I omitted to post this : NMC Hearings Schedule – 6th to 17th February 2012 – at Euston House, London.
All in the best interests of Care in the UK.
More later, but click here for the charges. Same as above link – but I wouldn’t want anyone to miss it.
Andrew Lansley has come up with the revolutionary concept that there will be a code of conduct and minimum training standards for all care workers operating in the field of adult social care. Or is it perhaps a slow evolution of care?
He said, allegedly: “Good local supervision offers support every day. Distant national regulation can often only react after the event. Employers must always take responsibility and be accountable for the staff they employ. But, we recognise that more can be done to support employers in this and a code of conduct and clear minimum training standards will provide important clarity in this area. These measures will help employers to better consider the skills profile of potential employees and ensure that patients and service users get the care and support they need.”
Somewhat late in the day, for some of us, so forgive me for shouting ABOUT TIME TOO!!
But, it’s the response from Care UK and its Managing Director of Residential Care, Toby Siddall, that has caused me great discomfort :
“Directors at Care UK see codes of conduct as only part of the solution. Matters of technical competence and behaviour are already an important part of the employment contract for Care UK employees. Whether or not a member of a care home team treats people with dignity is about the leadership, training and recruitment of people with the right personal values – not about a line in a contract.”
Well, well, well!!! Perhaps, Mr Siddall, you would care to explain just how long it is that ‘matters of technical competence and behaviour’ have been an important part of the employment contract for Care UK employees. Since when? Tell me the date!
They certainly weren’t in place in Care UK and at Lennox House care home at the end of 2007 and in 2008, when Lennox House was ‘investigated’ twice within 8 months and not allowed to accept new residents for a year while a whole host of measures enabled Care UK to drag itself from the gutter to an acceptable standard of care provision.
As for treating people with dignity – that was absent too when those residents were left dead in their beds for days, as the Islington Tribune reported.
Of course, the Reports of three (or more?) investigations are all held behind closed doors – far away from daylight, so as to protect the best interests of Care UK. The best interests of the Leadership of Care UK including Mike Parish, Chief Executive, and the then MD of Residential Care Tony Hosking, and the Managers and Deputy Managers of the whole not-fit-for-purpose care providers, of those in Islington who commissioned and allowed Lennox House to function when it was not fit for purpose, the then CSCI (now CQC) to name but a few. Their best interests are forever preserved by the hiding of those reports.
If leadership can be held responsible, as Care UK now seems to understand, how come heads never roll when people die as a result of sloppy leadership and sub-standard care?
Unless and until it is a requirement for all those Reports, and others too of similar investigations, to be published and available in the public domain so that everyone can see what went on behind closed doors – nothing will ever change.
Or could it be that too many Directorships spoil the concentration? 9 for Toby Siddall alone. And for Michael Robert Parish …….
Filed under abuse, care homes, Care UK
Every now and then you come across something that just takes your breath away. Even though you may have been a Grauniad (sic!) reader since the age of 16, when you were first required to tell your English teacher which newspapers you had read each single day of the school week. Yes, I am old enough to know all about that – thanks to Miss Edwards!
This piece by Kirsty Scott in the Guardian has done just that. It has rendered me breathless and speechless, almost. Is this a journalist writing as only a journalist should be required to do – as a free spirit (*ish!!) remembering the need to earn a living and to pay the family bills, yet at the same time not selling her/his soul. Not governed by anything other than the real free spirit of journalism.
Or is this someone acting as a paid promoter for Care UK? Promoting private equity to boot!!!
I would dearly love to open the closed eyes of anyone who falls for this kind of promo.
Care UK killed my own relative within 10 days of arrival in a Care UK care home.
How did Care UK manage (for want of a better word) to do that?
Because Care UK had absolutely no systems in place to provide the kind of caring care that one 83 year old required – let alone the other residents, some of whom were younger and in far less need of care, and some were older in greater need of care.
I’m only talking about 3 years ago too, so don’t get the wrong impression of my anger at Kirsty Scott’s article.
Without permission, Kirsty Scott, I bin your report. I am not impressed.
