Winterbourne View Report: Smoke & Mirrors?

Any action to improve the lives of those with learning disabilities has to be welcome and many of the proposals in the Governments Winterbourne View Final Report are good yet that does not mean the report should go unchallenged especially as there are some inconsistencies where it appears the Government may be trying to deflect responsibility introducing ideas that, actually, really already exist.

Norman Lamb and others have focused a lot on corporate responsibility. Norman Lamb said “This case has revealed weaknesses in the system’s ability to hold the leaders of care organisations to account. This is a gap in the care regulatory framework, and we intend to close it”.

In fact the Health and Social Act 2008 made care organisations accountable and open to prosecution if they fail to meet the regulations, and Castlebeck certainly failed on a number of them. The Care Quality Commission also has the power to cancel a providers registration. In addition there are also the legal requirements under the Health & Safety Act 1974, the HSE’s guidance states:

“Recent case law has confirmed that directors cannot avoid a charge of neglect under section 37 by arranging their organisation’s business so as to leave them ignorant of circumstances which would trigger their obligation to address health and safety breaches.
Those found guilty are liable for fines and, in some cases, imprisonment.”

As the abuse at Winterbourne View clearly breaches the Health & Safety requirement to keep everyone in the place of business safe, surely Castlebeck should have been prosecuted.

Rather than taking time to draft new legislation surely it would make more sense to ensure existing legislation is being used effectively.

We also need to take care over how the Government frames the action which it proposes to take, for example in its timetable for action we have:

From June 2012 – CQC will take enforcement action against providers who do not operate effective processes to ensure they have sufficient numbers of properly trained staff, &;

From April 2013 – CQC will assess whether providers are delivering care consistent with the statement of purpose made at the time of registration
Although welcome moves the real question, unanswered by the report, is why were these not already happening? Both are required by the Health & Social Care Act regulations and, as such, form part of the requirements of registration. Yes there has been a change of leadership at the CQC and things have improved but it does not mean that such things should be omitted from the report nor does it excuse the absence of any action to ensure such things do not happen again.

The report also fails to answer the question of Government inaction on social care, particularly in terms of those with Learning Disabilities where the principles of Valuing People seemed to have faded in to dim memory. Much of what is being proposed should already have been in place and it is the Governments neglect of social care that means they are now only acting because they are forced to.

There is also a serious omission from the report that is equally important to the Winterbourne View case and that is Whistleblowing. Action could have been taken much sooner if the reports to Castlebeck and CQC were acted upon and some of the abuse witnessed in the Panorama film would not have happened. Yet nowhere in the list of action to be taken is a review of existing Public Interest Disclosure law, the responsibilities of statutory bodies to act or even report when abuse is alleged.

For all the effort to prevent abuse it is still down to people reporting it before it can be truly uncovered, I doubt very much if regulatory bodies have uncovered abuse through annual inspections, and therefore there has to be much more done in the way of encouraging people to disclose abuse along with a much more robust response when such reports are made that reports all allegations not just those that make it to safeguarding referral stage.

It would be wrong throw out the baby with the bath water and there are some very positive proposals in the report. It is right to end the existence of these pseudo-hospitals and it is right to move all people with learning disabilities toward person centred support.

We need more action on learning disability services and not just for those who find themselves confined in so called hospitals. Abuse happens in other places to and we need equal action to eradicate hate crime in the community where life is not regulated by the CQC.

This report should just be a start, let's have a new white paper on how the Government and society will support those with Learning Disabilities to lead fuller and safer lives.

Personalisation: Structure and Agency

A basic common debate within social sciences is the question of structure versus agency, how the social structures of society impact on us as individuals and how our individual choices and freedoms are constrained by those social structures.

These arguments need to be considered in relation to social care, particularly personalisation.

The Social Care Institute for Excellence give us the following definition for personalisation;

"Personalisation means thinking about care and support services in an entirely different way. It means starting with the person as an individual with strengths, preferences and aspirations, and putting them at the centre of the process of identifying their needs and making choices about how and when they are supported to live their lives. It requires a significant transformation of adult social care so that all systems, processes, staff and services are geared up to put people first"

This shows the intrinsic link between structure and agency within delivering personalisation. It could also be argued that it demonstrates why personalisation has been difficult to achieve and why personalisation will never be truly personal unless there is a major change in the way social care is structured.

The SCIE definition describes the individual as being at the centre of the process of identifying their needs and making choices about how and when they are supported to live their lives.

In other words, the person is at the centre of the structure! But, how much is their individual agency constrained by that structure.

Unfortunately that structure is one that limits those choices available for personalised care and support and it is a multi-layered structure, each layer filled with bureaucracy and each layer with, at times, competing agendas.

The big, over-arching layer of structure in social care is, of course, Westminster. Parliament set out the laws and regulations under which social care is practiced in England, it sets out how social care is funded and it sets the structure under which personalisation can operate. This is all administered by the Department of Health who, as is its name suggests, has a primary focus on health and while many aspects of social care may overlap with health there are many other areas, such as housing and welfare, that do not.

The next layer in the structure is the most diverse and, perhaps, Weberian in its nature and that is the delegated bureaucracy. The role of implementing and enforcing the dictates of Westminster is handed down to a myriad of Quango’s (e.g. CQC, NICE etc) who have their own structures for implementing the written law handed down to them and of course, 152 local authorities with responsibility for commissioning state funded care and again with their own structures and political leadership which may vary from that sitting in Westminster.

