What I’m trying to find out is if you have a primary diagnosis of autism , the psychiatrist, an expert in autism who made the diagnosis stated it was to be the person`s primary diagnosis. But now someone is trying to change this to a dual diagnosis. I think by doing this and placing the emphasis on anxiety adding it higher on the list is distorting the clinical and legal interpretation and contradicts the diagnosing psychiatrist’s authoritative diagnosis.
The dual diagnosis refers to and non-organic psychosis. This is not indicated by a psychiatrist but is mentioned in a support plan.
It’s not really a change of diagnosis? The primary diagnosis is autism, the secondary diagnosis is non organic psychosis which is something which is time limited. Ie the person will always have the autism but this is an episode of psychosis and therefore time limited. People get coded with several diagnosis’ at a time. It might even be that psychosis is determined to be the primary diagnosis if it is that which is causing the most issues at that particular time. In reality you need a diagnosis to get the correct treatment. If the person was only diagnosed with autism then medication would not be indicated for this solely, therefore if medication is needed another diagnosis is made to reflect that treatment. It doesn’t need to be the same psychiatrist who diagnosed the autism, it can be another one or a clinical practitioner and to be honest it usually is as most psychiatrists who diagnose autism work in specialist autism diagnosis service so you wouldnt see the same one for other issues. Hope that helps
Thank you Sophie, it has,
It is part of a larger issue I thought it would be appropriate to start by that question first.
The proposed provider had written the support plan in this manner, which no one else had ever done. They have also added that the person had a learning disability, which they do not, thereby casting doubt on their capability to offer this individual a place.
Determining the next course of action is crucial. The provider, when questioned about the inclusion of LD among other incorrect things, responded with a degree of annoyance.
They have presented it again, omitting this and the other incorrect issues, I feel they need to be held accountable as this have effects I am unaware of.
Determining the most effective approach is my next challenge.
If a care provider creates a Support Plan falsely stating that an individual has a learning disability, writing it in the first person as if the individual said it, despite them not having a learning disability, and uses a template incorrectly referring to a male as “she” and “her” despite his he/him identity, and then tries to dismiss this as a typing error when questioned, could this be seen as offering a placement based on an incorrect diagnosis and considered serious as it was presented to the Court of Protection?
If the mistake is later corrected, the details omitted, and the Support Plan re-submitted by a solicitor to the court without any explanation, what would be the legal standing in this case?