Special Measures – My view

Last week's announcement that adult social care providers who deliver sub-standard care face being put into Special Measures from April 2015 proved to be quite a momentous event for me. I was involved in the announcement (details here), and it understandably produced a lot of mixed reaction.

I'd like to use this blog post to clarify some of my thoughts around this issue in more detail. The singularly most important thing to stress in this debate is that the majority of care is good care. I have written extensively about the amazing care my father received from many dedicated and caring professionals (for examples see: 'Continuity is key', 'Sense and simplicity', 'End-of-life care - A very personal story') some of whom are still good friends of my family. The coverage I have given to the positive aspects of my father's care on D4Dementia and elsewhere far outweighs coverage of our negative experiences.

It is widely known that adult social care has a poor reputation, badly tainted by the actions and culture of a minority whose conduct hits the headlines in a way that the many positive stories of wonderful care never do. Yet, as I said in my statement in the press briefing for the Special Measures announcement, "Most care is excellent. Most care workers are dedicated, and often undervalued, professionals". 

I am the first to acknowledge that there are huge issues in the recruitment and retention of good care workers (see this blog post), and that the terms and conditions that many work under fall well short of the professional standing and associated remuneration that I would like to see given to care work. But none of this is an excuse for poor care. Many good care workers have terms and conditions of employment that do not fairly reflect the work that they do and yet they still deliver great care, and of course the many volunteers who help to prop up services earn nothing at all and often make an amazing contribution to the lives of vulnerable adults. 

None of that in any way belittles the issues around employment of care workers, but aligning debates about employment with debates around poor care almost gives the impression that unfair employment conditions are an excuse for poor care, when there can never be an excuse for poor care. I know for a fact that the many wonderful people who cared for my dad weren't paid enough, or valued by their employers as they should have been (one of my dad's care homes had 4 different owners in the time he lived there), but they were fundamentally dedicated and caring people who did amazing work in often very difficult circumstances.  

In terms of the proposals about Special Measures, many people have asked me what will be the difference between Special Measures and the powers CQC have now to issue warning notices and if necessary take action to remove the registration of a provider and close a service. To clarify, CQC have been asked to develop a Special Measures regime for adult social care by the Secretary of State. That process will begin in autumn 2014 and be done via the Adult Social Care Co-Production group that I am a member of. At present, the in depth details of what Special Measures in adult social care will look like are still to be decided on.

In the meantime, I have my own personal 'wish list' that draws on the experience of poor care that we had in the last 6 months of my dad's life. This list includes:

1) Timely intervention - Often vulnerable people don't have weeks and months to wait for improvements to happen. If the 'care' they are receiving is acutely failing, it could cause serious injury or premature death.

2) Targeted intervention - A Special Measures style intervention should, in my view, directly address particular concerns by signposting to resources that can make an immediate difference to the lives of the people receiving a care service. There are loads of great resources available, and accessing them doesn’t necessarily require a provider to spend a lot of money. We are very fortunate in the UK to have The Social Care Institute for Excellence and Skills for Care alongside many other innovative and highly effective national and local organisations, businesses, charities and community interest companies that can provide guidance, practical resources and be catalysts for change. Indeed, independent of regulation some care providers work with me in a consultancy capacity to evaluate, improve or change aspects of their service, so there are many proactive and forward-thinking providers out there already.

3) Sensitive intervention - It is vital to be mindful that a care home is the home of the people that live there. In my view Special Measures must do everything possible to turn a service around in a timely and targeted way without the people that live there having to find a new care home, unless of course those people want to find new care home. Having to move can be very distressing, and again possibly hasten a person's death is they are particularly frail or have advanced dementia.

4) Public accountability - I hope that, like with hospitals, Special Measures will provide clarity for families about the status of a service. Families aren't stupid - they know when care isn't good enough, but generally they are often too afraid to speak up. They need to see CQC taking firm but fair action that addresses shortcomings if a service isn’t safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led. As part of that process, I would like to see all providers actively working with families in a renewed effort towards teamwork and inclusivity in the day-to-day life of a care home.