As for the Guardian’s Social Care section …. …. ……. it has been binned also.
Filed under abuse, care, care homes, Care UK, dementia care
A man has been charged with causing suffering to a Metropolitan Police dog after a door was slammed on its head.
The short story is here for all to read.
Apparently, Lukasz Sklepkowski, 28, of no fixed address, has been charged with causing unnecessary suffering under the Animal Welfare Act.
You know what’s coming next …
We’ve had a week of CQC reports on hospital neglect of our mature citizens, followed hotly by another CQC report on the starvation of same mature citizens in our so-called care homes.
Can someone explain to me why one dog should be more precious than thousands of vulnerable people in need of care?
At least the dog had several police officers to protect it during its activities.
There is allegedly the Animal Welfare Act.
Where is the Human Welfare Act? I’ve searched but haven’t found it so far.
Filed under abuse, care, care homes, growing older, neglect, NHS, professional responsibility
There’s an old saying, with many variations on the same theme: ‘everything comes to him who waits’, and my favourite variation is ‘all things come to him who waits – provided he knows what he’s waiting for’. I’m not absolutely sure that this next revelation is something I knew I was waiting for – but after years of waiting for the NMC to get its act together, there’s a small chink of light appearing.
The NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) is to review serious cases before internal investigations are conducted by the employer of the nurse(s) in question. According to Nursing Times –
Nurses and midwives involved in “very serious cases” that pose a risk to patients should be referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council prior to an internal investigation, the regulator has stated.
In updated guidance on referrals, the NMC has called on employers to make referrals as quickly as possible in order for it to consider issuing an interim suspension until the case has been fully investigated.
The regulator said it had “clarified its advice as a result of cases in which employers have misunderstood their responsibility to refer quickly if patient safety is at risk”.
It states: “The revised advice specifically encourages employers to refer a nurse or midwife at an early stage in very serious cases, even before they conduct their own internal investigation.”
NMC director of fitness to practise Jackie Smith said: “We would like to remind employers that if they believe the public’s health and wellbeing is at immediate and serious risk, they should contact us straight away.
“This will give us the opportunity to issue an interim suspension or restrict the person’s practice while the case is investigated,” she added.
The revised advice and information also notes that in less serious instances cases may be referred back from the NMC to the employer to be dealt with locally.
The guidance also includes more detailed information about the existing responsibilities of employers to check references, identity and competence.”
This news is of such importance, that I’ve just given you the full content of the Nursing Times article, and I trust that will be acceptable. It’s not so easy to find the updated guidance on the NMC website, but this is the nearest I’ve found – Urgent referrals and interim orders.
As an employer you have the power to suspend or dismiss a member of staff, but this will not prevent them from working elsewhere. Even suspensions by a local supervising authority midwifery officer (LSAMO), which would prevent a midwife from practising in that region, will not prevent a midwife from practising in other regions, or practising as a nurse if registered accordingly.
We are the only organisation with the powers to prevent nurses and midwives from practising if they present a risk to patient safety. In very serious cases it will therefore be appropriate to refer a nurse or midwife to us at an early stage, even before you conduct your own internal investigation. This allows for the possibility of issuing an interim suspension or restricting the practice of the nurse or midwife concerned until the case has been thoroughly investigated.
I am shocked to discover that this has only just been ‘clarified’ by the NMC, but it goes a long way to explain to me why I’ve had such a fight on my hands for the last 4 years now.
Perhaps I was naive and took it for granted that the onus was already there on the employer, in my case one of the big care home providers, and that the NMC would be contacted by any employer who has serious concerns about the standards of care being provided by a registered nurse or midwife. I didn’t know then how easy it was for the employer to allow several registered nurses to resign from their employment.
Perhaps I was equally naive to expect that the Local Authority would have a duty to follow through with all the sensible procedures, in order to protect other people who could be at risk if those same registered nurses who were allowed to resign were then ’employed’ elsewhere. But when a care provider has several 25-year contracts with the same local authority, you begin to learn how to whistle in the wind!
Perhaps I was even more naive to expect that the local authority’s Safeguarding/Protection of Vulnerable Adults unit would be equally responsible for ….. safeguarding others.
