A look at ‘Caring for our future : reforming care and support’

paper stack 1 SQ BW 500X

A rapid chase through the Care White Paper

The government published it’s long overdue Care White Paper yesterday. There’s been time for a significant amount of coverage to push through to the media and I don’t want to repeat information that’s out there but rather provide a response/analysis from where I am and where I see it. There is a good summary on Community Care though.

It’s a hotch potch of a document. The words are pretty but there’s an underlying tone of ‘saving taxpayers money’ which shines through from every good intentioned statement. Saving money isn’t a bad thing but I wonder how much the intention is to change the way the market in care is delivered in line with the NHS Bill and how much is to actually change the philosophy behind the process of care. I doubt the government’s good intentions.

The White Paper divides into eight chapters. So I’ll follow that pattern in my review of them.

Chap 1: The Case for Change

Here, the paper itself sets out the current difficulties in the system as it is at present which is reactive to crisis rather than focused on prevention. I can’t help feeling a little cynical in noting even the current system wasn’t intended to be this way, but has developed as such due to the pressures on funding.  The government line is to prove the point about crisis response but that’s not really been the agenda all the time.

Believe it or not, there was a time we met ‘low’ needs and while accepting there is a financial limit, the demonisation of the system is hardly a true reflection of what was envisaged and more should be learnt about the ways that systems imposed develop into a ‘race to the bottom’.

So the paper suggests that the answers will be found by providing more services sooner in the process of ageing or a disabling condition.  We will have more support for carers and will be promoting communities to provide support within themselves.

People need more information, without doubt, and that will be provided. That’s hardly revolutionary but too much has been down to local differences – the old ‘postcode lottery’ arguments. This will be clarified so people can move around the country and know what they will be able to expect.

Interesting that the ‘opportunities from reform’ all seem to revolve around financial benefits. It’s a valid benefit and opportunity but an interesting angle so

‘Promoting people’s wellbeing and independence’ will ‘limit future demand for care and support and help to ensure taxpayers’ money is used for effectively’.

Support for carers will enable them to ‘remain in the workplace’ which will ‘support economic growth’. So THAT’S why they are so keen to support carers – don’t want anyone to think that ‘caring’ without pay for a family member isn’t a valid and essential economic contributor.

and ‘Supporting businesses to grow’ – which is maybe what choice is all about.

I’m not against these agendas but I think the framing in economic terms is very very interesting.

Chap 2: Our vision for care and support

Understandably and quite rightly there is a high proportion of ‘control’ wanting to be distributed from top down to users in this section of the White Paper which is all well and good. It’s been (rightly) the movement of travel and needs to go further. As someone who works with people who have not been able to benefit fully from the ‘choice and control’ agenda, I was particularly looking for things that would help and support the people that I work with here.

There’s a lot of focus on promoting communities in being active and enabling to those living in them. There’s a need to promote better information streams – quite rightly – the system is enormously complex and I spot a little line on page 19 about ‘supporting the transformation of the social work profession’.

So the role and place of the local authority to provide care and support will be changing as it says

‘instead of purchasing and providing care and support, authorities will increasingly be expected to take a leadership role in a local area’. That should be interesting.

Chap 3 ‘I am supported to maintain my independence for as long as possible”

So in looking at prevention of isolation and needs the White Paper turns to communities to look for support, quite rightly. There’s a lot of potential here and social isolation is specifically targeted with some wonderful local models explained in terms of the way they work with isolated people to bring them into communities.

Not everyone wants to be a part of a community and there are some people communities tend to be less eager to support but it’s a great initiative for some people and there will be a lovely new Outcome Framework which will identify measures of loneliness for us to work on while local authorities managers and accountants look at ways they can meet targets at low or no cost.

Commissioners will be ‘encouraged’ (whatever that means) to draw on community support networks rather than moving people into ‘formal’ services. I read that along the lines of finding services that are provided at low or no cost but perhaps I’m a cynic.

There’s a line here too about social work pilot schemes which will  ‘liberate’ (I’m VERY suspicious of the word ‘liberate’) social workers from case management. It looks like a push towards more community based social work but I have some concerns. Firstly, case management is only bad if it is implemented badly as a process rather than as a collaboration. Poor case management can have an enormously detrimental effect on someone.