So how are care providers likely to react? In my view, if you are a good care provider you have nothing to fear. If you are a provider who is found to have a service that is delivering sub-standard care but you are prepared to work hard on turning that service around you have nothing to fear. If, however, you are a provider of a sub-standard care service and you are complacent and disinterested in improvement then you are a danger to the people who rely on you (people receiving your care, their families and any good care workers that you employ), and anyone who may come into contact with your service in the future. It is then the role of CQC to take action and it would be indefensible if they didn't.

There is some disquiet that putting a service into Special Measures will mean that the provider cannot maintain their revenue stream if one of the conditions of Special Measures is to prevent the provider from having new admissions to their care home or new clients to their homecare service. This, however, isn't new - there was a period when one of my dad's care homes was closed to new admissions due to safeguarding. In my view this actually helps providers; it enables them to focus on their service and the improvements that are needed without the added responsibility of caring for more people, and it safeguards the public from anyone else coming to harm whilst the service implements improvements.

Is privatising care the reason poor care exists? In my view poor care can occur whether the provider is making a profit, is a not-for-profit or indeed is a public sector organisation. The causes of poor care practices are, more often than not, centred around the culture of an organisation, its leadership and in some cases individual staff teams or members. Can hospital-style Special Measures work in social care? No, because clearly there are significant differences between hospitals and social care, but there are certainly some positive examples of hospitals turning themselves around as a result of being placed into Special Measures.

Can CQC be trusted with this? As is well known, CQC didn't provide us as a family with the support we needed when my father was alive, but arguing about the regulator isn't going to change the fact that they are still the regulator. Working with them to improve social care, celebrating the outstanding examples of care and uncovering inadequate care is the only option in terms of the regulation of UK health and social care services. As I have said in the past, inspection - however rigorous and informed with intelligent monitoring - will still only be a snapshot of a service. Whistleblowing is as vital now as it has ever been, whether you are a person receiving care, a family member or a social care worker.

I believe as a country we owe it to every person who needs social care and their family to ensure that care is the very best it can be. I will always champion that regardless of who is in government and who the regulator is. I feel passionately that we must be the change we want to see, and constantly strive for improvement and the eradication of poor practice.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook 

15-minutes of shame

As a light was shone, yet again, on the huge inadequacies within our home care services as the issue of 15-minute visits hit the headlines, I decided to time my morning routine. Just how much could I as an able-bodied thirty-something, fairly fit and known to be someone who is constantly on the go, get done in 15-minutes?

Well, the answer was that I couldn’t get out of bed, make a cup of tea, cut, toast and butter my breakfast bread, use the loo, have a wash and get dressed within my 15-minutes. Something had to give for me to make my target, in fact quite a lot had to give in the end, as I like a shower rather than a quick rub over with a damp flannel, I needed to blow-dry my hair, and we’d run out of butter for the toast, so I had to pop to the shop.

It will come as no surprise to my family that it took me more than 15-minutes to get ready for the day ahead, but I hope it provides a sobering thought for anyone who believes that 15-minutes is long enough to fulfil the care needs of an older or disabled person.

This may be a person who will take most of the 15-minutes just to be helped to get out of bed. They potentially then have to choose between having a hot drink, something to eat, visiting the loo or having their incontinence pad changed or catheter checked, having the sort of wash that they would want (imagine never having the chance to enjoy a bath or shower because there is no time to help you with that), getting dressed and having their medication. Even something as simple as a hot-water bottle may not be filled in time to help keep you warm.

All that is before we even get onto the personal interaction (a chat in other words) that so many vulnerable and isolated older people crave, or the care worker addressing any unexpected problems of a personal or domestic nature (health problems, heating breakdowns or water leaks for example – things that cannot be ignored as they could put the person in danger). You cannot possibly even begin to tackle all of these needs within a 15-minute window – it is degrading to the person who needs care to even try, and insulting to the care worker to expect them to hit that type of target.

