Vocal Voices

I do not want to get old enough to need to go into a "care" home: never. What was shown last night was horrendous and it was not the tip of an iceberg, it showed fairly normal practice. Over 12,500 homes were found to be failing when they were last inspected and over 400 are still failing to meet minimum standards. How can this be allowed? What is the point of having inspections if the outcomes are so weak?

It is right that individuals are charged for their crimes, but we should also drag management and board members into the dock for allowing them to happen; after all they do make a lot of money out of "care" do they not? It also looks as though the inspection process needs beefing up as well, if necessary by inspecting the inspectors. Any inspectors found to be having the wool pulled over their eyes, and there must be quite a few, must be sacked.

We are talking about peoples' lives, here, at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. We should stop them being mistreated and taken advantage of.

The biggest irony is calling them Care Homes.

So much for the welfare state.

It is depressing. I would never, ever want to go into one of these places.

It is not all the welfare state, though, is it?

A lot of these people, and their families, have flogged the family jewels (often the family home) to pay to be "cared" for in their final years.

I watched Panorama last night and it was absolutely heartbreaking.

Didn't see the programme but saw the BBC News item heralding it.

Based on that, my first reaction was that care homes should not be allowed to get away with "we've sacked the staff member involved; we're very sorry". The staff member involved should be prosecuted for GBH, assault or whatever basic offence in common law they can be charged with, and the care home's licence should be revoked, exactly as (say) the Traffic Commissioners would do if a lorry or bus firm falls short of its basic minimum standards.

My other thought, slightly echoing Cromwell's post but possibly in a more macabre fashion, is: by the time I reach the stage of needing care, I hope euthanasia's allowed ...

A moot subject and I think it dreadful that young people should have to devote their working lives to caring for those who are incapacitated and have lost their minds for some reason and if they were not in an automatic life condition would not want to continue living. This does cause me some concern particularly as number nine is looming and I vow never to go into care if I have sufficient mentality left to be able to pull the plug when the time comes.

Workingman wrote:It is not all the welfare state, though, is it?

A lot of these people, and their families, have flogged the family jewels (often the family home) to pay to be "cared" for in their final years.

That's true; these places don't come cheap. I know of family who all clubbed together to pay for for their dad to go into a home. It cost them a bomb.
What I was trying to get at was the myth of cradle to grave health care for all, provided by the state.

I see that one of the homes in the Panorama report has now sacked seven members of staff. What we do not know is the level those staff operated at, there is no mention of management sackings, though.

What is also disturbing is the Care Quality Commission's (CQC) part in all of this. The summary of its latest report on the home is here: http://www.cqc.org.uk/directory/1-121360985 It shows that the home passed on only three out of five areas, which in itself is not brilliant. However, if you expand those areas for further details you will find that on some measures it had never been inspected; it passed based on what it was telling the CQC it was doing. The home was basically assessing itself.

Will heads roll at management level of the home, at Anglia Retirement Homes (the owner operators) or the CQC, as they should? I doubt it.

The only way I can see of some of these cases being taken further is to introduce Class Action legislation along American lines.

Cromwell, I understand now, and yes, it is a myth.