The NMC is a Regulator. The GMC is a Regulator. The CQC is a Regulator.
What is being a regulator all about if it fails to regulate in the way that most of us, mere mortals that we be, would want and expect a regulator to regulate?
Filed under care, care homes, justice, personal responsibility, professional responsibility
Two appearances -in-word by Chai Patel over the last few days – and both seem fairly innocuous at first reading.
A piece from Community Care on Friday 29 July 2011 begins:
Operators taking over Southern Cross homes face a long battle to earn the trust of residents and relatives, ex-Priory Group boss Dr Chai Patel has admitted as he prepares to take over one-third of the homes.
Patel told Community Care the firm he will head up to run the homes faces a “long journey” as “reputations are breached in a second and take years to build up”.
He’s referring to the reputation of Southern Cross there. Perhaps he should remember his own reputation and the way it was sullied by the experiences of residents of Lynde House care home.
An article in the Express on Sunday 31 July 2011 refers back to the year 2000/1 when residents of Lynde House care home were neglected and mistreated, when Lynde House was owned by Westminster Healthcare, with ….. Chai Patel as its then Chief Executive. Patel sold Westminster Healthcare soon after the scandal emerged. Patel was apparently interviewed on Friday 29 July 2011 and the former government adviser on elderly care, vowed that he would protect pensioners from the kind of maltreatment suffered at Lynde House, in Twickenham, Middlesex.
The Express quotes him as saying “The residents felt they could get recourse only by going public which has tarnished my reputation… I have never tolerated poor care and never would tolerate poor care.”
You can’t get away with that one, Chai Patel – otherwise people may be hoodwinked or even deceived by such protest!
Did Patel never bother to read the Report of the Lynde House investigation, dated May 2002 and published on 2 August 2002 – 9 years ago almost to the day?
If the Chief Executive shoulders no ultimate responsibility for the standards of care provided – or rather the sub-standard care a.k.a. neglect provided – the Chief Executive should not share excessively in the profits made either.
Let’s look also at 1 October 2002, when the London Evening Standard printed a neat summary of Patel’s career path. Including these words from Vince Cable talking about the feisty woman who had the courage to stand up to Chai Patel:
“Without Gillian Ward and her brave group of relatives, none of this would have come to light,” says MP Vincent Cable. “They have done us a major public service. The climate of denial they faced was ferocious.” “When I first raised the issue with Chai Patel, he totally poohpoohed it. All he had to do was to care enough to acknowledge their complaints, deal with them and apologise. But he chose to deny it and that led to it becoming a national public campaign.”
I do hope that the residents and relatives of all current Southern Cross care homes don’t have to face the same kind of ferocious denial. I also hope that in his new role, Chai Patel will accept responsibility for the care provided in his name and under his banner.
Where does the buck stop? If it doesn’t stop with the Chief Executive of a private care provider, then the buck will be in perpetual motion.
And here’s Gillian Ward again – also known as Deddie Davies. Still supporting those in care.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has yet again almost managed to airbrush itself out of existence. If only it could finish the job properly and be done with the constant whitewashing of the responsibility of the Regulator. Then the world of care might be a better place.
It took a BBC Panorama programme to open CQC eyes to the abuse that was going on at Winterbourne View hospital in Bristol, and for the CQC then to realise there were ‘serious concerns’ about the quality of care being provided by Castlebeck. It took an undercover reporter to force the CQC to do the job it should be doing: inspecting thoroughly, reporting efficiently and demanding that action is taken to prevent any care provider from providing neglect rather than care.
When I first contacted the CSCI (as CQC’s predecessor was called then) about my serious concerns about the care my relative received in a care home, CSCI’s Inspector told me that she would contact the manager of the care home. I heard nothing from the CSCI, so I chased for a progress report. Much to my surprise, I was told that the manager had informed CSCI that a meeting had been arranged and that “all my concerns had been resolved at the meeting”. The CSCI believed the manager and closed the book. There was no ‘meeting’ and my concerns were not resolved. Far from it.