We need to understand that care isn’t a luxury. It’s not a Gucci handbag or a Ferrari parked on your driveway. It is the most basic, fundamental thing that we all need. Most of us take care for granted because we can care for ourselves without any assistance, and then we have children and naturally find ourselves caring for them without giving it a second thought.

Imagine trying to give a baby all of the care it needs in the morning within a 15-minute window. We have maternity and paternity leave not just so that parents can bond with their child and establish their family, but because that child will need a lot of care. Many adults need similar levels of care and support, in a different context of course, yet many councils believe that it is achievable within 15-minute timeframes.

Our social care system is broken at the point in which we place a stopwatch on care, and why is that stopwatch there? Time is considered to be a useful way in which to price work, and the price on care is being continually squeezed. Public money either isn’t available, or hasn’t been made available, to fund the increasing care needs of our ageing population who are living longer but with far more complex long-term conditions. Even most people who privately fund their care do not have a bottomless pit of money and are still subjected to 15-minute care visits.

I fear as a nation we simply do not understand what care involves. The complexities of it and the fact that it cannot be rushed. We don’t place enough value of the importance of human interaction and the joy and comfort that it can bring. We don’t see care as an investment a compassionate society should be making, but rather see it as an annoying drain on resources that must be cut back to the bone. We bypass basic human rights, we tolerate the fact that it is undignified and lacking in compassion, and ultimately ignore the reality that it’s dangerous to try and provide care within 15-minute windows. We effectively treat prisoners better.

Yes social care needs more money, and sadly I don’t hold the purse strings, but it also needs an overhaul. Councils, commissioners and care agencies need to look at themselves and be honest – are they really proud of the work that they do? Can they achieve what they expect the average care worker to achieve in 15-minutes, and have they ever put themselves into the shoes of the person needing care?

I challenge you – time yourself. How much can you get done in 15-minutes that involves your personal care, basic nutrition and hydration, and caters for your need to be kept warm? Then consider how mobility problems, reduction in your sight and/or hearing, or any other medical problem might affect your ability to fulfil those needs. Then factor in having someone to help you so that you can overcome the limitations your body places on you. Then check your watch. I guarantee that you will need far longer than 15-minutes to achieve this.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook

Caught on camera

CQC’s launch of their document ‘A fresh start for the regulation and inspection of adult social care’ has created a barrage of debate. Amongst the raft of changes and proposals to overhaul the inspection and regulation of care services for adults are some ideas that CQC want to discuss with the public, including the “Potential use of mystery shoppers and hidden cameras to monitor care”. Concerns have been raised about whether hidden cameras are ethical, if their use would be legal, and whether we even need them.

To begin to illustrate my views, I want to pose a scenario to you:

A man of 84 is living in a care home. He has advanced dementia, and requires all of his needs to be met by a skilled team of care professionals, assisted by his family. His family are not present 24 hours a day, so much of his care is provided by different care professionals. His family become concerned for his welfare when the ownership, management and staffing of the home changes . The home is frequently short-staffed and running on agency staff (who don’t even know who each resident is). The man becomes more frail, has more infections, begins to develop pressure sores and is being kept in bed more than normal. This is also true of other residents. The few remaining regular staff, including the man’s keyworker, express concerns about the way that they are being instructed to care for the man and how new staff are caring for him. The man is eventually admitted to hospital with pneumonia after aspirating on his own vomit five times. The hospital are so concerned about the condition of the man that they make him the subject of a safeguarding order. He never fully recovers from the pneumonia and passes away four weeks later, less than two weeks after his 85th birthday.

That man was my dad.

I repeatedly raised concerns about my father’s care with the care provider after the changes in ownership, management and staff. Eventually I had to resort to phoning CQC three times before they would take my complaint seriously. They inspected, but then took two months to produce a report. It was too late for my dad. His keyworker, a wonderful care professional who had diligently looked after my father for eight years, was as heartbroken by the way in which the care deteriorated as we were. Indeed that care professional, and his colleagues who had  assisted with looking after my dad for many years, found alternative employment and left the home: they simply could not stand to deliver care in the way that the management wanted it delivered.

