Swift,

Hopefully people reading this list will think about the need for medical evidence 
that is fit for purpose. Then when 2009/10 students start appearing in 
university disability services, the staff will be attuned to the fact that the 
forms are different from previous years.

With regard to timeliness. This is a concern at the moment for all students 
going through SFE applications of any kind. It’s a busy time and it makes 
sense to try to send acceptable evidence first off rather than risk having to 
rejoin a queue with additional information, 

Amanda






On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:37:56 +0100, swift <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I agree with Amanda that discovering what is 'fit for purpose' and how to
>get it is probably the main concern for students applying for this coming
>Autumn to SFE for the first time, as well as timeliness.
>
>I am lucky to have a supportive GP now, who after discussing through the
>revised wording is willing to comment on how my condition affects my study
>providing I explain to him (and it fits with the clinical
>picture/specialists' letters)...but with all of my previous DSA applications
>(NHS and LEA) were fine with a letter stating medical condition and what
>parts of the body were affected (as previous GP in 2003 felt commenting on
>how my condition affects my study was beyond their remit unless they could
>watch me study).
>
>From an AHP point of view, I certainly would not feel it ethical to comment
>on somebody's ability to study unless I had specialist training in
>education, so would be looking at the same, "Pt reports difficulty with x
>due to y"...how is that different from the student saying, apart from cost?
>(My GP certainly stated this morning that he felt I was best placed to
>comment).
>
>I do note what
>
>2009/6/19 Amanda Kent <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> What is it that needs clarification here? The priority seems to be working
>> out
>> the impact of changes to the documentation and taking a no-blame 
practical
>> problem solving approach to any problems that students may encounter 
with
>> the eligibility/ evidence form-filling scenario?
>>
>> There are some differences between last year’s DSA form and the 2009/10
>> one. This we know. (The forms for DSA 2008 and 2009 are on the directgov
>> website.).
>>
>> Swift and Emma have pointed out the DSA application forms have changed 
in
>> terms of the way they ask for medical evidence. This may be a concern for
>> students in terms of actually being able to find the right person to
>> provide this
>> evidence and then being sure that they have written something fit for
>> purpose. It may also involve cost because eg GPs are entitled to charge a
>> fee
>> for the production of medical reports that fall outside their contractual
>> terms
>> for NHS work. As has been mentioned on this list, HEIs may well have a
>> guide
>> or template available. But where does a student who starts in 09/10 find a
>> guide to the production of fit for purpose evidence for DSA? Is this
>> something
>> mailed out from HEIs to all known prospective disabled students? The cost
>> of
>> getting the evidence – same as SpLD students? Let them know about any 
ALF
>> arrangements?
>>
>> The question about date of last assessment should be read along with the
>> note (b) on page 24 and information about evidence p25 (as referenced
>> already in this thread). The form and notes do not indicate this is
>> relevant to
>> SpLD students only. I can see this is an area where misunderstanding is
>> likely
>> to occur and one might think this means latest blood test results or the
>> like –
>> which is maybe not the intention, but of course that kind of assessment
>> evidence is available through doctors.
>>
>> Swift and Emma’s examples demonstrates another change for students who
>> have already been through the DSA system (ie they are no longer asked
>> describe any significant changes on re-application but provide instead
>> previous DSA needs assessment reports, or information about where these
>> assessments were carried out). This is in addition to parts a) and b) of
>> that
>> section. Can’t see it is too much of a problem but it does mean the student
>> is
>> not cued at that stage to indicate what remains relevant and/or what is
>> different. That would be in the new needs assessment though.
>>
>>
>> Amanda Kent
>> DSA needs assessor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:47:36 +0100, John Conway
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >At the risk of seeming to support SFE, I think from what I've heard them
>> say
>> this is a mix-up in communication or muddled thinking.
>> >The date of last assessment does make sense in the case of an SpLD 
person
>> where it would trigger thoughts about the post-16th birthday requirement.
>> >In the case of the GP, I imagine they may have been thinking that some
>> disabilities, e.g. cancer or MS, are defined from date of diagnosis, but
>> being
>> progressive conditions may not yet actually be causing any impairment [I
>> hope
>> that's an acceptable word] and so would not fulfil the criteria for a
>> Disabled
>> Student Allowance as there is no additional need / cost and it might be
>> easiest for the medic diagnosing to state in general terms, whether the
>> medical condition is affecting life & studying???
>> >Perhaps, Chris, if I am correct, some clarification could be issued on
>> these
>> two points????
>> >
>> >John
>> >
>>
>