Then, the mental health care of older people team carried out an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of my relative in care. I was excluded from all meetings, from everything other than an initial ‘interview’ with the investigator.
Then, the Local Authority ‘claimed ownership’ of the report – and continued to exclude me from all meetings.
The CSCI took a back seat, knowing full well that it would bring a cloud over the care provider, the CSCI inspectors, the Local Authority commissioning department etc. if all the details were to be ‘in the public domain’. It all remains closeted behind closed doors.
How many similarities are there between the report into the circumstances surrounding the death of my own relative and the CQC report on Castlebeck ?
Try these for starters, although I have paraphrased some:
As for staffing issues, there are so many people in the real world aware of the fact that care homes are endangering people’s lives by running their operation with too few staff, poorly trained, badly paid, unsupervised staff. Families are aware of it – what took the CQC so long?
How many Castlebeck’s are there in the world? I know of one providing Care in the UK! An animal that is growing daily, getting bigger and fatter and likely to become even fatter. As long as everything shabby and shoddy is kept hidden, the world will never know.
It took an undercover reporter to shock the CQC into action! Disgraceful. I know I’ve banged on about this one before, but it really does begin to make the CQC look even more ridiculously toothless than some of us know it to be.
Why should the Castlebeck report be in the public domain – yet the damning report into the neglect of my own relative is concealed from view? I wonder whether Andrew Lansley might like to comment on that one!!
As for Paul Burstow’s statement, “as a Government we intend to ensure that that doesn’t happen again” – I’m sick and tired of hearing that one. Because it does happen again – and again – and again.
Helga Pile, Unison’s head of social care, said: “Elderly care is a service where mandatory regulation is vital to protect their interests. The privatised model means that the time carers can spend with each person is minimal, forcing corners to be cut, and employers see basic training as an expensive luxury.”
“It is not right to try to get elderly care on the cheap.”
The rich care providers grow richer – the people in need of care are neglected and die as a result. The CQC is part of the problem.
Filed under care, care homes, dementia care, neglect
So, Lord Justice Leveson has one simple question at the heart of the public inquiry he is to oversee.
If only that same question could be asked about those who are charged with guarding our mature relatives in need of care at the most vulnerable stage of their lives.
It would require Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that his inquiry would encompass not only the toothless Care Quality Commission, but also the care providers, the local authority commissioning departments, local authority facilitators (for want of a better word), the whole network of careless care that so often destroys the lives of those who deserve better care.
The ethics and culture of the care system need a thorough examination also.
“The terms of reference raise complex and wide-ranging legal and ethical issues of enormous public concern,” said Justice Leveson in a statement released this afternoon.”
The same should be said about the way in which we have allowed a care system to develop that raises equally complex and wide-ranging legal and ethical issues of enormous public concern.
I’m not talking about phone-hacking. I’m talking about the preservation of life.
Filed under care, care homes, dementia care, justice, law
You take a break – switch off – relax.
You come back and discover that Southern Cross is to close and then, within hours, our wonderful government publishes its Open Public Services White Paper.
The ‘brick wall of silence’ is distressing Southern Cross care staff – so goodness knows how the residents and their families must be feeling.
To add insult to injury, of Southern Cross’s 752 homes, according to Community Care, 250 ‘will return to landlords who are themselves operators or have close links to operators, while the others are finalising arrangements.
The larger group includes landlords NHP and Loyds Properties, which between them own more than 300 Southern Cross homes. Separately, Loyds has gone into administration, a process overseen by Grant Thornton.
NHP and Grant Thornton are thought to be working to bring an experienced operator into their portfolio of homes with former Priory owner Chai Patel tipped. Last week Patel was brought in as an adviser to NHP on a possible shake-up of its homes, according to the Guardian. However it is unclear what will happen to the remaining homes.’
You remember, suddenly, Lynde House care home from May 2002 – owned then by Westminster Care under the ‘guidance’ of Chai Patel. ‘Lynde House is a nursing home owned by Westminster Health Care and has been operating since 1996. Westminster Health Care was registered by the Kingston and Richmond Health Authority to provide general nursing care only to seventy-two elderly frail residents. In May 1999 Dr C Patel and Mr Tony Heywood bought Westminster Health Care from the previous owners.’
