Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
New PIP assessment tool
Anyone have any inside knowledge of this?
Going to take a punt and guess it makes no reference to reg 4 or 7 stuff and thus will introduce nothing more than another version of an inadequate process.
The fact it works offline is potentially interesting too. Just wait for the first “Disability Analyst” to lose their tablet PC on the roof of their car or on the train.
“Disability Analyst”!!! Pfft. There was me thinking it’s the consequences of the disability being analysed!
Found this PIPAT guidance for assessment providers (pdf file) from February 2014, via whatdotheyknow? So probably out of date but subsequent FOI’s seem to have been refused on commercial grounds.
And there’s this as well A Programmer’s Thoughts On PIPAT Software which is suitably scathing..
Thanks Paul. I read all that and page 32 confirms, as I suspected, that an assessor is only allowed to select one descriptor for an activity and there is no provision to assess percentage satisfied or the issues around repeatedly, reliably etc. bar free text. So no compliance with regs 4 and 7. As these are also drop downs it should be even more obvious why assessors and decision makers pick the lowest applicable descriptor and stop rather than the highest. We read down rather than up.
There are also limitations on free text with no warning as to when they run out and it was fascinating to read that there is an assessment timer that should be used but, if an assessor forgets, they can start and end it manually as they wish!
The phrase stuff was equally interesting. I, obviously, looked at that from a VI perspective and realised my circumstances would not fit those phrases. Page 36 has a list. I would get “sight difficulty”; “Wore glasses for test” and “visual aids benefit”. The fact that Snellen is largely irrelevant means nothing gets recorded there and nothing gets recorded about the fact I need 3 pairs of glasses and not just some for distance or some for reading.
Observations involve nothing more than visual acuity for VI, which is, to me, appalling. That’s about 1/5 of relevant information being asked for. If you only ask for 20% of the information you need it’s hardly going to come as a shock when many claimants give you back 20% or less.
Predictable but depressingly incompetent stuff. The second article makes some interesting points but is perhaps hamstrung by the author not knowing how the PIP legislation works.
And we are talking about a consultation exercise on aids and appliances that should never have been started when the process itself is so incompetently administrated.
Thanks Paul. I read all that and page 32 confirms, as I suspected, that an assessor is only allowed to select one descriptor for an activity and there is no provision to assess percentage satisfied or the issues around repeatedly, reliably etc. bar free text. So no compliance with regs 4 and 7. As these are also drop downs it should be even more obvious why assessors and decision makers pick the lowest applicable descriptor and stop rather than the highest. We read down rather than up.
If you argue a descriptor using the percentage formula, you still award a descriptor, so this isn’t necessarily wrong. However, if an assessor has done this, I would expect the reasoning to be justified in free text.
I would like to see any reference at all to reliability in a PIP report. I would also like to see an assessor specify which aid would actually help if s/he chooses a descriptor that refers to aids.
If you argue a descriptor using the percentage formula, you still award a descriptor, so this isn’t necessarily wrong. However, if an assessor has done this, I would expect the reasoning to be justified in free text.
I would like to see any reference at all to reliability in a PIP report. I would also like to see an assessor specify which aid would actually help if s/he chooses a descriptor that refers to aids.
Not necessarily wrong is perhaps not a test we should be applying though. It’s not the same as “right”. It’s simply not wholly wrong in every last respect but woefully short of competent. It’s the sort of argument civil servants make to defend the transparently indefensible :)
In reality, the current process and forms mean a decision maker or tribunal will have no clue as to what was in the mind of the HCP and will simply take it that the selected descriptor is the only one applicable for a specific activity. Has anyone seen a reference to percentages and multiple descriptors in the free text? I suspect they are even less frequent than references to repeatedly, reliably etc.
The aid thing is an interesting one. My experience so far is that HCPs are getting the aid or appliance from what the claimant says and sometimes even persuading claimants that an object is an aid or appliance because it awards points and moves the discussion along to the next activity. Actually listing that item may be useful in some circumstances but I suspect that isn’t the aspect which will be in dispute. More likely will be the need to demonstrate that a higher scoring descriptor applies and was discussed but dismissed.
Had one of these only this week. Client described aids/appliances used for some aspects of cooking. HCP leapt upon that. Claimants perspective that it was irrelevant, because they needed a person to assist them to cook, was simply dismissed.
That the HCP gave a wholly incorrect interpretation of moving around in terms of what did/did not count for planning and/or following a route is a whole other discussion and hopefully will matter not once 12 points are awarded. However, it will undoubtedly matter for other claimants who only have one means of qualifying for mobility.
The aid thing is an interesting one. My experience so far is that HCPs are getting the aid or appliance from what the claimant says and sometimes even persuading claimants that an object is an aid or appliance because it awards points and moves the discussion along to the next activity.
Indeed so. The same goes for activities which clearly apply but the claimant ticked “no” on that section of the form. No consideration at all is given to whether it might apply.
How about having HCP opinions being set aside on the grounds of “material errors of assessment”, to allow claimants the right to have a consultation rescheduled - that’d make the assessment provider buck up their ideas in a hurry, I’m sure!