This paper aims to investigate the impact of Emotional resilience and how this can affect working with service users and the impact of communication and values with the service user and her family with supporting legislation and theories. In addition to this, the paper will refer where applicable, the new revised Professional Capabilities Framework domains outlined by BASW (2018), together with the three : domains- purpose, practice, and impact, along with the Department for Education (2018) Knowledge and Skills Statement (KSS) for Children and family. The paper will also use elements of Gibbs (1988) reflective model.
The Ethics and Human Rights Committee (2014) policy discusses the importance of confidentiality and protection of the service users identity. Legally, the (1998), provided by Legislation.gov.uk (1998-2003), also informs that individual data must be kept secure. Therefore, the service user and her family will be anonymised to ensure that confidentiality is preserved. The service user will be addressed as SU, her mother will be addressed as SUP, and her brother will be addressed as SUB. The analytical reflection will focus on a phone call with SUB and how this impacted SUP and SU.
As part of the placements policy and procedure; foster carers can have support persons to help with fostering tasks, for example, a support person can help pick up a young person from school if the carer cannot and more. This demonstrated BASW (2018) PCF domain Diversity and Equality, Rights and Justice, Knowledge, Skills and Intervention & context and organisations. However, for this to be endorsed, a support person risk assessment must be completed. Furthermore, I was completing a support person risk assessment for SUs mother which demonstrated KSS 1; relationships and effective direct work, KSS 2; Child and family assessment and PCF SD (Refresh 2018) Purpose and Practice. This was in order to build a productive relationship with the whole of SUs family and endorse the support intervention to help her which aligns with The Policy, Ethics and Human Rights Committee (2014) Social work Code of Ethics.
Part of the assessment involved a character reference to support the assessment. Moreover, SUP put forward her son, SUs brother for a character reference. I had previously called SUB beforehand but had not received a response, so I left voicemails. However, one Friday after work around 5:15 pm I decided to call him to obtain a character reference. SUB answered the phone and proceeded to be verbally aggressive, threatening and rude. Throughout the phone call, SUB stated he would not be providing another character reference as he had done so before. Also, he would be encouraging SUP to make a complaint and luckily had my name from the voicemail to do so, that he was an ex-solicitor and found it an absolute disgrace I had lost his original character reference and this was a breach of GDPR regulations (EU) 2016/679.
After SUB disconnected the call, I was very shocked and upset. In being upset, I called SUP to apologise and discuss what had happened with SUB but unfortunately, I could not get my words out. SUP could tell I was upset and said she would get SU to give me a call later as she was out shopping at that moment with SU and the looked after child. After the phone call, SU called a few hours later, but as I was still upset, I chose to ignore the call. Also, I was trying to contact my Practice Educator, but unfortunately, her work phone was off, and I did not have her mobile. Moreover, for the whole weekend, I was upset and worried about the incident and the outcome of this.
The next section will touch upon relevant theories, legislation and values to understand the critical incident more. The next section will also reference the new revised Professional Capabilities Framework domains outlined by BASW (2018), together with the three super overarching principles: domains- purpose, practice, and impact. Where possible, the KSS (2018) will also be mentioned in the next section.
Under better circumstances, I would like to believe I would not have reacted the way I had done. Moreover, upon reflection, Systems theory by Bronfenbrenner (1979) enabled me to think about other elements that were connected that influenced the way I reacted. Engard (2017) commented that Systems theory looks at behaviour which is influenced by different factors that work together as a system. Some examples of these are a persons parents, friends, work and more all influence how a person thinks and acts. Taking this into consideration, I had a particularly stressful week that involved Journey to foster training Monday to Wednesday in Bromsgrove. The motorway was congested on the 3 days meaning Id return home quite late and be up quite early. In addition to this on Thursday, I had another presentation to deliver and meetings. Factoring the work element and how tired and stressed I was, I believe the phone call on Friday was the tipping point. In addition to this, as it was a weekend, my support networks such as my friends were not available. Also, my practice educator was not responding to her emails or work phone, so I was worried over the weekend.
Maclean & Harrison (2015) commented that systems theory recognised that a persons support network could be placed under strain because of a change in circumstances, for example, a new event. Moreover, the strain could result in the systems not working smoothly. Furthermore, my Microsystem was not linking with my Mesosystem which caused a strain on my emotional wellbeing. Additionally, I gained a better understanding of why theory is vital in social work and for service users; by charting a persons entire system, the professional, in this case, social worker would be able to work out the source of the problem and introduce relevant intervention, for example, a referral to an agency such a CAHMS and more.
Another theory that helped analyse the incident better is Learning Theory, particularly Kolb & Fry (1974) 4 stage learning cycle; concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. This theory was particularly beneficial as the 4 stages allowed me to reflect on the incident. For example, the first stage of the cycle is what I experienced which is the critical incident. The second stage is my reflection of the incident which is one of the aims of the paper. The third stage is reflecting more widely which allow me to reflect wider drawing on relevant theories and journal articles and more. The last stage is the active experimentation where I develop an . For example, if this situation were to happen again, I would make sure I had a strong support network and more. Besides, the learning theory is like Gibbss (1988) reflection cycle which looks at the whole incident. Kolb (2014) stated that learning is the progression where knowledge is created through the conversion of experience which in turn informs practice.
A model that is like systems theory and Learning Theory and helped me understand why my emotional resilience was low is the Resilience Model by Grotberg (1995). The model is split into three categories; I am which looks at personal strength; I can, which refers to using my problem-solving skills to help yourself and lastly, I have, which looks at external resources for support such as friends, family, colleagues and more. Although the model is aimed at the resilience of children; an advantage is that it can be applied to adults also. Grotberg (1995) suggested that a resilient person does not need all these features to be resilient, but one is not enough.
However, I disagree with this statement as I wouldve been more reassured and supported had I been supported by my friends and my practice educator. Furthermore, I believe that all 3 features need to be in place for a person to be sufficiently resilient. This is particularly important as Munro (2011) highlighted the need for social workers to demonstrate professional confidence. Similarly, the Social Work Task Force (SWTF 2009) highlighted the need for social workers to develop empathy and resilience. Furthermore, Rajan-Rankin (2013) commented that the need for resilience is essential due to the fact of social workers experiencing high rates of stress and burnouts which I experienced during the week of the incident.
The point made by Rajan-Rankin (2013) is further supported by the statement made by Arroba & James (1987. p.21) referenced by Collins (2008) that Stress is a response to an inappropriate level of pressure. It is a response to pressure, not the pressure itself. Again, I am inclined to agree with this point as although I was stressed throughout the week; the comments made by SUB and my PE not being available over the weekend caused me to be more stressed, and Collins (2008) stated that support is one of the essential strategies involved in coping.
SUB stated that I had broken the GDPR Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by losing SUP character reference. The Publications Office of the European Union (2016) defines a GDPR personal data breach as a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alternation, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed. However, this was not the case as firstly; I was not asking for personal information such as date of birth and more, just a character reference and secondly, the information was not lost but archived in the system used by my placement. Unfortunately, I was not able to inform him of this as he was shouting down the phone and subsequently hung up. Moreover, I did not want to speak to him again.