On the night my father aspirated on his own vomit, we believe he was put to bed too early and given a milky drink in bed without being properly upright – all of those actions going directly against our wishes and the recommended advice for his care from doctors (the management made their own care plans without our consent). The doctors treating my father at the hospital didn’t believe he would pull through the night – aspirating on your own vomit is a bit like pouring acid into your lungs they said. Imagine how that felt.

We will never really know what happened that night, because despite asking the staff on duty, no one could explain. I dearly wish we had had a hidden camera in my father’s room that night, and indeed in the months leading up to that fatal incident. I know it would have proven the poor care my father was subjected to, and it would also have proven some of the good care people like his keyworker provided, often fighting against the management to do what was best for my dad.

Do I think cameras should be routinely installed into care homes? No I don’t. But potentially they do have a value in certain specific circumstances when there are grave concerns for a person’s welfare that only indisputable footage can prove. Currently surveillance is limited to the few families who have installed hidden cameras to prove that their relative is being abused, or places like Winterbourne View that needed Panorama cameras to expose the appalling treatment being meted out.

It must be remembered that some people don’t have a family to monitor their care. People with dementia, learning disabilities and other conditions cannot always articulate what is happening to them. Proving how injuries are sustained can sometimes be one person’s word against another’s. Poor care many only really come to light following a crisis point when a person is admitted to hospital in a condition that no amount of treatment can cure, or it many only become evident on investigation after death.

I want to pose another scenario to you:

A lady living with dementia in a care home, almost completely deaf and blind, begins to lose a dramatic amount of weight and is always thirsty when her family visit. The family suspect she isn’t being fed enough. They often find drinks that have been left out of her reach, and suspect that staff aren’t communicating with her appropriately. She eventually passes away at a weight that would be considered severely malnourished.

I knew this lady, and her family agonised over what happened to her – a camera would have given them answers, and potentially ensured she received better care.

Dignity, privacy and respect are all vital in any care setting, but there is nothing dignified or respectful about elder abuse or premature death from negligence that hides behind a veil of privacy. Such practices – that are in the minority - must be rooted out: they taint the vast majority of wonderful care that is being provided. A hidden camera can prove or disprove allegations and suspicions, and it could potentially work in many different ways. For example: It can prove that a care worker is acting inappropriately. It can prove when a provider is negligent in not giving their staff the equipment or training needed to perform a task or to keep a person safe. It can assist a care provider to root out poor practice that they suspect an individual employee of but need to prove. It can show if a person receiving care has had a harmless accident or is self-harming. It can provide evidence if a family are being abusive, either towards their own relative or towards staff (yes, it does happen).

Cameras could also be helpful in certain specific circumstances in people’s own homes, where they are receiving home care or care from a family member, friend or neighbour.

Consider this scenario:

Two elderly sisters live alone at home. A neighbour ‘befriends’ them. That neighbour manages to persuade them to sign a Power of Attorney and then gets control of all of their money. She tells them that they are now so poor they cannot afford heating. Professional carers often come in to find these ladies cold and hungry. One of the sisters develops hyperthermia. Eventually they end up in care, virtually penniless.

I knew these ladies – could a camera have helped them, and brought the person who prayed on them to justice?

Clearly there are huge ethical, moral and legal issues with the use of cameras in any setting, particularly if those cameras are hidden. Whether a policy allowing the use of hidden cameras in adult social care will ever be created and implemented isn’t yet decided – this is merely an idea that has been put into the public domain for debate. Personally I welcome healthy discussion on any proposal that could help to safeguard our most vulnerable people and stamp out elder abuse. I don’t believe sensitive use of such cameras in a minority of isolated cases would undermine the morale of social care professionals. In my mind, those who are providing good care have nothing to fear.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook

Home alone

Imagine that every morning when you wake up, you are unable to get out of bed without the help of a carer. You might wake up quite early, needing the toilet or wanting a hot drink, but you live alone and rely on people who are paid to come and look after you.

You may wait many hours for help to arrive. It may never come if the home care agency don’t have enough carers on duty, or it may be much later than you expect because your carer has been delayed helping other people. In that time you may soil yourself, become dehydrated, or attempt to move around and end up falling, potentially breaking a bone and ending up in hospital, the shock of which, in someone who is elderly, could bring about premature death.

