Care Quality Commission (CQC) said We failed elderly because we were too scared

[jimbo 111]

We failed elderly because we were too scared care home owners would sue us, watchdog admits
Head of watchdog for care homes admits: we failed to protect vulnerable because we feared being sued

The elderly and vulnerable were failed by a watchdog set up to protect them because it feared legal threats from owners of care homes, it has admitted.
The head of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) said it has too often “backed off” from making attempts to close unsafe homes and “tended not to fight back” when was legally challenged.
David Prior, chairman of CQC, made the disclosures as the regulator vowed to change its approach, to be “much more robust” in taking on poor providers of care.
He said its own data suggests that at least 750 care homes providing care to elderly and disabled people have been failing to hit at least one basic standard for more than a year


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...home-owners-would-sue-us-watchdog-admits.html

 

[CollegeGirl]

That's disgraceful. What's the point of having a regulator if they're not going to do what they're supposed to do?

 

[ASH74]

This really doesn't surprise me sadly.....having spoken with an inspector about concerns.....at the time I wondered why I bothered!


Sent from my iPad using Talking Point

 

[jeany123]

What a waste of time and money no wonder they can't afford to look after our elderly properly when money is wasted on nothing, how many other things are just glossed over and may as well have not been done in the first place,

I keep saying I despair and I really do,

 

[LYN T]

Ha! Truth at last. I wonder what form being 'much more robust' will take.

Disgraceful-I expect the Managers of the CQC receive nice big salaries to do nothing.

These Homes are meant to be looking after our relatives who are very vulnerable and the CQC are meant to be overseeing their care. This article will strike fear into many hearts, but it has to be made public

Take care

Lyn T

 

[WILLIAMR]

Ha! Truth at last. I wonder what form being 'much more robust' will take.

Disgraceful-I expect the Managers of the CQC receive nice big salaries to do nothing.

These Homes are meant to be looking after our relatives who are very vulnerable and the CQC are meant to be overseeing their care. This article will strike fear into many hearts, but it has to be made public

Take care

Lyn T

Hi Lyn

I must say the manager of the care home was always doing something. He said his door was always open and left a book outside his office and people could write their names in it if they wanted to see him if it was non urgent both staff and relatives.
He said if you wanted to see him urgently let the receptionist know and he saw the people quick.
He did walk around the home and if he spotted a member of staff struggling he would help and check if the patients logs were being completed etc.

When my step mother went in he had a 5 year old Ford Focus but this was changed for a new Honda Civic by the time she passed away.

I happen to know where he lives. He has a nice house but not one of the top houses in the area.

Of course I don't know how much he had in the bank.

William

 

[lexy]

deleted

 

[LYN T]

Hi Lyn

I must say the manager of the care home was always doing something. He said his door was always open and left a book outside his office and people could write their names in it if they wanted to see him if it was non urgent both staff and relatives.
He said if you wanted to see him urgently let the receptionist know and he saw the people quick.
He did walk around the home and if he spotted a member of staff struggling he would help and check if the patients logs were being completed etc.

When my step mother went in he had a 5 year old Ford Focus but this was changed for a new Honda Civic by the time she passed away.

I happen to know where he lives. He has a nice house but not one of the top houses in the area.

Of course I don't know how much he had in the bank.

William

It's not the CH Managers I'm worried about-although I can only comment about the one who manages the Home my Husband is in-she deserves every penny she earns IMO. It's the Managers/Heads/legal Team of the CQC. Will we ever find out who made each individual decision not to close down failing CH's? I hope these people are no longer employed.

 

[LYN T]

That is really worrying - now we have nothing to refer to when looking for a CH. Trying to weed out the 'not so good' ones is hard enough as it is without not being able to trust the CQC reports.

And that is the real problem PIPH. I looked at many, many CH's-in the end I went on my instincts and visited the chosen one a good few times.

I am still vigilent-because we have to be don't we?

Take care

Lyn T

 

[garnuft]

Hi Lyn

I must say the manager of the care home was always doing something. He said his door was always open and left a book outside his office and people could write their names in it if they wanted to see him if it was non urgent both staff and relatives.
He said if you wanted to see him urgently let the receptionist know and he saw the people quick.
He did walk around the home and if he spotted a member of staff struggling he would help and check if the patients logs were being completed etc.