I’m not convinced by social work pilots but will wait for the outcomes of these pilots to see before I make a final judgement. I like the idea of more community work but am worried at what cost it may come in terms of privatising delivery of service and moving responsibilities for provision away from a democratic mandate.

I do like the idea of connecting care homes with their local areas. That is enormously positive and where I’ve seen it happen locally, it has made a big difference. It does seem like a lot of ‘use volunteers’ as the answer to problems but honestly, that’s not a bad thing where there are volunteers. I just wonder if all communities will be as engaged and where there is such a great reliance on community to provide support, what will be done in those areas that aren’t as supportive.

As regards housing, there will be significant investments in housing for older and disabled people. I hope this will encompass people in mental health services and is not limited to those with physical  health needs. There is a muddle over extra-care sheltered accommodation which is described as a way to meet low level needs but also as an alternative to residential care. Oh, I mean a ‘cost effective’ alternative to residential care. Missed the key point there.

Chap 4 ‘I understand how care and support works and what my entitlements and responsibilities are’

Information, information, information. It’s crucial in order to make choices and the government sets out ways, particularly websites, that will provide more information about services and facilities to all rather than just those eligible for them.

Interestingly the NHS 111 number will roll out support for social care. I wonder how this will work as a national helpline when provisioning is so different locally and there will be an extension of services like NHS Direct and NHS Choices into the social care sphere. Look forward to seeing that. I genuinely hope it works.

Local authorities will also be obliged to provide more information online but also in other formats, to those looking at services and providers but it looks like there is intended to be a default move online for many access points – including self assessments online as ‘they provide a better customer experience’. I wonder how this marries with the issues around the digital divide. There will be paper and telephone options available at least.

There will be a national eligibility framework and it seems (although this will only be confirmed later) that it may well be set at ‘substantial’ under current FACS guidelines although there will be a move to a new framework of assessment and eligibility.

People will also  have more options about who assesses them.

‘Our ambition is for many more providers to offer assessment services’. Good business opportunities there and a role for the social work pilot schemes.

Carers will have an entitlement to assessment (which exists) and to the provision of services (which doesn’t at present). I’m glad to see that.

Chapter 5 ‘I am happy with the quality of my care and support’

There’s an interesting diagram on this chapter on page 38 with circles of ‘roles and responsibilities in care and support’ around the ‘service users and carers’ at the centre, with Government, Commissioners, Providers and CQC around them. Interesting that there is no place for social workers. I expect we come into ‘commissioners’ but sad that the profession doesn’t seem to have a place around this diagram and is not even mentioned.

There is talk of better regulation by the CQC with inspections annually (scandalous that they were ever anything but in my view).

Looks like they’ll be a return to some kind of rating system too. Strange that just disappeared.

Statutory Safeguarding Adults Boards will be convened by local authorities with police and NHS organisations inputting to them. There will be further consultation on powers to access someone who might be at risk of abuse or neglect.  Personally, I’d like to have seen more on safeguarding.

Commissioning on quality is emphasised (good) and there seems to be a desire to look at some kind of outcome model to judge this. There’s also an acknolwedgement of the failing of some private care homes such as Southern Cross and

‘Local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation to anyone – publicly or self-funded – who has an urgent need for care which is not otherwise available’ and noone will be left homeless if a provider were to fail.

I don’t doubt that would be the case anyway but more public protection for private companies failing can only lead to additional costs.

Chapter 6 ‘I know that the person giving me care and support will treat me with dignity and respect’.

Here there’s an emphasis on building skills in the social care sector. I don’t believe people go into this field of work to be oppressive or uncaring but the system dictates it and a bullying workplace leads to poor and dangerous service delivery to people who have higher needs.

The government claims to be committed to the plans of the Social Work Reform Board and that the College of Social Work will play a heavy role in improving standards of education and training in social work in universities.

The White Paper supports the position of Principal Social Workers in Adult Services and part of that role will be coordinating feedback from frontline practitioners. I look forward to having one locally as I have a lot to feedback.

Chapter 7 ‘I am in control of my care and support’

Ah, personalisation, that bittersweet word which means everything and nothing. Everyone entitled to care and support will have a personal budget – I genuinely thought that was already on track and didn’t think it was anything new. And look

‘We will push further with our ambition to support as many people as possible to enjoy the benefits of a direct payment’.