This is the reality that many single, vulnerable, elderly people with physical or mental health problems face every day. When care does arrive it can often be rushed, with the carer unable to give all of the help that is required. Imagine if you had to choose between being washed and dressed, helped to the toilet, fed or given your medication? You need assistance with all of those tasks, but your carer only has time to help with some of them, leaving you hungry or dirty as a result.

For many people who live alone, the carer that comes in to help them may be the only person that they see or speak to all day, and yet there is no opportunity for meaningful interaction. This is a system that is almost de-humanised, where the people who need care are effectively on a conveyor belt, and carers are operatives in a factory environment where output, rather than quality, is king.

Over the course of just a few weeks of home care you may see many different faces, each time having to try and explain (if you are able to) what you need and want. The turnover of staff is high because this is low-paid, often poorly trained work, where staff are put under immense pressure to meet deadlines, rush care, make stark and extremely unpleasant choices about what they realistically have time to do for someone, and where every shift leaves them feeling physically and mentally exhausted. Many carers often end up completing tasks in their own time, such are the time constraints enforced by their employers.

Morale is low, carers feel undervalued, and those who chose this type of work precisely because they genuinely wanted to care for vulnerable people feel utterly let down by a system that is run around two defining factors – the time on the clock and the money being paid to the home care provider.

Don’t run away with the idea that having home care is a cheap option for the most vulnerable, elderly citizens in our communities, because it isn’t. Universally however, most people would rather remain in their own home than move into alternative more supported accommodation or indeed into a care home. I would argue that everyone has the right to do that, whenever practically possible, and therefore in a compassionate society this should be supported, not just financially for those who need assistance paying for it, but from a cultural point of view as well.

The culture that defines how we care for older people in the UK is still one where we don’t value the person enough. As a society we don’t make provision for elderly people to exercise choice and be supported to do that, we cut corners because we think it doesn’t matter, we try to rush those who are naturally slower than they once were, we are incapable of seeing beyond ‘doing the basics’ and we ignore the need every human being has to feel cherished, loved, cared for, appreciated and listened to.

It can be very easy to blame the carers on the front line who have the day-to-day contact with our vulnerable elderly people, and there are certainly those within this line of work who should never be caring for anyone, least of all those in greatest need. But I believe that so much of what is wrong within the care system, and home care in particular, is about what happens within the companies that provide care and the authorities who commission it.

Many home care providers will say that they don’t get paid enough by councils (whose budgets have been squeezed in this area) to provide the care that people need. Councils will say that for the money they are paying, they expect far better for the people they are responsible for supporting. The real truth probably lies somewhere between these two viewpoints, but what I always find staggering in these debates is how the needs and the voices of the people who are on the receiving end of this care are generally never heard, and even more worryingly, those who are making the decisions often have no real appreciation of the situation that these people are in.

Of course we know of the cases, all too common, where home care has gone so catastrophically wrong that someone has died as a result of neglect. Yet all over the country, every day, neglect is happening, often not with immediately tragic consequences but with the slow-burn, saddening effect of reducing the lives of people who were once vibrant, hard-working, energetic and valued, into something that is a daily struggle to exist, a struggle that for many may not feel like one that they want to keep fighting for.

I couldn’t be a home care worker, simply because I could not cope with leaving people who needed me, at the same time knowing that if I stayed longer I let someone else down. It is an impossible situation. Home care is a vital resource that a compassionate society should value. Carers should be well trained, well paid and with enough colleagues to give our cherished elderly the help that they need in a time frame that they can cope with.

This is a job where you care for people with very high dependency and often multiple problems – it should be a profession with a far greater standing than it currently has. Ultimately care should be about helping people to flourish, live their lives well and feel happy and fulfilled. It should never be about losing dignity, being lonely, frightened, misunderstood, neglected and potentially an early death. If you offered anyone the ‘services’ in that last sentence, they would never sign up for them.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook