<![CDATA[Social Return Case Management

<![CDATA[Social Return Case Management - News]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:15:28 +0100Weebly<![CDATA[Who is this for? Thinking about AI, case management and individual differences]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 23:00:00 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/who-is-this-for-thinking-about-ai-case-management-and-individual-differences

Artificial intelligence comes up in almost every conversation about the future of healthcare and rehabilitation. New tools appear regularly, often presented as a way to save time, reduce administration and improve clinical effectiveness.

The wider discussion about AI in the media often focuses on what the technology might replace. That concern seems well founded. Some tasks can be done faster and more cheaply by a machine than by a person, and the early effects appear to be falling on junior roles, where much of what used to be somebody's first job seems to be the sort of thing these systems handle reasonably well. In health and social care, where clinical judgement and navigating complex systems are fundamental, the picture so far looks somewhat different. Recent work on AI and the NHS workforce suggests these technologies may change the shape of the work more than they reduce it, bringing new responsibilities around checking, validation and professional oversight.

This may be particularly true in case management, which doesn't break down neatly into tasks. It draws on judgement built up over years: knowing when to build momentum and when to step back, reading the dynamics within a family or support team, and holding a difficult conversation and getting the tone right. So much of the skill sits in the relationships and in the decisions.

There are places where these systems do something other than a quicker version of a human task. Applied to large clinical datasets, they can identify associations across more variables than any of us could hold in mind, and there is work in brain injury looking at functional outcomes and clinical pathways in this way. It is early, and a model built on one population may perform poorly against another, so it is something to follow with interest for now.

What is actually arriving

AI tools are emerging that are specifically targeted to rehabilitation and case management organisations, but these are only one part of the picture. Many of us probably use AI several times a day without thinking about it, because it's built into software we were already using. It sits in search results, in email, in the document we're drafting, in dictation and transcription, and increasingly in case management systems themselves. For many organisations, it may have arrived through a software update, before anyone had much chance to form a view about it.

Work is needed on what all of this means for confidentiality, data protection, and clinical governance, and that work is under way. BABICM has been developing its position on AI and is running a webinar series for members this autumn which takes those questions seriously. We're not going to try to cover that ground here. It deserves more than a few paragraphs, and we've been thinking about another set of questions that tends to get less attention.

Time saved

Many new AI products, and traditional software products that have integrated AI, are presented in terms of time and efficiency. Hours saved, administration reduced, capacity freed up. Time is easy to describe and easy to picture, so that's how these things generally get talked about. Some technology saves time in ways nobody notices or values. Other things can make a real difference to somebody's working week without ever appearing in a measure of output.

Health and social care has seen this before, and many of us recognise the pattern from the move to electronic records. Those systems were introduced partly for efficiency, and the experience of using them has been widely reported as adding to documentation work instead of reducing it. Analysis of the wider evidence on health technology and staff time suggests this is not unusual, with a substantial proportion of studies finding no time saving at all, and the difference often coming down to how something was implemented. Efforts to improve matters have produced a familiar pattern: people report feeling better about the work, while objective measures remain unclear.

The same tool, different people

What we've found ourselves returning to is that the same tool can often have different impacts depending on the person, their needs and their preferences. Two case managers with similar caseloads, similar levels of experience, and the same job description could get very different value from the same piece of software, and the reason may have more to do with how each of them thinks and works than with the tool's intrinsic benefits.

Each of us has our own strengths and challenges in the role. For example:

Some people may find editing down what they have written the hardest part of the week and would welcome almost any help with it. Others find this less challenging and may enjoy the process.
Some will struggle to organise tasks or maintain focus when competing priorities emerge. Others thrive on this aspect of the role.
Some do their best thinking out loud and then find it difficult to start when they face a blank document afterwards. For others, the writing is the thinking, and they can't separate the two.
Some would value transcription if it meant they no longer had to write notes during a meeting and could pay attention to the room instead. For others, taking notes is part of their process and how they organise and record what they are hearing.

There is great variety in the aspects of the role that each of us prefers and those which challenge us, and it follows that any tool could be experienced differently. This could be true of anybody, though emerging evidence suggests it may be particularly the case for people who are dyslexic or autistic or have ADHD, and that the difference may not be small. If somebody has spent years finding ways around parts of a job that don't sit well with how they think, then removing one of those obstacles might be worth more to them than to a colleague who never had it.

There is a further point here which may be easy to miss. Someone who has worked out their own way of doing things has often arrived at something that suits them, and it may be doing more than it appears to. Administrative work is a reasonable example, since for some people it is how they build a sense of a case, or a break from work where the answers are rarely straightforward. A tool others consider more efficient could disrupt an arrangement that was holding more together than anyone realised, and the person may not know until it has gone.

What we already know about fit

A substantial body of work in health and social care explains why technology programmes succeed in one organisation and are abandoned in another. The people expected to use something matter as much as the thing itself, along with the organisation around them and how the technology arrived. Where these programmes have gone well, the people using them could generally see the value for themselves. Where they have gone badly, the difficulty has usually been found somewhere other than in the technology.

Anyone who has worked within brain injury rehabilitation will recognise the pattern from client work. A memory strategy can be hardest to keep going for the person who would gain most from it, since remembering to check the diary is the same skill that made the diary necessary. What seems to determine whether these things work often has more to do with the assessment, the fit, whether the person wanted it, and whether somebody provided the ongoing support needed to help them get used to it.

