Click to edit SEO parameters
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 [LINK TO EXCEPTIONS SUBSECTION BELOW].
When setting a review date, the review should be scheduled to take place at the point by which the individual’s needs 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 the case manager takes 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, we make sure that they continue to receive the support they need and are entitled to.
It is not appropriate to set shorter review periods as a default, as this method:
- 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
- causes unnecessary work for Social Security Scotland.
Setting shorter review periods as a default might happen, for example, because the case manager
- - generally lacks confidence in making determinations
- - mistrusts the account of the individual or their wider support network
- - is uncomfortable with small inconsistencies and gaps in the information available on the individual
- - was unable or unwilling to further explore existing inconsistencies or gaps in the information in favour of making a speedy determination.
This list is not exhaustive.
Similarly, 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
- lead to an increase in unscheduled reviews when individuals do report a change of circumstances
- make individuals feel unsupported 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 the case manager needs to take into consideration when setting a review period. However knowledge of the condition and development typical for it can be helpful. Medical guidance should be consulted as needed for this. [LINKS TO A to Z list of common illnesses and conditions | NHS inform ; Health A to Z - NHS (www.nhs.uk) ; Scottish health information you can trust | NHS inform ]
Case managers should consider all of the available and relevant information on the individual in reaching a decision.
Review dates should be set at the point where there is a reasonable expectation that the individual’s condition may have changed, such that a review of their entitlement may be appropriate.
Setting a review period can be a complex decision. If a case manager is unclear as to how the individual’s level of need is likely to develop over time, they must request a case discussion with a practitioner.
Shorter review periods (24 months)
A review period of 24 months should be chosen when it is likely that the individual’s condition will change in the near future. Also see section on Review periods under 24 months.
This might be due to, for example:
- the individual becoming able to manage their condition more independently
- the individual’s condition being expected to improve
- treatment being expected to reduce the impact of the individual’s condition(s).
This list is not exhaustive.
Example: an individual’s award of ADP will be reviewed in 24 months
John is 43 years old and 6 months ago was involved in a car accident. He sustained a spiral fracture of his left leg, which has affected his movement. Due to the severity of the injury he underwent surgery and had to have his leg supported in a surgical cage. John has started physiotherapy and manages his pain with the use of strong pain medication.
The case manager determines that due to the expected improvement with spiral fractures (18-24 months) and the likely improvements in his overall condition, a 24-month review period would be appropriate.
Medium-length review periods (25 months to 4 years)
The case manager should select a review period between 24 months and five years if the individual is likely to experience change in their level of condition.
Example: An individual’s award of ADP will be reviewed in 4 years
Sarah is 36 years old with a diagnosis of sciatica and has a number of daily living and mobility needs. She has had surgery but it was not completely successful. Sarah attends the pain clinic every month and continues to be under review by the specialist consultant every six months.
Sarah has been advised of further surgery she will need to have and has been placed on the surgery waiting list. The consultant specialist is hoping she can have the surgery in 1-2 years as this is the current waiting time. After the surgery Sarah will need time to rehabilitate for 6-9 months.
She will need to have intensive physiotherapy for a further 6-9 months where there should be improvement in her condition. The case manager determines that a review in 4 years would be appropriate after taking into account:
- the waiting time for surgery
- the recovery period
- the treatment post-surgery.
Longer review periods (5 to 10 years)
If an individual’s level of need is unlikely to change, the case manager should consider setting a review date between five and ten years.
The case manager should also consider setting a review date between five and ten years, where the individual’s level of need is highly unlikely to change, but the individual either:
- does not meet the criteria for an indefinite award as they are not entitled to the enhanced rate of both the daily living and the mobility component
- the individual has clearly expressed a preference for a future award review date over receiving an indefinite award.
Case managers 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.
Example: An individual’s award of ADP will be reviewed in 10 years.
Daniel is 19 years old and has a diagnosis of autism and anxiety. He attended a specialist school and had support in all lessons due to his sensory overload and anxiety symptoms. Daniel had difficulties and made slow progress in a classroom environment due to noise and other students around him.
Daniel has left school and now lives in a residential supported living establishment due to the difficulties he would have living alone. He has found this to be very difficult and finds it hard to engage with his support network and the other residents he lives with. Daniel is under the care of the Community Mental Health Team due to his anxiety. He has therapy sessions once every 3 months although he will sometimes not attend these appointments. The Community Mental Health Team state that Daniel may be able to function differently if his anxiety is better controlled, and sensory overload is managed better. Daniel is making very slow progress regarding these two goals.
Daniel is also under the care of a consultant psychiatrist who has explained that due to the slow progress being made, he would need ongoing long-term support in order to live independently
The case manager determines that given the nature of Daniel’s condition and the slow progress being made, his condition and level of needs are unlikely to change. As a result a review in 10 years would appropriate, particularly given the complexity of Daniel’s circumstances and on-going levels of specialist input.