The next layer surrounding the individual is the providers of care services. This is not just care homes or home carers, it also includes Social Workers who provide a service on behalf of the local authorities, providers of advocacy services, services which provide employment opportunities etc.

Eventually we reach the person needing care and support services.

Whichever way you look at it, as a top down structure or a circle with the individual at the centre, the layers of structure hamper the ideals of personalisation.

Those who provide services can only do so in controlled circumstances, they must be appropriately registered or have an appropriate contract and the services must be provided within the budget available. For those who need to choose services the choice becomes limited by these structural constraints, even those who have personal budgets or direct payments have the budgetary implications to consider. Whatever an individual’s strengths, preferences and aspiration, services can only operate within the structure dictated by the layers that surround care provision and the rules and regulations imposed on them.

This is not to argue that such constraints should be removed but that the structure should be revisited if we are to improve social care services and increase the opportunities for greater personalisation.

We are trying to move from a top down structure to one that has the individual at the centre yet the actual structure remains the same and has the same constraints on agency. If we want to change the outcomes for individuals we need to take a real look at the structure within which social care operates.

Whose Responsible - Unblurring the Boundaries Will Help Care Provision

Much of the debate surrounding social care at present focuses on funding issues, who pays, how much should individuals pay etc. yet there are significant other issues that need to be addressed.

One of these is how the interface between public services and private providers operates.

Yesterday’s report on healthcare in care homes published by the Care Quality Commission has, perhaps inadvertently, highlighted the issue of where responsibility lays at this interface.

The report states “some homes did not adequately demonstrate person-focused care planning” and “just over half of residents (55%) were aware that they had a care plan in place that sets out their needs.”

Yet contrast this with another recent CQC document entitled ‘What standards you have a right to expect from the regulation of your care home’ (see document here) which states that people who use services should “get the care that you and your social care professional agree will make a difference to your health and wellbeing.”

Comparing the two does raise the question – who has responsibility for care planning, the home or the social services professional? And who has the responsibility for ensuring that the person using the service is aware of that plan.

Obviously  it is important  that both work together  with the individual in preparing the plan but where does the ‘final’ responsibility actually lay? Implementing the plan of care naturally falls with the care provider but once a person enters a care home how much monitoring of that plan takes place by social service care management?

Added into this needs to be the role of healthcare professionals in care planning, the demographics of care provision have changed dramatically over the last 20 years, people are likely to be much older when needing care home provision and are likely to have much greater health needs, particularly due to the fact that dementia is not classed as nursing need despite being a disease, so many of those with dementia are in ‘residential’ rather than ‘nursing’ homes.

With older people in care age related medical conditions need addressing in care planning – who is responsible for ensuring that appropriate health professionals are involved in this? In addition there should also be some form of involvement by those health professionals in assessing the health care needs on a regular basis.

Quite rightly there is a drive to ensure personalisation and independence for all those who access care services but at the same time this should not diminish the responsibility of professionals to ensure effective care planning is in place. Unfortunately the current system has an interface between public service and private provision that blurs the boundaries of responsibility and the only people who lose out because of that are the people who use services.

As the debate on the future of social care moves forward we must look beyond the question of who pays and play closer attention to the issues and responsibilities that have a direct impact on the quality of care provided.

Social Care Businesses: Welcome to the Real World

There is a general rule of thumb in customer service training that says if a customer receives bad service they will tell, on average, ten people. Yet if they receive exceptionally they are likely to only tell two or three people.

The advent of the internet has made the audience for peoples thoughts on a service much wider than just relatives, friends and acquaintances. Sites such as Trip Advisor offer people the chance to vent their frustrations publically and have become a first port of call for many planning a holiday. Would you choose to stay in a hotel that had consistently bad reviews?

With the creation of The Good Care Guide (http://www.goodcareguide.co.uk/) social care providers will need to be much more aware of customer service skills and the potential impact of giving bad service to care users and their relatives. It is not now just a matter of providing efficient care and support but the manner in which it is delivered also becomes important.

In one sense this new website means that social care providers are catching up with most other business sectors in the UK. Businesses will now have to ensure their ‘public facing’ image is as good as their image to the local authorities and care regulators who currently hold the balance of power over what is and what is not a good service. Care providing businesses are entering a phase of new opportunities to promote their company yet it is a phase that could be fraught with danger for those who choose to ignore the importance of this change.

Comment has been made that one malicious comment could ruin a business, that is certainly true however the issue has to be that providers will need to monitor the comments they are receiving and act accordingly. Business owners will need to be much more active in the image of their company and be prepared to make instant adjustments to their service delivery.

At some point it will be inevitable that Local Authority commissioning will also be influenced by the guide. It would be hard for any authority to justify using any care provider who constantly received critical reviews which will naturally mean a reduction in the number of referrals, by the same token anyone self-funding care will be unlikely to even consider visiting a poorly rated care provider.

The one question mark over the new web service is how the Care Quality Commission will use it and what happens if a provider is constantly criticised for its service yet it meets all the requirements of the essential standards of quality and safety.

That aside there will be an increasing need for social care businesses to look to increasing their focus on customer service and marketing skills in order to compete in this new environment.

Social Care businesses are entering into the real world of customer choice, customer service and marketing and those who will survive are those who adjust sooner rather than later.