Applying this to ourselves

We assess every client as an individual. We build support around what that particular person wants and what they're working towards, and most of us have seen what happens when a generic solution is applied to somebody it doesn't suit. It seems fair to ask whether we apply the same thinking to our own teams. Whether a particular piece of software is adopted at all, how it is introduced, and who it is meant to help are all questions we could approach the same way.

Nobody has, or could have, worked all of this out. Technology is moving faster than most of us can properly evaluate it, much of what we think we know is borrowed from neighbouring fields, and the governance questions we set aside earlier remain open. What we have settled on is a starting point: the people doing the work and what might make their week better.

The approach we've taken at AKA and Social Return is to begin with conversations about what people find difficult, what they'd rather keep hold of, and where a little support might change the shape of somebody's week. Asking first is slower, a little more awkward, and considerably harder to write a policy around, though it may be the version that leaves case managers doing more of the work that brought them here in the first place.

References

AI and employment effects

Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B. and Chen, R. (2025) Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence. Stanford Digital Economy Lab. Available at: https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in-the-coal-mine/

techUK (2026) What's actually happening with entry-level and graduate jobs? Available at: https://www.techuk.org/resource/what-s-actually-happening-with-entry-level-and-graduate-jobs.html

AI in everyday software and search

Ofcom (2025) Online Nation 2025, published 10 December. Available at:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-and-attitudes/online-habits/from-apps-to-ai-search-how-the-uk-goes-online-in-2025

UCLPartners, Health Innovation Network South London and Imperial College Health Partners (2026) Beyond productivity: AI and NHS workforce implications. Commissioned by NHS England London Region. Available at: https://uclpartners.com/new-report-calls-for-workforce-centred-ai-adoption/

Professional guidance in case management

British Association of Brain Injury and Complex Case Management (2026) Intelligent Case Management: The Practical Application of AI, webinar series commencing 20 August. Available at: https://www.babicm.org/events/

Technology, efficiency and staff time

The Health Foundation (2025) Tech to save time: how the NHS can realise the benefits. Available at: https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/tech-to-save-time-how-the-nhs-can-realise-the-benefits

Department for Business and Trade (2025) The Evaluation of the M365 Copilot Pilot in the Department for Business and Trade, August. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68adbe409e1cebdd2c96a19d/dbt-microsoft-365-copilot-evaluation.pdf

Electronic records and documentation burden

Moy, A.J., Schwartz, J.M., Chen, R., Sadri, S., Lucas, E., Cato, K.D. and Rossetti, S.C. (2021) 'Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review', Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(5), pp. 998–1008. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/28/5/998/6090156 (free full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8068426/)

Why technology programmes succeed or fail
Shin, H.D., Hamovitch, E., Gatov, E., MacKinnon, M., Samawi, L., Boateng, R., Thorpe, K.E. and Barwick, M. (2025) 'The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: a scoping review', PLOS Digital Health, 4(3), e0000418. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000418

Assistive technology and fit
Jamieson, M., McClelland, H., Goudie, N., McFarlane, J., Cullen, B., Lennon, M., Brewster, S., Stanley, B., McConnachie, A. and Evans, J. (2024) 'AppReminders: a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of a memory aid app for people with acquired brain injury', Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 34(4), pp. 535–571. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09602011.2023.2220969 (free full text: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11166046/)

Ramirez-Hernandez, D., Stolwyk, R.J., Chapman, J. and Wong, D. (2022) 'The experience and acceptability of smartphone reminder app training for people with acquired brain injury: a mixed methods study', Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 32(7), pp. 1263–1290. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33563100/

Machine learning and clinical prediction in brain injury

Bark, D., Boman, M., Depreitere, B., Wright, D.W., Lewén, A., Enblad, P., Hånell, A. and Rostami, E. (2024) 'Refining outcome prediction after traumatic brain injury with machine learning algorithms', Scientific Reports, 14, 8036. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58527-4

]]><![CDATA[A considered evolution in case management: what the AKA and Social Return relationship means for professional deputies]]>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 23:00:00 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/a-considered-evolution-in-case-management-what-the-aka-and-social-return-relationship-means-for-professional-deputies

It’s been a few months since AKA Case Management and Social Return Case Management formally came together as sister companies. You can read the full story of the acquisition Click Here. In this article, we explore why this acquisition happened, why it is different, and ultimately why does it matter to professional deputies?

Professional deputies operate at the intersection of risk, accountability, and long-term client outcomes. Decisions about which case management partners to work with are therefore not just operational, they are strategic.

Against a backdrop of increasing consolidation across the sector, the relationship between AKA Case Management and Social Return Case Management represents a deliberately different model. While formally structured as an acquisition, in practice it is the coming together of two aligned organisations choosing to grow alongside one another rather than being absorbed into a single entity.
This distinction is important because it signals a shift in intent. Rather than being driven by financial exit or scale for its own sake, the focus is on sustaining quality, strengthening practice, and protecting what works well for clients and professionals alike.

Stewardship model

We have adopted a model of Stewardship which carries a responsibility not only to protect but to nurture, develop, and pass on something stronger to the next generation. It reflects a commitment to long term value, ethical responsibility, and sustainable growth.

In practical terms, this means that leadership within both AKA and Social Return does not view ownership as an endpoint. Instead, it is seen as a responsibility to care for the organisation, its people, and its clients in a way that ensures future resilience.

This is a significant departure from more traditional models where growth is often linked to commercial exit. Here, the intention is to build something that endures, with continuity of values and consistency of standards at its core.

