Understanding and interpreting information – including supporting information

Inconsistencies and gaps in information

When you look at the information provided previously or in a review form, there may be gaps or inconsistencies between them. Not all gaps and inconsistencies need to be explored.

By an ‘inconsistency’ in this chapter, we are referring to information that is not consistent with each other. This could be information that is directly contradictory but can also be information that is inconsistent in regard to severity of needs or impacts.

The purpose of this chapter is not to help you identify where a confirmation from a professional may be required, as with the relevant consideration etc chapter but rather to help you resolve inconsistencies through other decision-making tools, such as additional supporting information.

For example, an individual may explain on their review form that they require help from their partner to get dressed on some days. Their partner provides additional supporting information and explains they help them get dressed every day. The two pieces of information are inconsistent with each other but are not direct conflicts. The partner confirms they help them get dressed, but there is an inconsistency in regard to how often they help them.

Inconsistencies can occur:

within a piece of information
between pieces of information
between supporting information and the review form

By a gap, we are referring to missing information specifically relating to an individual’s needs and the impact of their condition. Gaps do not refer to a lack of a confirmation from a professional. You should refer to the chapter on Gathering Supporting Information for guidance on what to do where there is no confirmation from a professional and it is required. The size and significance of a gap will vary, and gaps should be expected. This is because conditions can be life-long and complex and it can be difficult for any one source to include all of the details on these, including the review form.

Whether a gap needs to be filled is dependent on its significance. The significance of a gap is dependent on your ability to determine entitlement. If you are unable to make an entitlement decision without filling the gap, you should use decision-making tools to help fill the gap. This includes gathering additional supporting information to establish entitlement only where other decision-making tools have not helped, or you are able to determine that they will not provide the information you need.

A gap does not need to be filled if the missing information would only be helpful to have but would not be necessary for your decision-making. This would be an insignificant gap.

Before attempting to fill a gap or explore an inconsistency, you should consider whether:

it can be resolved or accepted without taking any action
it is significant enough to need exploring
the piece of information containing the gap or inconsistency is valuable and would merit having the inconsistency explored

When deciding whether a gap or inconsistency can be resolved or accepted without taking any action, consider all of the following:

individuals may under-report their needs, especially if they have more than one condition or where they are sharing sensitive information such as toilet needs
conditions can be life-long and complex making describing them difficult for some clients
whether an individual’s condition could impact their ability to describe their condition (i.e. if they were recently hospitalised, whether their condition impacts cognitive function)
unanswered questions, or answers that don’t offer helpful insights, may not mean that the individual has no needs in that area. Individuals and sources of supporting information may leave out useful information because they’re not used to the questions on our forms.
the view of a professional may be conclusive of their opinion but is not automatically conclusive in establishing an individual’s condition or care needs. Context and point of reference are vital
the source of the supporting information may be from someone who doesn’t know the full extent of the individual’s needs, and this can explain an inconsistency
supporting information does not need to support every declared need, especially if the individual has complex needs and/or several conditions

If you do decide to explore a gap or inconsistency, you must:

remain aware of your unconscious bias and ensure you approach the gap or inconsistency from a neutral position. You should not assume the outcome of the gap or inconsistency until you have explored it
make decisions based on the balance of probabilities, as always, making use of other decision-making tools where needed.

Exploring inconsistencies

You should consider the following points when you explore an inconsistency between pieces of information. You should continue to remember that all information must be given equal consideration.

If the individual’s own information has conflicting details, clarify this directly with the individual where possible.

The value of the information

At what point in the process you choose to explore an inconsistency will differ from case-to-case and depend on:

whether there is a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency
if the information containing the inconsistency is valuable
the complexity of the inconsistency

Whether you establish the value of a piece of information before exploring an inconsistency is at your discretion.

In some cases, you will need to have considered the value of a piece of information before deciding if an inconsistency need exploring. This will likely be in scenarios where the inconsistency is complex or not easily resolved.

This can help ensure that you are exploring an inconsistency for information you have concluded is valuable.

Where the information containing the inconsistency is of little value, you should consider if there are any benefits to exploring the inconsistency.

However, for other inconsistencies, you may decide that the process for resolving it would be quick. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to explore the inconsistency before you have robustly considered the value of the information.

Other decision-making tools

You should consider what decision-making tools would best help you resolve an inconsistency. This includes continuing to use the balance of probabilities throughout the decision-making process to establish whether the needs are likely to exist, given the information you have.

By best, we mean the outcome of an inconsistency being resolved robustly in a time efficient manner. This means you will need to balance how well a decision-making tool would help you to resolve an inconsistency with how long that same tool would take to help you resolve the same inconsistency.

For example, an inconsistency may exist between what a GP has submitted and what the individual’s wider support network describes the individual’s needs as. You may decide that the best way to resolve this definitively would be to request further supporting information from the GP. However, you also know that the GP took a long time to respond to initial supporting information request and so you are unlikely to get a quick response on your new request. You should consider if other decision making tools, such as a case discussion, would provide similar results in regard to helping you resolve the inconsistency. This approach balances the quality of information with the time it takes to establish that information.

Gathering supporting information should not be your default decision-making tool. Supporting information is one of a suite of decision-making tools you can use to help you make decision. It is also often the decision-making tool that will take the longest time to provide you with the information you need. Before gathering supporting information, you should always consider whether the inconsistency can be resolved through a follow-up call to the individual, where appropriate, or a case discussion. You should also ensure you have read the guidance:

in this chapter on supporting information after an application
in the Gathering Supporting Information chapter

Supporting information after a review form

Where needed, supporting information can be submitted or collected after a review form is received. This supporting information:

should be considered in the same way as information given with the review forms
does not have to support every detail in the review form

To help you determine if supporting information is needed, you should refer to the Gathering Supporting Information chapter and Relevant considerations etc chapters.

Only request additional supporting information after a review form is received if all of these apply:

it’s essential to your decision-making i.e., you are unable to make a decision on whether an individual is more likely than not to meet the criteria for Scottish Adult DLA or what their new level of award would be if it is a change of circumstances
the individual has given their consent for you to do so
no other decision making tools have provided the information you need
where supporting information is required, you do not have a reason to believe the information does not exist. For example, if you have established good cause because the individual has told you they do not have supporting information and they do not know of anyone who could provide it

Involving a practitioner

Involving a practitioner is recommended when: • you have identified inconsistencies and need the expertise of a practitioner to help you explore them

you do not have enough information, including supporting information, to make a decision

Part of Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance decision making guide