When my step mother went in he had a 5 year old Ford Focus but this was changed for a new Honda Civic by the time she passed away.

I happen to know where he lives. He has a nice house but not one of the top houses in the area.

Of course I don't know how much he had in the bank.

William

That's a good point William. Perhaps we spend too much time tarring everyone with the same brush and lose sight of the incredible system we already have in place.

Complacency rules on both sides.

I always take issue with things that cause me a problem, even though it causes me grief and worry. Cowards always think that brave people do it de rigueur, they don't factor in the courage it takes to have a stance.

These are the things about which it's always said 'lessons will be learned'.

Well I have faith, I think they will be...as long as enough people keep on talking about them and are willing to stand up and be counted...whinging on doesn't count.

 

[handyjack]

I honestly think the problem is, when CQC visit, be it expected or unexpected, word is spread amongst the staff to be on their best behaviour. Pay careful attention to moving and handling, make sure the residents have plenty of drinks/ interactions with staff/ toileted regularly, etc, etc. The CQC inspectors can then only take a snapshot of things as they see them. What's really needed imho, is for the CQC to employ their own care staff, to gain employment in suspect care/nursing homes. That way these staff could gain a better insight into the "normal" practices in these suspect homes. If the BBC/ ITV/ etc can get undercover reporters in, I'm absolutely sure the CQC could get undercover HCA's/ nurses in. Heck , they could even go the whole hog and employ elderly people to go undercover as residents on respite care for a few weeks. Even I would welcome such a move by the CQC (and probably apply for a job with them)

 

[jimbo 111]

I honestly think the problem is, when CQC visit, be it expected or unexpected, word is spread amongst the staff to be on their best behaviour. Pay careful attention to moving and handling, make sure the residents have plenty of drinks/ interactions with staff/ toileted regularly, etc, etc. The CQC inspectors can then only take a snapshot of things as they see them. What's really needed imho, is for the CQC to employ their own care staff, to gain employment in suspect care/nursing homes. /QUOTE]

 

[jimbo 111]

I honestly think the problem is, when CQC visit, be it expected or unexpected, word is spread amongst the staff to be on their best behaviour. Pay careful attention to moving and handling, make sure the residents have plenty of drinks/ interactions with staff/ toileted regularly, etc, etc. The CQC inspectors can then only take a snapshot of things as they see them. What's really needed imho, is for the CQC to employ their own care staff, to gain employment in suspect care/nursing homes. /QUOTE]


I believe the CQG do have retired people doing inspections

I don't think it is necessarily the inspections that are at fault ,though I am sure there is room for improvement
I think it's the cowardly way those who run the CQG look after their own interests
at the expense of their staff and he elderly and infirm

 

[TinaT]

I remember well that in 2007 when I was looking at care homes in my area for my husband and coming out shocked and horrified, so much so that I sent a complaint to the then CSCI on three of the homes I had visited. I was totally ignored and when I phoned them to ask what they were doing about the care homes I had reported, the inspector at the other end of the phone was rude, abrupt and made me feel like a stupid, neurotic fool.

If we go back through the recent history of the newly formed CQC, the first two years they were swamped by having to re-register every care home in the country. They didn't have enough inspectors and had enormous administrative problems as a newly emerging organisation. On top of this an individual inspector was often inspecting a large care home without any other help.

This was the period when I needed them most of course as my husband was by then in a care home. I did not feel confident after my first encounter with the old CSCI and so dealt with any complaints I had by myself as best I could by being insistent and being labelled a 'know it all' because I felt it my responsibility to find out as much as I could about the standards which the CQC introduced.

Then after much well deserved, poor publicity last year, along came another change in the organisation with new regulations and standards and a new CE who promised that the public would be listened to and instigated a year of public consultation and 'listening' events.

The CQC, stemming from all of this consultation, now implement the 'Mum's Test' - would you allow your mother or relative to be placed in this particular home? They have changed their standards of assessment, and now work under five areas which are Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive, and finally, Well Led. These general areas are minutely broken down into what really is important for good quality care. They now also use other 'experts' alongside the inspectors as a matter of course in almost all inspections. These 'experts' have practical knowledge, experience and skills which help inspectors.