Consolidating excellence without losing identity

The second defining feature of this relationship is how both organisations are approaching collaboration.
Rather than merging into a single, standardised model, the focus is on consolidating excellence. This means identifying what each organisation does well and creating space for those strengths to be shared, challenged, and enhanced.

Importantly, this is not being driven top down. The process is intentionally grounded in the experience of those delivering the work day-to-day. Case managers and operational teams are central to shaping what best practice looks like across both organisations.

This approach has three practical implications:

It encourages safe challenge, where different perspectives are not only accepted but actively sought.
It avoids a one size fits all model, preserving the individuality and strengths of each organisation.
It creates a more dynamic learning environment, where improvement is continuous rather than imposed.

Alongside this, there is a clear focus on enabling infrastructure. This includes the thoughtful use of technology to remove administrative burden, not to replace professional judgement, but to enhance it. The intention is to give case managers more capacity to focus on complex decision making, client relationships, and outcomes.

For professional deputies, this matters because it speaks directly to consistency, reliability, and the ability of case management providers to evolve without compromising quality.

What this means in practice for professional deputies

The real value of this model becomes clear when considered through the lens of day-to-day deputyship. Below are the key benefits, with practical examples.

1. Greater geographical coverage with continuity of care
An expanded footprint allows for more flexible and responsive service delivery. For deputies managing clients across multiple regions, this means consistent standards without the need to source multiple providers.

2. Enhanced professional collaboration
The combined networks of both organisations extend beyond internal teams. For example, where a deputy requires insight into a niche area of practice, the likelihood of identifying relevant expertise through established connections is significantly increased. This supports more informed decision making.

3. Alignment with values led practice
For many deputies, the ethos of a provider is as important as its capability. A model that prioritises stewardship, collaboration, and long-term sustainability offers reassurance that decisions are being made in the best interests of clients, not short-term commercial pressures.

Looking ahead

This is still an evolving relationship, and that is by design. Nothing is being imposed prematurely. Instead, both organisations are allowing the model to develop organically, shaped by the people within it and the needs of those they support.
For professional deputies, the key takeaway is not simply that two companies have come together, but how they have chosen to do so.

In a sector where scale is often equated with progress, this approach offers an alternative. One that prioritises stewardship over ownership, collaboration over consolidation, and long-term value over short term gain.

That distinction is likely to become increasingly relevant in the years ahead.
For more information about us please do look at our websites – AKA Case Management and Social Return Case Management Ltd.

]]><![CDATA[Understanding the impact of the AGNI judgement: A person-centred approach at Social Return]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 07:58:39 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/understanding-the-impact-of-the-agni-judgement-a-person-centred-approach-at-social-return

The legal framework surrounding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoL Test) is evolving, bringing an important shift in how professionals assess whether someone is being deprived of their liberty.

At Social Return, we welcome guidance that places emphasis on the individual, their understanding of their own circumstances, and ensuring that every person’s situation is considered on its own merits. We believe the focus should always remain on the individual and what matters most to them.

What was the Acid Test?

For many years, professionals relied on what became known as the Acid Test. The Cheshire West 2014 judgment concluded that someone is confined if they are under continuous supervision and control and are not free to leave. It proceeded on the basis that, if someone lacks mental capacity to consent to their care and living arrangements under MCA 2005, they cannot give valid consent to their confinement.

While this provided a clear legal framework, it may be that it did not always capture the complexity of an individual’s lived experience

What has changed?

The new guidance encourages practitioners to look beyond these two questions. Although supervision, control and freedom to leave remain relevant considerations, they are no longer viewed in isolation. Professionals are now encouraged to consider a much broader picture. We must look at the person’s whole situation, including:

What restrictions are in place?
How long have they been there?
What is daily life like?
How restrictive is the placement compared to ordinary life?
What is the purpose of the arrangements?

The person does not need legal mental capacity to make accommodation decisions. Therefore, we must also ask:

Do they know where they are living?
Do they understand what is happening around them?
Can they express views about their situation?

Why individual assessment matters

At Social Return, this reinforces something that has always been central to our practice: every client is different.

No two people have the same needs, experiences or wishes, so every assessment should consider the whole person rather than simply applying a legal formula. Importantly, someone appearing settled should never automatically be interpreted as consenting to their situation.

The key is understanding the individual, rather than making assumptions.

Looking beyond acceptance

One area we are paying particular attention to is the difference between accepting a situation and truly understanding the available alternatives.

For example, one of our clients lives in a care home and had previously been subject to a DoL safeguard authorisation.

When reviewing the case against the new guidance, the client was able to explain where they lived, understood that they were living in a care home, recognised the support they received, and consistently expressed that they felt safe and settled there.

At first glance, this might suggest that a DoL may no longer be required.

However, our role is not to stop there.

It is equally important to explore whether the person genuinely understands the other options available to them.
Could a different living arrangement provide greater independence?
Have alternative options been discussed in a way that the individual can understand?
Is their agreement based on an informed choice rather than simply becoming accustomed to their current circumstances?

These are important conversations that deserve careful consideration.

A thoughtful and balanced approach

As the legal landscape continues to develop, we are reviewing clients who currently have DoL safeguards in place against the new guidance.

Some individuals may continue to require these safeguards because the restrictions remain appropriate and necessary. Others may need their circumstances reconsidered.

What is important is that no assumptions are made. Every client deserves an individual assessment that carefully considers their understanding, wishes, feelings and lived experience.