The Investigation Report from May 2002 is available here .
Then you remember, from your last visit to the Nursing and Midwifery Council Hearings listings, that Lynette Maggs and Sarah Johnson are both scheduled to be ‘heard’ on 25 July 2011. Lynette Maggs was the Matron of Lynde House; Sarah Johnson was the Manager of Lynde House. Both cases have been ongoing for years now, so may not reach a conclusion in July.
The Lynde House Relatives Support Group have surely waited more than long enough. They tried their utmost to alert Chai Patel’s enterprise to the problems. This was the response:
“When concerns were raised with Westminster Health Care about this £800-a-week nursing home – which promised round the clock care for the elderly (many of whom were incapable of even feeding themselves) – one relative was told to ‘look elsewhere’. Margaret Jones, Regional Manager of WHC dismissed us, declaring that Lynde House was ‘as good as a Travel Lodge’. Sheila Roy, Group Director of Healthcare Services, told us that ‘pressure sores are inevitable’.”
Today, The Guardian reports that Southern Cross ‘was forced into announcing its wind-up this week by its former sister company and largest landlord, shareholders were told on Tuesday.
Southern Cross chairman Christopher Fisher told an investors’ meeting that NHP – itself controlled by a string of banks – “pulled the rug” from under its tenant causing the firm to conclude last weekend that it would have to be broken up.’
Which brings us back to Chai Patel!
NHP has now hired Chai Patel and he is is expected to play a leading role in the NHP-owned properties. No surprises there!!
We are reminded constantly that ‘lessons will be learned’. Will they?
Filed under care, care homes, justice
There’s spin – and there’s spin. There’s careful choice of words – and there’s very careful choice of words. There’s spreading the message you want people to hear – and there’s spreading the message you know that others will repeat and spread for you.
This piece by Mike Parish, Chief Executive of Care UK, appeared on Care UK’s website on 1st June 2011, the day after transmission of the BBC Panorama programme ‘Undercover Care: The Abuse Exposed’ showing the torture of people living at Castlebeck’s long-stay hospital/assessment/treatment hospital Winterbourne View. The day that Southern Cross was sinking further into the pits. Parish expresses his disappointment and frustration “at the recent unfavourable media coverage of the care sector”.
The same article has appeared elsewhere since then – spreading the message, just as Parish intended it to be spread.
Parish says “It’s undeniable that the news relating to Southern Cross’ financial difficulties and the disgraceful events at a Castlebeck home are deeply distressing. However, these are not at all typical of care providers whether public, private or charitable, who generally provide outstanding quality of care.” All care homes should always provide outstanding care – not just ‘generally’.
He goes on “We are entrusted wtih the ultimate responsibility of caring for vulnerable people ….” It is indeed a matter of life and death. Or does Parish mean the moral responsibility, for which of course there would need to be a sense of morality present in each and every employee of Care UK, including those workers being paid less-than-the-minimum-wage, not even a living wage by Care UK. Are they also required to demonstrate their sense of moral responsibility?
“….. Investing in the skills of our staff and in our quality controls makes a difference to our customers and to our staff.” It’s good to know that quality controls might be emerging in Care UK.
“…. Care UK’s quality ratings, as assessed independently by the Care Quality Commission, places it at the top end of the industry, with virtually all its services being rated good or excellent.” I’m not sure why Mr Parish should show such pride in the CQC, right at the time when the CQC is desperately in trouble for many reasons. Or perhaps it suits Mr Parish that the CQC can no longer be seen as fit for purpose, starved of staff and resources, abandoning inspections, and relying on the likes of Care UK to assess itself.
“….. We’ve maintained double digit annual growth rates for over two decades ….” Great news – but only if Parish can put his hand on his heart and swear that he has never never never (triple negative!) cut corners to save a few (million) bob, on any aspect of care in any one of his care homes, starving the staff of the training and monitoring and even basic equipment (such as capillary blood glucose monitoring strips), let alone the knowledge of how to communicate effectively with the local GP.
