[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Care Homes : Damning CQC Report - Carers UK Forum

Care Homes : Damning CQC Report

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
One from the Daily Chuckle ... aka Mail ... which lays bare the current state of the Care Home sector :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/a ... chdog.html

Big names on 'blacklist of care home offenders' charging £220 a day: One in eight is shamed by watchdog.

One in eight residential care homes in England is failing to meet statutory standards of quality and safety despite some charging more than £220 a day.

The Mail on Sunday has learnt that 2,108 homes have never passed an inspection in four years and have been ordered to make improvements or been threatened with enforcement action or closure.

Dozens of those on this Care Quality Commission ‘blacklist’ are owned by well-known providers including HC-One, Bupa, Four Seasons, Care UK and Barchester.

Around a quarter of the 16,000 care homes in the UK are currently classed as ‘requiring improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ by the CQC.

Failings often centre on a lack of staff which can leave residents unattended for long periods.

Tensions between the regulator and the industry have been rising, with operators more than ready to challenge critical findings, even if few complaints are upheld.

Campaigner Martyn Lewis said: ‘Firms have very little to lose by challenging critical CQC reports.’

Some operators on their websites simply downplay critical reports.

Last week, the spat became public when Ideal Care Homes attacked the regulator after failing to prevent publication of a critical report about its Ashworth Grange home, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. The CQC had branded it inadequate last September and Ideal had initially held up publication.

Paul Farmer, the firm’s managing director, said Ideal had sought an injunction because of ‘material inaccuracies’ in the report.


Andrea Sutcliffe, the CQC’s Chief Inspector, has spoken of her concerns, saying: ‘We should not be content that people in vulnerable circumstances can’t rely on the care and support we would want our own loved ones to experience.’

In addition to ‘requiring improvement’ and ‘inadequate’, the CQC can also award ‘good’ ratings or even ‘outstanding’.

But numerous legal challenges are underway, including from Barchester and HC-One, even though ratings have only been changed in 21 cases out of more than 450.

Perhaps many should have a sign over the entrance ?


Normally , given source , one would add a large pinch of salt ?

Not in this case ... the figures quoted do their own talking.
Anyone who has been an auditor or has been audited will know that minor matters can sound much more serious than they really are when written up in an audit report. I was on both sides of the desk for decades. So buckets of salt required when reading parts of reports. Add to that the desire of journalists to make mountains out of pimples, mix in the Daily Fail. .. and sigh deeply. What surprises me is that so many Homes "passed". I could always find fault. It was my job to suggest improvements.
The best asessor of a Home remains your own eyes and most importantly ears. We have experience of quite a few Homes. All have their weaknesses. The trick is to decide if the weaknesses are really significant. Some failings are show stoppers, others we live with. A bit like marriage. If you want perfection you'll be lonely.
The point I struggle with is the failure of regulators to achieve significant improvement.
That's why I care for my mum at my home.
What good is an inspectorate that won't investigate individual concerns, but waits for "trends to emerge"? No good for someone in an individual situation.
Precisely !

For many , nothing short of gambling ... good / acceptable / poor ... three card trick , find The Lady.

For some , they may have done their homework to shorten the odds ?

For others , no real choice ... they either find " The Lady " or lose.

Perhaps a variation on the old Crusader war cry ?

" Nick 'em all , let the courts sort 'em out ! " ... ?

Until such time when social care is returned to the NHS ( ? ) , under one , all embrassing " Watchdog " ... a rottweiler rather than a poodle ... with enforcers on the ground . armed with real legal powers ... nothing will change ... unless the casaulty count becomes too " Politically " unacceptable ?

If you prefer , a NHS / Social Care police force with powers almost identical to our normal police force.

The priority of ANY Government is to protect it's citizens ... including the most vunerable ones .... and not threaten their wellbeing through measures like Austerity !!!