8 July 2010
20 April 2010
29 July 2009
28 April 2009
12 September 2008
23 July 2008
16 July 2008
16 July 2008
6 June 2008
30 May 2008
|
23 November 2005:
BABICM CMSUK Meeting on 23rd November 2005
BABICM CMSUK Meeting on 23rd November 2005
Present
Jo Clark-Wilson - BABICM
Caroline Ferber - BABICM
Rosie Corless - CMSUK
Helen Ainsworth - CMSUK
Robin de Wilde - BICMA
David Blofeld - BICMA
Agenda
1. Purpose of the Case Management Organisations
2. Definition of Case Management
3. Role of Case Managers
4. Case Management Frameworks
5. Differences between BABICM and CMSUK
The objective of the meeting was to explore the differences and similarities in approach of the two Case Management organisations and the extent to which they could work together on matters of common interest.
These notes are a brief outline of the significant features and tenor of a wide-ranging discussion from which the following matters emerged.
All present were agreed that –
in performing the role of case manager the duty was to the injured person - the client
work was needed on role definition - it was, for example, vital to distinguish the role of case manager from that of expert witness and adviser to litigants
the client’s agreement to the appointment of a case manager was vital
disclosure of information by the case manager for the purposes of the client’s claim required the client’s agreement, subject only to Civil Procedure Rules requirements
there remained massive gaps in service provision at all levels so the demand and potential demand for case management services would remain high
membership of either organisation was rightly dependent upon membership of the case manager’s relevant professional body
whilst there would continue to be problems arising from non-members until the area was regulated, insurers, APIL and FOIL could help by advocating the use only of case managers who were members of one of the recognised organisations.
there was significant benefit to the two organisations, as well as the cause of Case Management generally, to be gained from improved understanding and collaboration between them.
The problems for case managers arising from the conduct of claims and litigation were considerable. Many of those difficulties concerned the role of those describing their activity as “case management” when in fact their participation had other objectives. There were said to be numerous examples of unprofessional behaviour by “shadow” case managers. For example, whilst there could be no objection to monitoring and expressing views, it was unacceptable for the shadow to purport to be the client’s case manager. Consideration would be given to producing a note of such examples.
The role of the case manager had been considered judicially in Wright –v- Sullivan. BICMA was continuing to examine the implications of the case and would consider publishing its views in due course.
The differences
The significant differences or potential differences of view that emerged concerned –
(1) whether a case manager’s independence was compromised by his/her employer’s financial interest in the claim. For BABICM this was an issue especially regarding employment by insurers, but also by lawyers on either side. Employment in this context was limited to the direct relationship as employee. For CMSUK there were various situations and roles which, performed within the ethics of the individual’s professional body, were not seen as a problem.
(2) whether CMSUK’s independence was compromised by its relationship with its founders and stakeholders. BABICM had perceived an implication of financial dependence on founders and stakeholders. No one present had any specific view as to what CMSUK should or could do, that it was not already doing, to demonstrate the contrary, given its charitable status and strategy of broadening membership, especially in the NHS. It looked to members for ongoing funding.
The relationship
Whilst CMSUK was the more generic organisation, BABICM was becoming increasingly generic.
The relationship between the two organisations was seen as valuable and worth advancing. Having a representative at each other’s executive meetings was probably unnecessarily time-consuming, other than on occasions by agreement when a specific agenda item would benefit from a joint approach.
There would be much to gain from joint initiatives on e.g. training, conferences, the Community Matrons’ case categorisation hierarchy, and a code of ethics.
|
