Community Client D
Client D had moved from West Wales where he’d previously been receiving support from Secondary Mental Health services. The client had also served in the army where he he’d received Mental Health support. On moving to Cardiff, he had experienced initial difficulties in being taken on by secondary services. When eventually taken under services, he felt that he'd been misdiagnosed and that the misdiagnosis was hindering his recovery.
Barriers faced in being heard:
D had been unclear as to how he could request support for his mental health condition.
When taken under services, D felt his own experience and understanding of his condition was ignored by professionals and, that his views were dismissed when he had raised the question of his diagnosis.
He felt that staff were only considering the opinions of staff from within the Cardiff service and discounted previous diagnoses from other services.
As a result he felt he was not receiving suitable support and treatment.
Advocacy undertaken:
- At an initial meeting, the Advocate informed D of his right to self-refer to secondary services under the terms of the Welsh Measure and following assessment the D was taken under secondary services.
- The client re-referred for advocacy as he was dissatisfied with the support being offered. Having raised concerns verbally, D did not feel that his views were being listened to. The Advocate offered options to the client as to how he might progress with his issue including raising a concern, requesting a CTP review or requesting a second opinion.
- With this information, the client was able to make an informed choice. The advocate wrote on behalf of the client in requesting a second opinion regarding diagnosis.
- When this was refused by the CMHT, the advocate supported the client in requesting a review of the decision. Although this was also refused on the grounds that a full and comprehensive assessment had been undertaken, the client was given an assurance that records from West Wales would be requested and any decision reviewed if necessary.
Outcomes:
Client D was not happy with the decision made but did feel that his voice had been heard and that his views had been listened to as a result of advocacy involvement.