Social Care – Less and Carefree: An UPDATE
- Deception Detection Lab
- Mar 18
- 3 min read
Date of publication - 18th March 2025 at 13.22
LinkedIn post link -
Introduction
Last week we posted how Forensic Statement and Linguistic Analysis can be of significant value and how it can be applied to everyday life with notable effect.
Our example involved an at-home elderly patient suffering from dementia who received daily home help from a Care Team. Part of this help required the team to get her up, get her washed and dressed and provide breakfast before clearing and tidying up. Afterwards, the Carer recorded and logged the visit notes.
On one visit, the Carer had written, ‘The patient went to get herself dressed. After this, I made her some breakfast’.
The patient hadn’t been dressed and was wearing her night clothes at lunch time.
When asked about this, the Care Company advised that the Carer had recorded that the patient had gotten herself dressed. This is not what was said, at no point did the Carer write this. The Carer noted an ‘intention’ that being where the patient, ‘went to get herself dressed’ which is an incomplete action. The Carer at no point said that the patient was dressed.
A Real-Life Example - UPDATE
The Care Company had promised to check what had happened and advise. They didn’t. Upon being chased, the Supervisor, who was unaware of the situation, promptly dealt with the issue.
They spoke to the Care Giver who explained that they let the patient go for a wash and that the patient went into their bedroom to get dressed, adding, ‘the patient usually puts on their own dressing gown.’ This is unnecessary information and is necessary for the Care Giver to say it.
When there is a need to mention the word, ‘usually’ or any variant thereof, the opposite can be expected.
School kids know that when they hear a story which says, ‘It was a normal day unlike any other...’ that something, ‘not normal’ is about to happen.
In adding, ‘the patient usually puts on their own dressing gown,’ the Care Giver is anticipating being asked about this. This is extremely sensitive to them. This is not to say that the patient had put on their dressing gown, only that they ‘usually’ do so
The Care Giver was then asked, ‘Did you watch the patient get changed?’
A better question to ask would have been, ‘Was the patient dressed?’ or ‘Had the patient changed into their day clothes?’
To which the Care Giver replied, ‘They said they were getting dressed’. This in itself is unexpected as the patient was at risk when dressing alone due to a lack of stability and should not have been left unattended.
The question required a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. The Care Giver did not answer the question. Rather, they doubled down on their original statement that, ‘The patient went to get herself dressed’.
We can deduce that;
The Care Giver is Deceptive.
The Care Giver is unable to say that they watched the patient get changed.
The Care Giver is unable to say the patient was dressed.
The Care Giver has a need to say the patient ‘usually’ puts on their own dressing gown.
The Care Giver is consistent in their deception by doubling down on their original statement.
There is a lot that the Care Giver knows but is ‘unable’ to bring themselves to say.
The patient was at risk and neglected.
The Care Company are reviewing the Care Givers actions and will be undertaking spot checks. Readers with vulnerable elderly parents – please take note.
For further information and training in moving from everyday ‘dulled’ listening to ‘active’ listening and on being the difference that makes the difference in any situation, please contact us.
All blog subjects are identified, validated and written by the DDL Team. See www.ddlltd.com for more on Deception Detection Lab Ltd. If you would like us to analyse some interesting words, then please get in touch. We are happy to give you a blog credit or else publish anonymously, if you would prefer.