I hope that support is extensive and looks beyond the current models which have served some exceptionally well but many others very very poorly.

I won’t mention the ignorant way that advocacy is included in the White Paper which evidences a lack of knowledge by those who wrote the paper but will merely reference Martin Coyle’s (from Action for Advocacy) blogpost which says it all.

There’s some more in this section about integration between health and social care which is becoming more distant in practice rather than more evident.  Use of the term ‘care coordination’ is confusing as it is a generally used term in mental health services and has different technical meaning to the way it is used in the White Paper in terms of physical health. That has already caused us many confusing conversations locally as to someone having two care coordinators – one for physical health and one for mental health – which kind of proves the point about duplicating work and having unfathomable systems. The terms should really be clarified and separated if necessary.

Chapter 8 ‘Making it Happen’

A draft bill was published alongside the White Paper. I haven’t read it yet. I wonder that some organisations seem to have thrown their lot in wholeheartedly with the government which makes me a little nervous. I want to support positive change but I don’t want to be blinded by good intentions and words that lead to little that changes the lives of those who have the most need for support.

Interestingly the ‘financial context’ is stuck at the back of the White Paper like a growing tumour. There are mealy mouthed words about the government putting money into social care but while taking away in the other hand, from local government, they have contributed directly to the ‘crisis management’ only model that they criticise.

Conclusion

I see little if anything revolutionary in this paper. I see nothing that explains a change in the direction of travel and means of delivering social care. I see some positive signs and some acknowledgement of difficulties but we were moving down the path of personalisation at a rate that it could only continue. While there was mention of personal budgets for residential care, I saw nothing about ISFs and developing ways of promoting choice for those who are excluded from communities and who may lack capacity. I saw nothing about changing legislative frameworks. I saw a lot of gaps, not least, the massive funding gap.

Nice words though, fluffy and helpful and a lot of the language of ‘choice’ (where possible), ‘community’ (where free) and ‘market’.

These things are always filled with the right words. I think a lot of opportunity to restructure and rethink adult social care has been lost although there are some springs of hope – there aren’t by any means enough.

Pic by wintersoul1 at Flickr

Panorama and Ash Court – Towards Improvements

I watched Panorama last night. The programme, as explained yesterday, focused on the abuse by care workers at Ash Court of an older woman with dementia whose daughter filmed her secretly on a hidden camera in the home.

The footage of the abuse was sickening and involved both physical and psychological (neglectful) abuse by those employed to care for her. Most indicative was the lack of regard that the care workers had for Mrs Jane Worroll as a human being as we saw the treatment dehumanising her.

It was clearly uncomfortable viewing and links are being made with Winterbourne View but there are vast differences and this time, although I almost surprise myself, I think it’s important to defend the role of the Care Quality Commission in this case.

With the Winterbourne View Panorama expose there were whistle blowers and the regulator should have taken action as a result. With the situation at Ash Court, there was a hidden camera and while some of the cultures could have been known to exist within the home itself, it’s clear that the regulator did not have a way of knowing what was happening before it happened.

As they say in the statement that they make on the programme that what they (the CQC)

cannot do is to identify and stamp out deliberately concealed abuse. By its very nature, concealed abuse takes place away from the eyes of managers and inspectors and can even take place, as in this case, in a well run care home. Abuse of vulnerable people is a criminal matter, and is rightly handled by the police and the courts.

That’s the big difference between Ash Court and Winterbourne View. The disappointment in Panorama is that it tried to merge the agendas of both and while there is a common narrative to both programmes about abuse of those who have power of those who do not, the solutions and causes are different.

I mentioned on Twitter during the programme about the discrepancies of procedures and powers for adult safeguarding and safeguarding of children.

Personally I see ‘safeguarding’ and ‘abuse’ as the use of power by someone against another person who has no power. That might be as a result of physical ability, mental capacity or understanding or just some of the institutional structures in place. Whether the person who is abused is 6, 65 or 85 shouldn’t have any sway within the processes. What I’d like to see is a unified process that deals with the effects of abuse and the power differentials – rather than provide so many more hoops to jump through and weaker processes when the person to whom the abuse happens is over 18.

