is often confused and frightened by the changes to his daily routine, including monitoring his diet and undergoing regular testing. This has led to regular conflict, as Vijay can become distressed and resistant to treatment.
The case manager reviews Vijay’s CDP application alongside supporting information and contacts Vijay’s mother to gain further insight into how his condition affects him on a day to day basis. They also consult medical guidance and request a case discussion with a practitioner to better understand how Type 1 Diabetes may affect a child of Vijay’s age over time.
Through this, the case manager establishes that while Vijay currently requires a high level of support from his parents, it is likely that, as he becomes older and more familiar with his condition, he will gradually develop the skills to manage aspects of his diabetes more independently. It is expected that by around the age of 12, Vijay may be able to manage his condition with minimal parental input.
As Vijay’s needs are expected to change as he adapts to his condition and develops greater understanding of how to self-manage his condition, the case manager sets a review period of 4 years.
The determination letter issued to Vijay explained that, as he had only recently been diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes, he would need time to adapt to the changes this had made to his daily routine. It confirmed that his award would be reviewed in 4 years. The case manager also explained that an update would be required at the next review to understand how Vijay’s daily living and mobility needs had changed, as it is expected these may differ as he gets older and becomes more confident in managing his condition.
Longer review periods (5 to 10 years)
If an individual’s level of need is unlikely to change you should select a review period of between five and ten years.
- does not meet the criteria for the higher rate of both the care and the mobility component
- the individual has clearly expressed a preference for a future award review date over having their review set to when CDP entitlement will end when they turn 18.
You should consider choosing a review period closer to ten years, particularly where it is highly unlikely that the individual’s condition is likely to change.
Decisions on review periods can be complex. You should use decision-making tools (such as case discussions) if you are unsure. All decisions on review periods should be based on the balance of probabilities and should be made using our key decision-making principles.
Example: An award will be reviewed in 8 years
Ivy is 6 years old and has Down’s Syndrome. The case manager reviews Ivy’s application and considers the information provided about her care and mobility needs. Ivy needs additional support at school and with her development, alongside support to communicate, using the toilet, washing and bathing, alongside guidance and supervision to keep safe when moving around outdoors. Based on this, they determine that Ivy is entitled to the middle rate of the care component and the lower rate of the mobility component of CDP.
They then consider what review period is appropriate. The case manager recognises that Ivy’s needs may change as she grows older and continues to develop. However, they also consider from the information provided that the overall level of support Ivy requires is unlikely to significantly change.
Taking this into account, the case manager decides that a longer review period is appropriate. They therefore set a review date of 8 years’ time, when Ivy is 14 years old, to ensure she is getting the right level of support at that stage, as her needs may continue to be greater than another child of Ivy’s age at this point in her development.
The determination letter noted that a review had been scheduled for 8 years. The case manager explained that an update would be required at the next review to understand how Ivy’s care and mobility needs had changed, as these are likely to change as she gets older.
Example: An individual's award of CDP will be reviewed in 10 years
Robin is 5 years old and has congenital optic nerve hypoplasia, which affects both of his eyes.
Robin’s mother provides information within the application form about his condition and how it affects him. He wears glasses, uses large text books, and requires additional time at school to complete tasks. Robin also has a developmental delay with some motor skills, impacting and with his speech. However, he is receiving speech therapy and this is gradually improving. Robin also needs supervision for moving around outdoors.
The case manager reviews Robin’s application alongside the supporting information provided. Based on this, they determine that Robin is entitled to the middle rate of the care component and the lower rate of the mobility component of CDP.
The case manager then considers what review period would be appropriate.
The case manager understands that there is no treatment available for Robin’s condition and that it is likely to remain stable over time. However, they also recognise that as Robin gets older, he is likely to develop greater independence and may require less support.
Taking this into account, the case manager determines that a longer review period is appropriate. They set a review date for 10 years’ time, when Robin is 15 years old, so that Robin receives the appropriate award based on his needs at that time.
The determination letter issued to Robin stated that we do not expect his needs to change in the near future and, as a result, his award would be reviewed in 10 years. The case manager considered whether they should ask for any specific updates about Robin to be provided at his next review. On balance, given the information provided around Robin’s needs, the case manager did not identify any specific updates that would support the next case manager to make their decision in 10 years’ time.