Part 2 — continued 

Safeguarding Risks Created by the 2026 Assessment

This section explains how the clinically impossible findings recorded in the 2026 assessment created direct safeguarding risks. It shows how misrepresenting a permanent neurological impairment as intermittent or variable reduced recognition of vulnerability, obscured functional‑vision needs, and undermined the safety measures required to protect a vulnerable adult.

2.6 — Safeguarding Risks Created by the 2026 Assessment

 

The 2026 assessment did more than produce clinically incorrect findings. It created direct safeguarding risks by misrepresenting the young person’s neurological impairment and reducing the visibility of their functional‑vision needs.

 

Safeguarding is not only about protection from abuse. It includes ensuring that vulnerable individuals receive accurate clinical information, because inaccurate information leads to unsafe decisions, unsafe expectations, and unsafe environments.

 

Misrepresenting a permanent impairment as “intermittent” reduces recognition of risk

 

The 2026 letter described key neurological features — including vertical nystagmus and impaired eye‑movement control — as:

  • “intermittent”
  • “variable”
  • “inconsistent”

These descriptions imply:

  • reduced severity
  • reduced functional impact
  • reduced vulnerability
  • reduced need for support

This is clinically incorrect and dangerous.

 

When a permanent neurological impairment is described as fluctuating, professionals may assume:

  • the young person can manage independently
  • the impairment is mild
  • the impairment is situational
  • the impairment does not require adjustments
  • the impairment does not create risk

None of these assumptions are true.

Incorrect findings lead to unsafe recommendations

 

If a clinician believes that:

  • nystagmus is intermittent
  • spatial‑awareness deficits are variable
  • eye‑movement control is inconsistent
  • functional vision is better than it is

then any recommendations based on those beliefs will be unsafe.

 

This can affect:

  • mobility
  • navigation
  • access to services
  • educational or employment expectations
  • daily‑living tasks
  • risk assessments
  • safeguarding decisions

A vulnerable adult cannot be safely supported if the clinical information used to guide decisions is inaccurate.

Routine optometry cannot detect functional‑vision risk

 

The young person’s greatest vulnerabilities arise in real‑world environments, where:

  • movement
  • depth
  • spatial layout
  • visual overload
  • environmental complexity

all interact with neurological impairment.

 

Routine optometry does not measure any of these.

 

By relying on routine methods, the 2026 assessment:

  • failed to identify functional‑vision limitations
  • failed to recognise environmental risk
  • failed to document the young person’s real‑world needs
  • failed to provide information necessary for safe support

This is a safeguarding failure.

The 2026 letter undermined continuity of care

 

Safeguarding depends on:

  • accurate records
  • consistent information
  • recognition of long‑term needs
  • continuity between clinicians

The 2026 assessment broke this continuity by:

  • contradicting the 30‑year baseline
  • presenting clinically impossible variability
  • implying improvement where none is possible
  • creating a misleading clinical narrative

This can lead to:

  • reduced support
  • inappropriate expectations
  • unsafe independence
  • misinformed professionals
  • missed risk indicators

Why this matters for governance

 

Safeguarding frameworks require that:

  • vulnerable individuals are assessed accurately
  • clinical information is reliable
  • impairments are not minimised
  • risk is not obscured
  • professionals have the correct information to make safe decisions

The 2026 assessment did not meet these standards.

 

By misrepresenting a permanent neurological impairment as intermittent and variable, it created avoidable safeguarding risk and undermined the young person’s safety.

 

This is not a clinical disagreement. It is a governance concern.

These governance concerns form the foundation for the next section, which examines how the 2026 assessment created systemic failures in record‑keeping, continuity of care, and clinical decision‑making.

Next Governance Failures Embedded in the 2026 Assessment

 

Next

Governance Failures Embedded in the 2026 Assessment

 

 

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved

UA-54289644-1