Editorial

Citation

Mc Nicholl, D. (2012), "Editorial", Social Care and Neurodisability, Vol. 3 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/scn.2012.56103daa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Social Care and Neurodisability, Volume 3, Issue 4

Welcome to Volume 3, Issue 4 of Social Care and Neurodisability. This quarterly journal aims to be a single source of knowledge on legislation, best practice and research for those working with and affected by neurological conditions.

In my first Editorial in Issue 3, Volume 2, I mentioned that I wished to develop some aspects of the journal’s editorial policy. One of these developments is the inclusion of some articles which may appeal to a wider readership. These pieces will be related to acquired brain injury but will be slightly more generic. This, of course, is in addition to the core function of producing excellent material specifically related to acquired neurological disorders and targeted at the health, social care and legal professions.

The first of these more generic articles appeared in the last issue where McKitterick (2012) discussed issues around the recruitment, retention and best use of social workers in adult social care in general. In the current issue a similar type of paper appears entitled “Clinical and legal issues associated with the use of cycle helmets”. Given the increase in cycling in the British Isles over recent years and issues around cycling safety, in particular the use of cycling helmets, then it is appropriate that a journal such as Social Care and Neurodisability addresses such topical matters and their relevance to acquired brain injury. This particular paper considers matters associated with the construction and standards around cycling helmets, the value they offer in terms of safety and head injury prevention and the associated legal issues, particularly that of contributory negligence.

The astute reader will notice that I am a co-author of this paper. However, I am deeply indebted to both Dawn Slow and Anne E. Oliver for their significant contributions to its production. In addition, I want to reassure the reader that this paper went through the usual review and scrutiny process. It was, like any other paper, given to the reviewers anonymously.

The other contents of this issue include the practice piece by Sue Turner and Rosanne Tyas entitled “Joint music therapy and occupational therapy sensory sessions with ‘Fran’: ‘Sensing the seasons’”. This is a great example of collaborative working between members of staff from different professions, made more fascinating by the inclusion of a music therapist, a professional group that we see too little of in general but in particular in work with people with acquired brain injuries. The content of this paper is a great example to all of us about how to set about and review our work with individuals.

The research paper entitled “Normative data for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales (HADS) in multiple sclerosis” by Lizzy Atkins, Gavin Newby and John Pimm investigates the use of the widely available HADS and its utility in measuring anxiety and depression in people with multiple sclerosis in community settings. It also provides, for the first time, publicly available normative data for the use of the HADS with this population. This will be a very useful asset for those who use the HADS with people with multiple sclerosis.

In the first of two articles in the legal section Victoria Butler-Cole and Rose Grogan report on an important recent case before the Court of Protection on whether or not it is in an incapacitated adult’s best interests to be cared for at home. Furthermore, the paper develops a useful argument for those who advocate and campaign for people with disabilities to be cared for at home.

In the final piece by Paul Sandford and James Shepherd the authors develop a theme from a previous article (Sandford and Shepherd, 2010) in which they addressed funding issues with supported housing schemes where housing and care provision are provided by different bodies. The current article scrutinises the 2011 decision of an Upper-Tier Tribunal Judge and subsequent considerations in the Court of Appeal on the meaning of the term “Sheltered Housing”.

In the Forum section Keith Jenkins not only tells us about up and coming events but also has some interesting reflections on volunteering and progress on the Neurological Service Commission. In addition he alerts the reader to the Brain Injury Social Work Group’s bursaries.

Finally, David Nilsson reviews Jane Wonnacott’s latest publication, Mastering Social Work Supervision.

I hope you enjoy the range and content in this issue. If you have any thoughts or comments regarding its content or any other matter associated with the journal I would be happy to hear from you.

Declan Mc Nicholl