“…. We can only achieve this by maintaining the quality of our care and thereby the trust and confidence of our service users ….” See triple negative above!!
Parish has a very selective memory, or is it selective memory loss? Has he chosen to forget another BBC Panorama programme from 9th April 2009 – Britain’s Homecare Scandal – where “After thousands of complaints and over 900 missed calls Hertfordshire Council got rid of Care UK, just 10 months after they had been awarded the contract”. Many other contracts have also been lost by Care UK.
Has he also pressed the delete button on events at Care UK’s Lennox House in Islington, July/August 2008, and earlier too, the care home where the then-manager was suspended and allowed to resign after the bodies of two residents were left in their beds for days? As reported here in the Daily Mail – other reports are also available, such as this one from the Islington Tribune.
Or even the fact that the same Lennox House – which opened as a brand new flagship care home in the summer of 2007 – was subject to enforcement action and a massive ‘action/improvement plan’ and not allowed to accept new residents until May 2009, thanks to that wonderfully independent CSCI. That was nothing to do with the residents’ bodies being left in their beds for days. Things were always seen to have gone very wrong in December 2007, just months after Lennox House opened. CSCI/CQC reports available on the CQC website:
In other words, Care UK’s Lennox House was not fit for purpose when it opened and received residents. Had it been, it would not have taken two years for it to demonstrate that it “continues to improve”, as noted by the CQC inspectors, and for it to drag itself up from a rating of ‘adequate’.
I’ve never been enamoured of the CSCI/CQC for personal reasons and because of my family’s experience of care home care. Their inspection reports have always taken 3 or more months to appear, rendering them even more meaningless than the toothless tick-box exercise they appear to have always been. As some of us have had to find out, the hard way, a care home can go from ‘flagship’ to ‘wreck’ in the blink of an eye, or even from good to bad to absolutely disgraceful, to use a word from Mr Parish’s comments above. Not that the CSCI noticed – until it had no choice but to be aware.
Mike Parish may also have chosen to forget this very recent revelation dated 6 May 2011: ‘An elderly woman from Worcester Park, was left in severe pain from injuries caused by care home negligence while staying at Appleby House, a care home operated by Care UK, a leading independent provider of health and social care services. The company has now paid the woman’s family compensation as she has since died.’ ….. ‘
Mrs Cunningham’s daughter Janice commented: “I think this incident highlights the casual way the elderly are treated in some residential care homes. I believe Epsom General Hospital shouldn’t have discharged my mother to such a poor home.
“It is terrible my mother had to endure the pain of the pressure sores. People need to be vigilant when it comes to the care a home is providing and not believe all you are told by the homes’ employees. It pays to investigate yourself.”
The above is taken from the website of Russell Jones & Walker the firm of solicitors who represented the very best interests of Josephine Cunningham and her daughter.
There’s no smoke without fire could be a message for Mike Parish to remember.
Today’s Today programme featured a good interview with Christopher Fisher, Chairman of Southern Cross. It’s worth a listen to hear what John Humphry’s describes as ‘semantics’, and what I’ve called above ‘very careful choice of words’. Fisher squirms, as to be expected, accepts his full share of responsibility, still defends his ‘business model’, but can’t bring himself to say sorry for his actions over recent years. He claims to have improved the standards of care over recent years – well, he’s also got a very conveniently selective memory, bearing in mind that almost 30 per cent of Southern Cross’s care homes have breached minimum standards and have been served ‘improvement notices’ by the CQC. He says that there were ‘issues in dealing’ with those standards of care, claiming to have invested heavily to improve training and support to employees. He talks of ‘people occupying beds’. Those people are not just occupying beds – the care homes have become their only home, where they expect to be assisted to live life to the full. They didn’t realise they were meant to be contributing to your profit margins, whether or not you chose to sell off care homes, lease them back, and then all sell off your shares to make big profits to the tune of £millions.
For goodness sake! The mealy-mouthed words of a weasel.
Nobody can blame all of the above on ‘unfavourable media coverage’ – not even Mike Parish.
Care in the UK 