Ultimately, it is too early to know if the changes will be positive or negative but perhaps it presents an opportunity to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. There may be less oversight of individuals' care and accommodation arrangements in some circumstances, but whether this is positive for the person or not will depend on those circumstances, the support available to them in the process, and how the guidance is applied.

]]><![CDATA[BABICM Poster 2026]]>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:44:07 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/babicm-poster-2026

Time Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness in Support Worker Recruitment: A Comparative Analysis of Specialist Care Agency Versus Case Manager Direct Recruitment Models

Authors: Haxon, D; Jones, C; Linton, L; Purdy, K; Taylor, M (2026)

Introduction

Securing consistent, high-quality support worker services is critical for effective and sustainable care; however, the recruitment and retention of suitable staff for complex packages of care is a challenging aspect of case management (1). Social Return Case Management conducted a comparative study to investigate the most time-efficient and cost-effective recruitment method: utilising specialist care recruitment agencies versus direct, case manager (CM) led recruitment, an activity many CMs are often asked to perform.

Affording a client the opportunity of successful recruitment and retention of staff requires effective use of human resources, finance and recruitment expertise. Maximising these elements should ensure clients are recruiting and retaining high-quality staff (2)(3).

It is hypothesised that the use of specialist care recruitment agencies can meet this need in a more time- and cost-effective way and support the long-term retention of staff compared to CMs facilitating this process with, at times, less experience, expertise and resources.

Methodology/Approach

We undertook a detailed cost and time analysis to compare the expenses and hours associated with recruiting and retaining support workers for each service model. This included the direct recruitment costs and resource allocation managed by CMs versus costs associated with external agencies.

The study included 5 participants, comprising 3 CM companies and 2 specialist care recruitment agencies. Quantitative data were derived from answers to standardised questions regarding the time and cost of recruiting one support worker per client with complex care needs in the last 18 months.

During the course of the data gathering process, additional anecdotal and qualitative information was received that was not suitable for statistical analysis and direct comparison within the data set. However, this information was considered within the wider context of the study.

Results/Findings

Based on statistical analysis of quantitative data, there is a significant difference between CM companies and specialist care recruitment agencies in terms of cost and time effectiveness, with each showing a distinct strength. Specialist care recruitment agencies are demonstrably more time-efficient in the initial hiring process, spending an average of only 16 hours to recruit one support worker, compared to an average of 41 hours by CM companies. This suggests that specialist care recruitment agencies are more time-effective.

CM companies show greater effectiveness in the later stages of the recruitment funnel, converting candidates into retained employees at a much higher rate. CM companies achieved an Offer Acceptance Rate of 96.7%, compared with 30% for specialist recruitment agencies. Furthermore, the 12-Week Retention Rate was 93.3% for CM companies, exceeding the specialist recruitment agencies' rate of 85%. CM companies also proved more effective in initial screening, with an 86.7% Shortlisted-to-Interview Rate compared to 68.4% achieved by specialist care recruitment agencies.

Conclusion/Implications

The results partly support our hypothesis regarding short-term time efficiency of specialist recruitment agencies but indicate an interesting additional outcome regarding long-term benefits of CM direct recruitment and retention.

The optimal strategy therefore depends on client needs. Specialist care recruiters suit urgent, quick vacancy fills, whereas the CM model is superior for long-term stability, which is core to CM good practice detailed with the BABICM competencies (4).

These findings are limited by a very small sample size; therefore, future research is required using a similar methodology with a larger, more diverse sample of companies and models. It is recommended that a further study also explores the value of brain injury training for support worker retention (5); and the potential impact of the Employment Rights Act (2025) (6) on support worker recruitment in the medico-legal context, especially for settled cases involving finite funds.

References

(1) Norman A, Holloway M, Dean J, Patterson A, Needham-Holmes B, Curro V, et al. Working Within a Perfect Storm: The Current UK Care Crisis in Community Neurorehabilitation. Journal of Long-Term Care, 2024. Available from https://journal.ilpnetwork.org/articles/10.31389/jltc.336  [Accessed: 02/02/2026]
(2) Northern Ireland Social Care Council: Evidence review - what works in recruitment and retention of social care workers? [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://niscc.info/app/uploads/2023/09/What-works-in-Retention.pdf [Accessed: 15/01/2026]
(3) Kings Fund: Health and Social Care Committee workforce inquiry: recruitment, training and retention in health and social care [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://assets.kingsfund.org.uk/f/256914/x/c231b020c9/submission_health_social_care_committee_workforce_inquiry_recruitment_2022.pdf [Accessed: 15/01/2026]
(4) BABICM Standards & Competencies Guide - BABICM [Internet]. BABICM. 2024. Available from: https://www.babicm.org/standards-guide-public/  [Accessed:15/02/2026]
(5) Grewal J, Kennedy CJ, Rinni Mamman, Janelle Breese Biagioni, Garcia-Barrera MA, Schmidt J. Understanding the barriers and facilitators of healthcare services for brain injury and concurrent mental health and substance use issues: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 2024. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11295555/  [Accessed: 15}

]]><![CDATA[Co-production in case management: helping people shape their own future]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 06:01:24 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/co-production-in-case-management-helping-people-shape-their-own-future

Co-production Week 2026, organised by SCIE, shines a spotlight on the importance of working in partnership with people and families to create more equitable care. This year's theme, "Care Equity: Who Gets Care?", recognises that everyone should have access to high quality support and the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.

