Scientists are gradually unraveling the process within the body that lead to the unpleasant sensation of pain. Here is a simple explanation of what happens when you feel one type of pain. You prick your finger on something sharp. This causes tissue damage, which is registered by microscopic pain receptors (nociceptors) in your skin. Each pain receptor forms one end of a nerve cell (neurone). It is connected to the other end in the spinal cord by a long nerve fibre or axon. When the pain receptor is activated, it sends an electrical signal up the nerve fibre. The gate control theory of pain put forward by Ronald Melzack and Patrick Wall in 1965 proposed that: when we feel pain, such as when we touch a hot stove, sensory receptors in our skin send a message via nerve fibres (A-delta and C fibres) to the spinal cord and brainstem and then onto the brain where the sensation of pain is registered, the information is processed and the pain is perceived.
Models that promote participation, would dictate that social workers respect Lyndsey’s expertise, encourage appropriate self-disclosure, support an open appearance of emotions, foster an articulation of limits, and are non-judgemental (Connolly, 2006). This is unlike investigatory methods which assert a coercive power. Instead, risk assessment requires the supportive assessment of a professional’s openness, fairness, and respect toward service users. This can avoid the negotiation of the necessary societal control element of the professional’s role (Hardy and Darlington, 2008).
In the context of Lyndsey’s case, the SSW adopted a strength-based assessment of Lyndsey and the foster placement. This was developed through empathy, honesty, compassion, reliability, unconditional positive, understanding, responsiveness, and a focus on Lyndsey’s and the foster carer’s capabilities (Roose et al, 2013). This was also developed using a prior understanding of Lyndsey’s experiences, to make a positive change. This, as a result, encouraged and empowered Lyndsey to agree to CAMHS appointments, Sexual Health Clinic appointments, drug, and alcohol support, and to re-engage in education (Connolly, 2006).
Regular supervision and meetings with other professionals played a significant role in achieving the agreed recommendations. The recommendations weighed up the risks of harm to establish the best development of actions (Ewiik, 2017). This decision was enhanced by the implementation of a task-centred approach, which asked them to work together on specific, measurable, and achievable goals. In this way, it was possible to recognise unrealistic and realistic goals for Lyndsey to enhance her welfare and placement (Howe and Gray, 2012).
Complexities identified during supervision were discussed, and foster carers and parents were involved in the decision-making process. Through these actions, and the sharing of any overall concerns, a partnership, and transparency in addressing complexities was promoted (Hood, 2018). However, non-cooperation from Lyndsey, her foster carer, and her parents could have unknown factors in the succession of any decisions made. Therefore, the method of care could have been stricter. To consider the place of personal and professional values, it seemed to be necessar