The effects may be different according to the stage in the life cycle but they may not be. The criminal act is around the abuse of power and the abuse within the relationship that takes place along with the eventual effect.

I’m sure those with more knowledge than me will come back to attack my somewhat simplistic judgements and thoughts on this but it’s frustrating working within an adult safeguarding process that lacks so many of the potential teeth when we see some of the abuses that take place and see so few taken to court due to unreliable witnesses or lack of scope for action.

Another disappointment of Panorama (although unsurprising as they wanted to squeeze out all the ‘abuse’ footage for shock value and only had 30 minutes) was the lack of attention to some of the systemic problems that have led to warehousing of older adults in institutions when they need residential care. The pay of the staff was mentioned but pay is not the only consideration.

I worked quite happily at a very low wage as a care worker myself for a number of years but what matters as much as pay (although pay helps) is the value placed on the members of staff. Staff who are not respected and who are treated as expendable and with little respect are more likely to pass that feeling of powerlessness on to others. It isn’t an inevitable link – you get good staff in bad homes and bad staff in good homes – but it’s more likely that if staff feel linked to and attached to those whom they care for and those for whom they work – they are more likely not only to pass on that feeling of respect but to feel vested in the organisation for whom they work.

Too often care work is seen as ‘easy’ and care workers are seen as ‘replaceable’. Organisations like Forest Care (and many others I know) bring staff over from the Philippines en masse to carry out these roles or put staff on zero hour contracts and push out unionisation. Organisations have to regard staff better – and pay is one of those aspects but not the only one – in order to create cultures of care and compassion. The other aspects are good and robust supervision, including peer supervision and giving staff responsibilities and a stake or voice into the organisation they are working for. Whistleblowing has to be easier and better regarded. Complaints improve care and processes and they should not be feared.

Local authorities and the government needs to be willing to pay more for care and for monitoring inspections which don’t need to simply come from the Care Quality Commission. If LAs push prices down to rock bottom quality will suffer. Some people do need 24 hour residential or nursing care and it shouldn’t be accepted as being ‘sub-standard’ as default. It doesn’t have to be.

Panorama didn’t shock me, unfortunately. It saddened me. I hope it doesn’t become just another blip in the process of change. I want the processes and structures to be pushed to positive change. Blaming the CQC won’t do that – changing the expectations and systems might.

As for hidden cameras in residential care homes and in people’s own homes – I see it increasing and have a sense of discomfort about some of the rights to privacy that are impeded however finding and challenging abuse is important. Would Mrs Worroll’s abuse have been discovered without them? Unlikely unless one of the care staff attending her raised concerns with their own manager. I may be tempted to use hidden cameras myself if I had a family member in a similar position but that’s the key – it’s only those people who have family members who will have recourse to such action – what we need to do is find the reasons these abuses happen institutionally and act on them.

Of Hidden Cameras, Care and Panorama

Tonight’s  Panorama is focusing on care of the elderly or rather, lack of care. Maria Worroll was placed by her mother in a care home in Camden which had an ‘excellent’ rating by the CQC (Care Quality Commission).

Jane Worroll, Maria’s daughter, noticing something amiss and perhaps having concerns, set up a hidden camera in her mother’s room to observe how her mother’s treatment. Mistreatment and abuse were filmed and it led to a conviction by a care worker, Jonathan Aquino, under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and a jail term of 18 months.

There are a few key points to take into this and to note. Prior to June 2011 (when the filming took place), the previous assessment and inspection by the CQC was in 2009. It was an unannounced inspection and as described above, the outcome found the home was excellent.

There were a couple of ‘compliance’ visits after the incidents films came to light but the important thing to note is that an excellent care home can provide appalling care if there is one abusive care worker. Similarly a care home which may have a poor inspection report can provide excellent care if there are caring and good quality care staff. Historical reports of care by regulators actually tell us little about the quality of the care today, at this moment, as staff in these care homes tend to be transient and low paid.

There is an issue about management culture of course. I have seen a switch in manager making both a very positive and very negative effect on residents in these homes. While more regular ‘spot’ inspections – perhaps by lay visitors as well as official regulatory bodies – may be one answer, it may not root out the individually abusive members of staff. A much better way to do that is to firm up whistleblowing procedures and supervision procedures for care workers – perhaps more peer discussion and supervision as well as managerial supervision.