At Social Return Case Management, co-production sits at the heart of everything we do. We know that every individual and family has unique experiences, values and goals. Rather than doing things to people, we work alongside them, listening, guiding and supporting them to have a voice in decisions about their own care and future.

What is co-production?

Co-production is about genuine partnership. It means professionals, individuals and families working together, sharing knowledge and making decisions collaboratively.
Case managers, therapists and support teams bring expertise and experience, but the individual and their family bring something equally valuable: their lived experience, preferences and aspirations. By combining these perspectives, we can develop support that is meaningful, sustainable and truly person-centred.
Sometimes co-production means leading and advocating. At other times it means stepping back, listening and allowing people to take control at a pace that feels right for them.

Why is co-production important in case management?

Following a life-changing injury or illness, individuals and families often find themselves navigating complex medical, legal and rehabilitation systems. It can feel overwhelming, and decisions are sometimes made quickly or involve multiple professionals.

Co-production helps ensure that people remain at the centre of these conversations. It gives individuals the opportunity to understand information, express their wishes and influence the support they receive.

This approach builds confidence, promotes independence and helps create long-term solutions that reflect what matters most to the individual and their family.

Case study one: supporting a young person to find their voice

As one young person approached adulthood, there was a growing desire to be more involved in decisions that would affect their future. For many years, conversations had largely been directed towards parents and professionals. Although the young person had decision-making capacity, the volume and complexity of information could sometimes feel overwhelming.

It became clear that traditional ways of communicating were not always the most effective. Rather than presenting large amounts of information at once, the case manager worked with the wider team to break discussions into smaller, more manageable stages. Information was adapted to suit the young person's preferred learning style, with visual approaches and additional processing time helping them understand choices and feel more confident expressing their views.

The focus shifted from asking for quick answers to creating space for reflection and meaningful participation. This journey required patience from everyone involved, but gradually the young person developed greater confidence and a stronger sense of ownership over important decisions.

It also meant supporting parents through a transition that many families experience, recognising that although adulthood arrives legally at eighteen, emotional development and confidence continue to grow over time.

Through co-production, the young person was empowered to move from being a passive participant to becoming an active voice in shaping their future.

Case study two: helping a family reconnect with decision-making

Another family had spent several years involved in a lengthy litigation process. Understandably, the emotional and practical demands had led to significant fatigue. Over time, the parent had stepped back from many decisions and allowed professionals to take the lead in managing therapy and support.

As the litigation process came to an end, there was an opportunity to re-engage and explore what family life should look like in the future. The care being delivered was of a high standard, but the parent wanted to become more involved again and ensure that support reflected what mattered most to the family.

Co-production meant creating a safe space for conversations, listening to what had become important and encouraging new ideas to be explored. Some approaches being trialled were not necessarily those professionals would traditionally suggest, but the team recognised the value of working alongside the family and being open to different ways of achieving positive outcomes.

There was no expectation of immediate change. Instead, the process focused on rebuilding confidence, sharing experiences and finding solutions together. The aim was not for professionals to direct the journey, but to support the family to shape a future that worked for them.

Working alongside people, not ahead of them

At Social Return Case Management, we recognise that we join people for only a small part of their journey. Our role is not always to lead. Sometimes the most valuable thing we can do is listen, ask questions and help individuals and families discover their own voice.

Co-production is not about professionals having all the answers. It is about creating partnerships built on trust, curiosity and shared decision-making.

By working together, we can help people move beyond simply receiving care and instead become active participants in shaping the life they want to live.

]]><![CDATA[Global insights from the 2026 International Paediatric Brain Injury Society Conference in Calgary]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 10:24:43 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/global-insights-from-the-2026-international-paediatric-brain-injury-society-conference-in-calgary

In May, Vicki Gilman attended the International Paediatric Brain Injury Society (IPBIS) Biennial Conference in Calgary, Canada. Bringing together around 400 professionals from across the world, the conference provided an opportunity to hear about emerging research, share experiences and explore how different countries are supporting children and young people following brain injury.

There were only 17 delegates from the UK; therefore, the event offered a valuable opportunity to learn from clinicians, researchers, and rehabilitation professionals working across a wide range of healthcare systems globally. Despite differences in healthcare systems, there was remarkable agreement on what constitutes good practice and where future research should focus.

Some key themes and learning points Vicki shared with us from the conference.

Participation remains the most meaningful outcome.

In paediatric neurorehabilitation, meaningful outcome measurement worldwide and in the literature centres on participation.

Measuring participation and quality of life is globally considered more meaningful than concentrating solely on physical recovery. A variety of outcome measures are being used worldwide to support this approach, reflecting the growing emphasis on understanding how children function in everyday life.

Diagnosis and its relationship to prediction of long-term outcome

One significant highlight was the recognition that classifying acquired brain injury simply as mild, moderate or severe using the Glasgow Coma Scale is inadequate when predicting long-term outcomes.

Work led by Professor Geoff Manley is seeking to redress this in adults, and now similar work is taking place in paediatrics.

In summary, there are four pillars being proposed to provide better diagnostic and prognostic labelling of brain injuries:

GCS at injury
Biomarkers
Scan evidence
Modifiers

We can expect, over the coming years, to see a changing picture of the initial diagnosis, which should assist in prognosis at earlier stages and will likely guide rehabilitation funding and provision.

