Examples of typical changes in mobility or daily living needs
Changes in the level of the individual’s need that could lead to an unscheduled review include:
- an increase in daily living needs due to developing a new condition or disability, or a worsening of their condition or impact of the disability
- a decrease in daily living needs due to an improvement in their condition or the impact of the disability
- the individual receives medical treatment which reduces or stops the individual’s needs
- An increase in mobility needs due to a worsening of their condition or impact of the disability
- A decrease in mobility needs due to an improvement in their condition or impact of the disability This list is not exhaustive.
Once the review is complete, the case manager:
- makes a determination on the individual’s entitlement to ADP, taking into account the change in circumstances, and
- sends the individual the notice of this new determination.
Example: A reported increase in needs does not result in an increase in award
Mark lives alone and is living with the effects of dementia. He is currently entitled to the standard rate of the daily living component of ADP. Mark had previously scored 1D (needs prompting to be able to either prepare or cook a simple meal) in the descriptor ‘Preparing and cooking a meal’, as he requires prompting from his partner to prepare and cook a simple meal.
Mark’s partner contacts Social Security Scotland and reports that because there is a slight deterioration in Mark’s memory he now cooks with a microwave as even with prompting to cook his meals he tends to forget about his meal.
Social Security Scotland carry out an unscheduled review as a result of the change of circumstances from Mark’s partner. This could possibly change the level of Mark’s award.
The Case manager determines that Mark’s award will remain the same. This is because, while Mark now requires a microwave to prepare a simple meal, he still also requires prompting from his partner to make a meal. This would mean the relevant descriptor would remain at 1D and Mark would remain entitled to the standard rate of the daily living component of ADP.
Case managers can extend the review date of an individual’s award as part of their determination, if appropriate. This is true even if an individual’s needs have not changed. 8. A case manager should only set an award review date earlier if they receive new information that justifies doing this.
Example: An award rate does not change but the review period is changed
Sally has been experiencing pain, swelling and stiffness in her knees and hips for around 2 years. This has been affecting her movement when carrying out a wide range of daily activities. Sally was awarded the standard rate of mobility 15 months ago.
The review period was set at 2 years initially which was November this year. Sally sends in a new piece of supporting information from her GP which confirms:
- Sally has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis
- Sally has been undergoing early treatment for the condition with the hope this will prevent further damage to her joints in the medium term
The case manager considers the information provided and has a case discussion with a practitioner, who helps provide more information about rheumatoid arthritis and the effects of early treatment.
The case manager determines that Sally should remain on the lower rate of the mobility component of ADP but the review period should be extended for 4 years to account for the stabilising effects of the early treatment.
Example: Someone’s needs increase but they already receive the enhanced rate of the daily living component and enhanced rate of the mobility component
In the past year John has been awarded the enhanced rate of the daily living component and the enhanced rate of the mobility component. A review date was set for 10 years’ time. John’s appointee contacts Social Security Scotland to inform us that his mobility needs have increased as his condition has worsened.
The case manager is not required to review John’s award as there has not been a change of circumstances that would result in a change of award. This is because John is on the highest possible rate of the mobility component. Social Security Scotland will not carry out a review for this reason.