They also do take very seriously any complaints from residents or relatives and although they cannot resolve individual complaints, they can and do take a great deal of notice and instigate suitable actions on their part.

The results of inspections under the new regulations will be published on the CQC website with clearer, easily identifiable outcomes of each inspection which the public can more readily understand.

I for one am assured that the organisation has learned from past, bitter mistakes. These past mistakes cannot be put right. I know these mistakes were very grave with some horrendous, unnecessary suffering caused and for me personally, they caused me a lot of anger, frustration and heartache.

It will be very, very hard to put our trust in an organisation which we know has failed in the past but I honestly and truthfully believe that there has been a radical and profound change from top to bottom of the organisation.

I would urge anyone who has concerns to contact the CQC with their complaints, alongside complaining to care home managers, and I feel that complaints now have a very important role in CQC policing our nations care homes. Inspectors can only spend a few days inspecting. They know full well that as soon as they arrive some care home managers will be frantically calling in staff etc., etc., but if they are armed with good information from the people who are in on the ground floor - specifically concerned and caring relatives, then they will be armed with prior knowledge which will greatly help their effectiveness.

xxTinaT

 

[handyjack]

Tina, the CQC are implementing changes and are going to introduce 11 fundamental standards of care (as opposed to the 5 they have at present). As far as I can see (from my own research) they will still fall short of stating a minimum staff to resident ratio. At the moment they will say if staff numbers are too low, but still won't intimate the level of staffing they require. Subsequently a care home may fail on the number of staff, but won't get direct advice from the CQC about how many staff they need. They might get something like "You need more staff" but there will be absolutely no statement of the numbers of staff needed to fulfil this criteria. I don't know that the CQC are doing enough to raise standards. I know that some years ago the governing body (then) did state the minimum staff/resident ratio. I for one know the problems associated with staff shortages. Personally I think there's far too many people employed in this industry who see it as a job, rather than a vocation (and there's the difference) I've got to have a bloody good reason for not turning up for my work. Whereas some people just seem to like having the weekend off (younger HCA's usually) The industry needs to attract more people who will see it as a vocation/calling, rather than just another job.

 

[TinaT]

The regulation of staffing levels has not been addressed by government legislation, you are quite right. The Care Quality Commission has no remit to make laws regarding this but can advise the Government.

The problem with staffing levels is quite complex. What in any one day can be regarded as quite generous staffing levels can the next day be quite the opposite. A resident may suddenly need to be escorted to hospital, a member of staff phone in sick, a resident take a turn for the worse and need intensive nursing or supervision, the lift may fail suddenly and staff be run off their feet getting residents from A to B, to name but a few of the impediments to good staffing levels.

Staff can, and are, brought in on days off and given overtime pay. Is this a good way to get the home fully staffed? Staff can have spent long, long days working both regular and overtime shifts. Are they sufficiently fresh and able to cope with the constant, day to day work of caring for very needy residents after working without a break?

Whilst there is a bank of agency staff which can be used in an emergency to supplement regular staff, they themselves can cause more of a problem to the regular staff than a help as they do not know the residents, the routines of the home, or where things are kept and they themselves need supervising in all they do.

Whilst there is a need for good quality, temporary staff or to have staff of sufficient numbers that they can cope with the day to day staffing of the home,even in emergency situations, who is to pay for this? Care home fees are already very high. Local Authority homes who commission care homes and pay for places are cutting care prices to the bone because they are so financially constrained.

What is more concerning is the homes where there is a chronic, long standing problem with shortages of staff. At present the Care Quality Commission look at daily staffing level records, rely on residents, relatives and honest staff to give a true picture on the day/s of the inspection.

Perhaps if there is strong reasons for believing that staffing levels are a serious problem, there may be some way such as putting in a 'spy' worker,

I personally feel that the reporting of this by residents, relatives and workers themselves will always be needed in the first instance to alert the CQC to any problems. It would be impossible to put a 'spy' into every care home or even the ones where there is slight evidence of poor staffing levels.

Hard evidence from these sources needs to come from somewhere before such measures can or even should be implemented.

xxTinaT