As for the effects I see, I am no longer surprised by the increase in surveillance by family members which is a definite increased trend that I’m seeing. While there may be issues of privacy, the concerns of families are very real.

Until our care systems can provide better qualities of regulating and monitoring care – and not only from the CQC but from commissioners – whether they be local authorities or privately funded – there will always be these questions that linger at the back of the mind.

I expect I’ll be watching tonight, if I am able. I think I know what I’ll see but it is important that these incidents come to light so that changes in the systems can be made. This is one incident but it is very far from isolated. Our society needs to deliver the type of care and the methods of monitoring of care and the financial provisions for care that are not age-dependent. Until we do so, I can only infer that the systems of social care in this country are inherently ageist.

It’s all about the training! CQC and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

Inveraray Jail

Today, as Community Care reports, the CQC has published its annual report into the operation of ‘Deprivation of Liberty’ safeguards for 2010/11.

Deprivation of Liberty safeguards are a particular part of the Mental Capacity Act which allows a legal process of authorisation where there is felt to be a ‘deprivation of liberty’ in a care home or hospital related to someone who lacks the capacity to make a decision about whether they remain there or not. The process of decision-making relating to whether a Deprivation of Liberty is authorised revolves around the managing authority (the organisation which is potentially depriving the person of their liberty) and the supervisory body (the local authority or PCT (or whatever they are called now) where the person is or who is responsible for the care of that person (if, for example, they have been placed out of the local area the responsibility remains with the placing authority).  The decision is made on the basis of a number of assessments (six actually) which are undertaken by at least two people, one of whom must be a doctor and one of whom must be a ‘Best Interests Assessor’ (who can be a social worker, nurse, occupational therapist or psychologist).  The Best Interests Assessor, unsurprisingly, makes a recommendation not only on whether the deprivation is in the person’s best interest,  but whether the framework and care plan constitutes a deprivation of liberty at all.

So that’s DoLs in a nutshell. What have the CQC got to do with it? Well, amongst other things, monitoring these Deprivation of Liberty authorisations is another part of their work.
Continue reading

Care Quality?

Another day, another report. This time, Which? has done some undercover work into the quality of homecare delivered to older adults as reported by the Guardian.

The team at Which? asked 30 families to make notes and diaries over a week in January and feed back the information, some of it is horrifying but the sad thing is that it doesn’t shock or even surprise me. That’s the real shame of the system.

One elderly woman was left alone in the dark for hours unable to find food or drink. Another was left without a walking frame, leaving her unable to get to the bathroom, while one man was not given vital diabetes medication, the watchdog said.

Which? has not named the agencies which I feel is wrong. I hope they are going straight to the Care Quality Commission (CQC)  with this information because for a consumer organisation which is supposed to be behind us as consumers of care services (oh, it’s coming in health care too – just wait) I’m surprised they feel they need to protect the names of those companies involved.

The reason they do is that those companies will not be removed from their positions of providing care to those who have been subject to institutional abuse such as that meted out in the examples given, because yes, this is institutional abuse.

These companies are probably tied into long term extensive contracts with local authorities than are bound in law and allow for a certain level of ‘default’ that makes them difficult to replace.

So what should and can be done?

1) However admirable Which? is, the fact that we have to rely on  Which? and Panorama to do the job of council quality assurance teams and more importantly the Care Quality Commission is not acceptable.

2) Embedding advocacy into the system far more fully. These people monitored were the ones who had families to complete the diaries. What about those people without families particularly those who may have cognitive impairments. We have to replicate the ‘checking’ role that involved families have to those who don’t have family support and for me I see that as happening through greater advocacy.

3) Commissioning (again, apologies to Guilty Commissioner who I know does things differently). The people who buy into and commission these block contracts aren’t the people who use them. They award on the basis of cost where quality has to have a greater impact on quality of life and quality of care provision.

4) Politicians. People go to their MPs about Forests but not about social care. The people who need the changes aren’t the people who are most likely to be politically active and that’s why this area has slipped so far down the political agenda. Politicians of worth need to advocate for electors who might not be clamouring at their surgery doors. They need to think of those who may be disenfranchised and take the advocacy and representation role more seriously to affect change.