Outcome measurement

There are a variety of different outcome measures being used to measure participation. Those discussed at the conference included:
Global measures

Physical Ability and Mobility Scale (PAMS)
Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM)
Community Balance & Mobility Scale (CB&M)
Acquired Brain Injury Challenge Assessment (ABI-CA)
Return 2 Play (R2Play)
Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM)

These were generally presented as useful and worth consideration depending on client group and stage of recovery and rehabilitation.

Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM) – widely used but often not favoured as the most appropriate measurement tool by rehab professionals

Other more specific outcome measures were also widely utilised such as timed walking tests, The Berg Balance Scale, a range of specific neuropsychological tests and fatigue rating scales.

Co-production must be central, not an afterthought.

A consistent message throughout the conference was the importance of involving children, young people and families in service design and delivery.

Experts by experience are increasingly recognised as essential partners in rehabilitation. Their involvement helps ensure that services address not only clinical needs but also the social, emotional and psychological challenges faced by families.

Rather than being an additional element, co-production is becoming embedded in service planning from the earliest stages.

Supporting the whole family improves outcomes.

Across the conference presentations highlighted the profound impact that brain injury has on parents, siblings and wider family networks.

Each family member experiences the journey differently, and research continues to demonstrate that outcomes improve when support is available to the whole family, rather than focusing solely on the injured child.

Speakers also discussed the psychological impact of medical interventions and prolonged hospital stays. Although these interventions are often necessary, they can have long-lasting consequences for family members, including post-traumatic stress symptoms.
Supporting families as active participants in rehabilitation remains fundamental to achieving better long-term outcomes.

Understanding the impact of intensive care

Emerging research is beginning to explore Paediatric Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS-p).
Time spent in intensive care can itself have significant physical, emotional and cognitive effects which may add to the complexity of neurological rehabilitation.

Although more research currently exists in adults, increasing attention is being given to understanding how these issues affect children and young people following brain injury.

Vestibular difficulties may be more common than previously recognised.

Another important area discussed was vestibular dysfunction. It is likely that most of the brain-injured children at all levels of injury will have vestibular disturbance. This is not well recognised globally and can be long-lasting.

This may not present as a classical dizziness complaint and should be screened for, as it is often very treatable. There can be challenges to diagnosis in the very young and the most severely affected children.

Sleep is increasingly recognised as part of recovery.

Sleep was another recurring theme throughout the conference.
Children recovering from brain injury frequently experience disrupted sleep, especially during hospital admissions. There is growing recognition that poor sleep may have wider consequences for neurological recovery, emotional wellbeing and overall health.

Although further research is needed, sleep is increasingly recognised as a key component of recovery, neurological health, and well-being.

Technology and brain-computer interfaces

A fascinating area of discussion, full of exciting possibilities for research and clinical application was brain-computer interfaces (BCIs).

Although research in children currently lags behind adult services, presentations demonstrated how non-invasive technologies are already being used to promote engagement, communication and participation.

Non-invasive BCIs have been used to support education, social interaction, home-based tasks, and music and gaming.

These technologies offer exciting opportunities and are likely to become an increasingly important area of development over the coming years.

Children deserve the same pace of progress seen in adult rehabilitation.

A recurring theme was the disparity between advances in adult brain injury rehabilitation and what is currently available for children and young people.

The international paediatric community is acutely aware of this gap and is actively working to ensure that children benefit from the same pace of innovation and research.

There was a strong sense of optimism and shared purpose throughout the conference, with professionals across the globe committed to improving outcomes and advancing knowledge together.

Bringing global learning back into practice

Reflecting on the conference, Vicki told us,

“One of the most inspiring aspects of attending IPBIS was seeing how much agreement exists internationally about what good rehabilitation looks like. While healthcare systems, demographics and geography differ from country to country, there is a shared commitment to improving participation, supporting families and involving people with lived experience. It reinforces the importance of continuing to learn from colleagues across the world and bringing those insights back into our own practice."

Professional development and staying connected to international research are important parts of delivering high-quality case management. We would like to thank Vicki for taking the time to summarise what she learnt at this event. Conferences such as IPBIS provide valuable opportunities to reflect, challenge assumptions and ensure that children, young people and families continue to benefit from the very best evidence and emerging practice from around the world.

]]><![CDATA[Great Mental Health Care is Human]]>Wed, 13 May 2026 07:50:31 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/great-mental-health-care-is-human

Mental Health Awareness Week is an important reminder that good support is not only about systems, appointments, and clinical pathways. It’s about people. This year, the theme promoted by Mind is simple but powerful: “Great mental health care is human.”

At Social Return Case Management, that message strongly reflects how we support people living with acquired brain injury (ABI) and how we support our own team. When someone’s life changes after a brain injury, what matters most is often not only the treatment they receive, but how they are treated as a person.

An acquired brain injury can affect every area of someone’s life. It can change the way a person thinks, communicates, manages emotions, builds relationships, or sees themselves. Recovery is rarely straightforward. Every individual’s experience is different, which is why a human-centred approach matters so much.

As highlighted in the Mental Health Awareness Week campaign, great mental health care “isn’t just clinical, it’s human.”

Seeing the person, not the diagnosis

Human-centred care means treating people as partners in their own support, rather than passive recipients of care. It’s about listening carefully, recognising strengths, understanding lived experience, and adapting support around the individual.
For people with ABI, this approach is essential.

We understand that rehabilitation is not simply about clinical outcomes. It’s about helping someone rebuild confidence, independence, identity, and a sense of routine in a way that feels meaningful to them.