Let’s hope we stop seeing these reports soon but i remain sceptical.

Is Adult Social Care Broken? And what can and will fix it.

FIX

Over the past few weeks, oh, who am I kidding, over the past few years, I’ve been pondering the way that adult social care is structured in this country from the position of having worked in this area over a number of years. I have seen many changes but anyone who has been involved in social care for more than a year could probably say the same. If there’s one thing that is sure about statutory social work/social care, it’s that the next reconfiguration or improvement is just around the corner.

In my renewed spirit of positivity though, I thought it would be worth reflecting personally on some of the changes I have worked through and look at some of the directions we are going with a thought to what I would do if I were in a policy-making position rather than the position of a front-line practitioner.

So I entered social work in the shadow of the changes pushed through by the NHS and Community Care Act (1990). We were moving from ‘social work’ into care management and this was going to be an improvement for those who used the services as local authorities were going to be contracting out/selling off their own centrally run and ‘inflexible’ services to new, private and voluntary sector providers who would be far more flexible about meeting the needs of individuals.

When I think back to those heady days, the ideas weren’t so different to the ways that the personalisation agenda was presented. Direct Payments were just about to start but the idea was that care would be planned by a care manager to put the service user at the heart of the process and more interesting, more exciting and more specialist services would be commissioned for the same ‘pot of money’.

We were also sold talk of community involvement rather than segregration – gyms instead of day centres –  but the day centres remained and the processes weren’t flexible enough to allow the choices that should have been there.

So Direct Payments were introduced, first as an option and then as a right. They led from the ILF (Independent Living Fund) model of giving mostly younger adults (because you had to be under 65 to qualify for ILF) with physical disabilities a pot of money and a choice of employing a PA directly.

Quite rightly, this model was seen as positive and there were attempts to spread this more widely to all user groups. The take up was much higher in some user groups than others, strangely (I’m being ironic – bear with me) related to access to greater ‘pots’ of money or more informal support.

There has also been a massive push and development of carer services. It might not seem it to those who devote themselves to caring for family members or friends but there are now statutory rights to assessments and increasingly service provisions directly for carers.

And so we moved through to the Putting People First agenda of pushing the right to a personal budget for care services to everyone who uses and is eligible to support.

It is the right direction absolutely. Increasingly choice and control for social care packages is and must remain at the heart of social care provision for adults in the UK but there are genuine practical problems.

Firstly that too often councils have just shifted people who have been more difficult to engage in the process of choosing in the way the LAs want them to choose onto ‘managed’ budgets where the LA implements the care for the user and essentially makes the choices for them leaving very little different.

Secondly, the provision of 24 hour residential and nursing care has been lost in the push towards choice. It feels a lot like an poorly regulated afterthought when actually provision of residential and nursing care can be the most important decision in someone’s life and affects life quality absolutely.

Thirdly and by no means lastly, funding issues.

There is not enough money to pay for good quality care services for all who need it so the decisions are made about who will pay and how they will pay. The Dilnot report offers some potential solutions, personally, I don’t think it goes far enough.

The fact is that people don’t want to pay for care. They don’t want to pay for care related to health needs. People believe it is a right to receive care free. But that isn’t the case. Care costs and it is means-tested.

The postcode lottery comes into its own here with charging policies varying massively. On the ‘ground level’ I know people I assess and review are increasingly refusing care I feel they desperately need purely on the basis of cost. This shifts costs from self and social care onto health in the future, but at least health costs are free to the individual.

The Future

Personal budgets are not going anywhere and must be embraced and embraced positively as they are supposed to be. We must look past some of the cynical ‘target fixing’ of the local authorities who want to prove they are doing better on ‘choice’ and really adopt a strong advocacy role in using them the way they were intended to do and keep pushing and pushing until they deliver the promised change in terms of outcomes for all users of adult social care rather than relying on a few old examples. They must work but they also must work better.

Charging policies must change and this is in the offing. While I don’t agree 100% with the Dilnot recommendations, it is better than what we have. We need transparent and equitable methods to fund social care that don’t regard the sector as an afterthought.

Promotion of advocacy to all user groups who don’t have informal networks and particularly to those who may have issues with capacity is essential to back up and check on progress of professionals and local authorities who have different budgetary agendas. We have to offer support to challenge on an equitable basis.

Our systems have to be more flexible, as professionals within local authorities we have to have access to different styles of commissioning that include micro-providers. We have to have access to different communication formats and promote more interactive feedback using more technology to those who find it more useful while backing up with face to face contact, discussion and feedback for those who don’t.

Our world is becoming more fragmented as we have more access to information sources and accept that people cannot be defined merely by needs identified in traditional style assessments. We have self assessments now but they are more similar to DLA forms based on ability to wash and dress rather than building holistic pictures of who and what someone is. That is what is needed. Yes, it will be labour intensive but we need to find more value in quality and more value in the individual.

Where will be money come from to do this and to make these changes? Well, I think that better quality and treating people as human beings has so many longer term benefits regarding outcomes that it will be a saving and not   just in value but in quality of life.

Is the system broken? In parts. But the people who work in the system aren’t and nor are the people who use and need it. We need to build it back up together. Co-production has to be the answer.

These are exciting times for adult social care – lets build a positive from too many negatives and make things better.

Photo by Amanky/Flickr

Bye Bye Bower

Yesterday Cynthia Bower resigned at the Chief Executive of the Care Quality Commission. I remain amazed that she was ever seen as competent to run it in the first place but it’s easy to be wise in hindsight. Her departure is no surprise as the organisation has consistently been shown to be ineffective and unable to effectively or safely keep within its remit as the regulator of health and adult social care services in England.

As the Guardian states, at the time of Bower’s appointment by the Labour Government

Andrew Lansley, the then shadow health secretary, said at the time: “We have to ask whether it is right that the person in charge of the West Midlands strategic health authority at the time, Cynthia Bower, is now to be put in charge of the national regulator which heads up these investigations and which will be responsible for ensuring that this never happens again in Mid Staffordshire or elsewhere.”

Lucy at The Small Places refers to some of the closing statements at the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry which shine a light on the actions in the CQC at the time. She quotes Dame Barbara Young’s evidence – who had resigned as CEO of the CQC and was asked why – saying

I really believed strongly that we could only do a good job if we were on the ground locally inspecting with rigour and understanding what was happening locally in health core systems and in hospitals that were delivering services. And I knew that we were finding it quite difficult to ensure that that was the case with the resource we had. And I could see further restrictions in resources on the horizon, because by then it was clear that the service was going to share in cuts. And I could also see that that was going to happen at a time when the quality of care was going to be even more at risk than usual as a result of health core cuts in services.

So you’d be a regulator in a very difficult position, with government, accountable to government, but responsible really to the public, with less resource to regulate effectively, and services being more at risk And it just felt to me that that was not a job that my skills were best suited for.

Lucy, in her excellent post, points out, quite rightly that it was the Labour Government that was responsible for establishing the CQC in its current form. This goes beyond the party political. It is about creating a system which has allowed a more rigorous inspection regime to lapse faced with cost and faced with the potential to cause a political ‘stink’ when hospitals in particular might be found to be ‘failing’.

And where now for the CQC? Bower leaving was necessary but it looks as if the problems that run through the organisation are far more endemic than a change at the top. There needs to be trust restored in an organisation which is supposed to regulate services that we all depend on wholly.

My experience is more in the social care side than health and I see the dilution of regulation has happened over the years with poorer services, fewer inspections and inspectors with more experience in auditing paper records than inspecting care homes thoroughly ‘on the ground’.

Meanwhile, Paul Burstow calls for Dignity Codes for older people – who will be responsible for ensuring these ‘codes’ that apparently he wants care workers to sign up to are upheld? and his now cancelled so-called ‘excellence’ schemes which was unravelled and ratings sites – they all seem to be attempts to cover up the need for strong regulation and inspection because that would cost more money.

So Bower’s leaving is just an admission of failure and acceptance that she should never have been in that post to start with. She has barely displaying competence in ‘leadership’ but leadership is not just about one person and while the systems remain in place, we wait to be see if there will be any really useful changes in a regulatory body which has had such a difficult birthing experience.