That means taking time to understand:

What matters most to the individual.
How do they want to live their life?
What challenges do they face day to day?
What support will genuinely help them move forward?

No two people experience brain injury in the same way, so no two support plans should look the same.

The human approach in practice

Human-centred care is often found in the small moments that make people feel heard, respected, and safe.

It also means recognising the emotional impact of ABI, not only the physical or cognitive effects. Many people living with brain injury experience anxiety, low mood, frustration, isolation, or changes in identity. Supporting mental well-being is therefore not separate from rehabilitation; it’s part of it.

Supporting the whole support network

A human-centred approach also recognises that people do not recover in isolation.
Families, carers, therapists, solicitors, and wider professionals all play an important role. Good case management brings these people together in a coordinated and respectful way, helping reduce stress and create stability for the individual at the centre of support.

Looking after the people who provide support

Human-centred care should not stop with the client experience. It also applies to the teams delivering that care.

Supporting people with complex needs requires empathy, resilience, reflection, and compassion. That is why creating a positive and supportive culture within case management teams is so important.

We recognise that when professionals feel supported themselves, they are better able to provide thoughtful, responsive, and person-centred support to others.

This means encouraging:

Collaboration and shared learning.
Open communication.
Professional reflection.
Emotional well-being within teams.
A culture built on kindness and respect.

Strong teams create stronger outcomes for the people they support.

This Mental Health Awareness Week

Mental Health Awareness Week is a valuable opportunity to reflect on what truly makes support effective.

We remain committed to delivering support that sees the whole person, not simply the injury. Because great mental health care is human.

]]><![CDATA[A New Chapter Together: AKA Case Management & Social Return Case Management]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 13:47:32 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/a-new-chapter-together-aka-case-management-social-return-case-management

We are pleased to share that AKA Case Management and Social Return Case Management are formally coming together as sister companies. Although legally structured as an acquisition by AKA, what’s really happening is the joining of two organisations that have been working alongside each other for many years, sharing values, a commitment to people‑centred practice, and a belief in doing things differently.

It’s the next step in a relationship built on trust, mutual respect, and a shared vision for the future of case management.

Why are we coming together?

For more than 10 years, the leaders of both organisations have known each other, collaborated, and exchanged ideas. Over the past 18 months, we have been exploring how we might create something new for the sector, something that protects independence, strengthens standards, and puts people at the centre of decision‑making.

We believe there is a different model for the evolution of small case management companies, one that is not driven by commercial exit strategies or corporate consolidation, but by a genuine desire to protect values, support staff, and create long‑term sustainability.

A shared future shaped by us together

Support each other more meaningfully.
Strengthen our services across wider regions.
Increase opportunities for our teams.
Share learning, experience and good practice
Improve standards across both companies.

This is about continuing what’s already been happening: two companies that think alike, choosing to grow alongside each other rather than in competition.

What will stay the same

Both companies will continue to operate independently but will collaborate more.
Roles, leadership structures or reporting lines.
Case managers will continue working with clients exactly as they do now.
Clients will keep the high-quality relationships and continuity they value.
The values and ethos of both organisations remain at the centre of all that we do.

What will evolve over time?

Together, we will explore opportunities to:

Improve systems, standards and working practices.
Enhance cultural alignment, fairness, and transparency.
Build a more supportive experience for everyone who works with us.

We will do this with staff involvement and honest conversations. Nothing is predetermined; this journey will be shaped by the people who work here.

A different kind of ownership model

This step is intentionally non‑traditional. We see that there is another way for companies to evolve and for owners to step back without compromising the qualities that make case management meaningful.

A shared future shaped by us together.

Although this is formally an acquisition, it doesn’t feel like one. And that’s intentional for both AKA Case Management and Social Return Case Management.

We see ourselves as equal partners, bringing together the strengths of two organisations that care deeply about doing right by their teams and clients. While the legal structure was the simplest route, the philosophy behind it is one of collaboration rather than ownership.

This is the natural next chapter in a long‑standing relationship: two companies joining forces to protect independence, raise standards, and create a positive future for everyone who relies on case management.

We are excited for what comes next and grateful to our teams, clients, and partners for being part of the journey.

]]><![CDATA[Navigating the Festive Season with an Acquired Brain Injury:]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 08:05:15 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/navigating-the-festive-season-with-an-acquired-brain-injury

Balancing tradition, rest, and connection in a season of competing priorities.

December has arrived, and with it comes high expectations of fun and festivities. Many of us will now be looking forward to shared meals, family gatherings and homes filled with food, drinks, bright lights and decorations. However, for a brain injury survivor, this heightened environment can present a complex challenge. The disruption to daily structure, combined with increased noise and activity, can make what many of us consider to be a restorative time, quickly become tiring and overwhelming.

During this season, spending time with those close to us, reconnecting with our extended family and friends and keeping up with family traditions all feel important. But trying to meet these commitments can also disrupt the routines that support our everyday life. For someone with a brain injury, these seasonal changes can be especially challenging. It's a delicate balance: traditions give us a sense of belonging, social gatherings help us feel connected, while routines provide stability. Yet when the environment becomes visually busier, when quiet spaces are harder to protect, or when familiar rhythms are interrupted, the impact can be felt more keenly. While there may always be a ‘trade off’ between maintaining structure and enjoying opportunities to break with routine and share in the fun, recognising this tension and planning ahead can sometimes help us to shape celebrations in ways that feel restorative rather than draining.

The Individual Experience

Everyone's needs are different. For some, the sensory richness of the festive season can be energising. For others, background chatter, visual clutter, or changes in routine can quickly lead to fatigue or anxiety. As families and carers will attest, the key is often noticing how the individual responds and shaping the day around that.
Families can often find themselves reframing traditions. Someone who once led the decorating may now prefer to watch quietly, saving energy for the meal itself. A person who loved long evenings of conversation may now find greater joy in shorter, more focused exchanges. These shifts aren't losses so much as adaptations, ways of preserving connection while respecting limits.

Navigating Social Dynamics and Fatigue

Social interaction can be one of the most tiring aspects of the season. Following the ‘back and forth’ of a multi-person conversation, processing non-verbal cues, and filtering background noise draws heavily on cognitive reserves. Spending time in a busy living room can often be far more draining than the same time spent engaged in a quiet one-to-one chat, particularly for those of us who struggle with cognitive difficulties or differences, or with maintaining their attention. Some individuals may cope well with more stimulating environments for shorter periods of time but will need to balance these periods with time to rest and recover.

Counterintuitively, creating limits and boundaries may even create richer experiences. A shorter visit can mean more focused genuine connection. A quiet break between courses may allow someone to return with renewed energy. When these kinds of adjustments are encouraged, normalised and shared they can become new rituals, the person can rest without guilt, and we can enjoy time together and time on their own to rest without pushing past thresholds.

Managing the Disruption to Routine

The festive period often interrupts the weekly rhythm. Therapy sessions may pause, support rotas shift, and familiar structures can be harder to maintain. For someone who relies on these anchors for orientation or motivation, the change may be unsettling.

Maintaining a few consistent touchpoints makes a real difference. A morning routine, regular mealtimes, or a protected rest period in the afternoon reduces the cognitive load of navigating the day. These anchors allow the person to engage with the season without feeling adrift. They also provide continuity across years, helping Christmas remain recognisable even as traditions evolve.

Beyond Practicalities: Meaning and Memory

Much of the conversation around ABI and Christmas focuses on logistics, quiet rooms, pacing, noise management. Yet what often matters most is identity and meaning. Some families may grieve the "old Christmas" while trying to create a new one. The decorations may look the same, but their significance shifts. A calmer or differently paced day can still carry the weight of tradition, just in a different form.

Memory adds another layer. For some people, photos, journals, or symbolic keepsakes help bridge the gap between past and present. These rituals create continuity, allowing the person to feel part of a longer story rather than a single disrupted day.

Quick Wins for a Restorative Festive Season

Some of the strategies individuals and their families may find helpful can include:

Creating time and a quiet space for breaks and rest
Using noise-cancelling headphones/noise reducing earplugs during busy gatherings
Keeping decorations simple in some parts of the home to reduce visual clutter
Planning shorter visiting windows rather than marathon days
Maintaining one or two daily routines as anchors
Capturing moments through photos or keepsakes to support continuity and finding the time to reminisce using photos and keepsakes from years gone by

As we know, everyone is different and what works for one person and their family will not necessarily work for another. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we all learn through experience the strategies that work for us. Whatever works for you, being able to openly discuss our needs and articulate them to others in our extended family or wider networks may help to lessen the burden of expectation that can sometimes weigh down on us during the festive season.

Conclusion

Approaching the festive season with a focus on neurological wellbeing doesn't need to dampen the spirit of the occasion. It reframes what a successful celebration can be. For families adjusting to life with a brain injury, making adjustments so that the individual feels safe and connected can be far more valuable than a high-octane event that ends in exhaustion. That said, there will be times when individuals feel the need to ‘push through’ when an activity or event feels particularly important or meaningful. While there isn’t a recipe for the perfect Christmas, it can be important to set aside the time to consider where the person feels their energy is best spent, through the lens of the meaning and joy the activity can provide.

The paradox is that limits often deepen connection. By balancing our current needs with tradition, families can discover new ways of celebrating that feel both enjoyable and sustainable, and where it feels important to maintain old traditions, there are often ways of adapting them to make participating less draining and more sustainable into the future.

]]><![CDATA[Two Sides of the Coin...]]>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:03:07 GMThttps://www.social-return.co.uk/news/two-sides-of-the-coin

In the latest addition of BABICM’s insight Magazine (June 2025, Issue 06) you will find an article by our very own Jackie Waggott entitled ‘Two Sides of the Coin: Mindset and Motivation in my Clients and Myself’.

Jackie’s article offers an insightful look at the psychological challenges of rehabilitation, focusing on mindset and motivation through the ups and downs of recovery. As an experienced case manager, she explores how individuals adjusting to life after a brain injury often face frustration, uncertainty, and setbacks, making emotional resilience just as crucial as physical progress.

She highlights the unpredictable nature of motivation—how it can fluctuate with fatigue, setbacks, or small wins—and stresses the importance of a supportive approach rather than expecting clients to simply “comply” with rehabilitation. Case managers play a key role in this process, helping individuals find purpose, set meaningful goals, and stay engaged even when progress feels slow.

Jackie also reflects on the reality of the case manager's role—the pressure, the doubt, and the emotional toll of supporting clients through difficult moments. But amidst the challenges, there are real successes: moments of regained independence, families finding common ground, and clients rediscovering hope.

It’s a candid, thoughtful discussion on the emotional complexity of rehabilitation, relevant to anyone working in healthcare, case management, or recovery support. Definitely worth a read!

]]>