[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
Carers UK Forum • under the Care Act - Page 2
Page 2 of 2

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:29 pm
by bowlingbun
Yes, that's what it's called in Hampshire. In theory, the "call handler" can deal with simple queries on the spot, if she can't it will be passed to the "short term team" if it can be sorted within 6 weeks, otherwise it's referred to the "long term team". In reality, they haven't got a clue, on one occasion I had a call take longer than an HOUR!!
As the mother of someone with learning difficulties, I am ringing about him, but that creates extra problesms. I'm made to go through both our names, addresses dob etc. I say look at the file, because it's all on file, they say they can't until I've passed security.
Social workers are no longer allowed to put their office number on their emails, they're only allowed to put the call centre number on. I ask "just put me through to x" but no, they are supposed to try and help. They have access to client files, but then when they can't answer a question, put you through to an admin officer, who doesn't have access to files, so can't answer questions. You need to speak to the Care Manager and guess what, they are either not there, or "in a meeting". So the whole hour can be a complete waste of time.
In the good old days, I could just ring the local LD team, say Hi, it's J, M's mum. Most of them had met me, would say "Hello, how are you..and then sort out whatever needed to be done. Calls seldom took more than 5 minutes. So how is a call centre better?!?!

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:36 pm
by Mary_16121
bowlingbun wrote:Yes, that's what it's called in Hampshire. In theory, the "call handler" can deal with simple queries on the spot, if she can't it will be passed to the "short term team" if it can be sorted within 6 weeks, otherwise it's referred to the "long term team". In reality, they haven't got a clue, on one occasion I had a call take longer than an HOUR!!
As the mother of someone with learning difficulties, I am ringing about him, but that creates extra problesms. I'm made to go through both our names, addresses dob etc. I say look at the file, because it's all on file, they say they can't until I've passed security.
Social workers are no longer allowed to put their office number on their emails, they're only allowed to put the call centre number on. I ask "just put me through to x" but no, they are supposed to try and help. They have access to client files, but then when they can't answer a question, put you through to an admin officer, who doesn't have access to files, so can't answer questions. You need to speak to the Care Manager and guess what, they are either not there, or "in a meeting". So the whole hour can be a complete waste of time.
In the good old days, I could just ring the local LD team, say Hi, it's J, M's mum. Most of them had met me, would say "Hello, how are you..and then sort out whatever needed to be done. Calls seldom took more than 5 minutes. So how is a call centre better?!?!
All designed, I am sure, to put us off, shut us up, and make us go away!

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:40 pm
by Mary_16121
Just thinking about.....

How I handled things in the past when caring for my boy, who had cerebral palsy - I was much younger then, but fought for him from here to kingdom come

One of my pet ploys in those days, which might not work now was

" Sorry, what did you say your name was? How do you spell it, oh, thank you , it will look very good in the (then name) local paper when I contact them tomorrow" :unsure:

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:30 am
by Sally_17031
jenny lucas wrote:Seems to me you're all missing the point.

The reason the system is so difficult to negotiate and progress through is PRECISELY to keep it difficult for claimants.

The harder it is to claim, the less is claimed.

So the more money is saved.

Bingo!

(Cynical? Moi?!)
This is what makes me so sad. There must be thousands of people who just give up or think there is no help for them. If Mum and Dad didn't have me and my sister they wouldn't be pushing this, and they would fall through the cracks.

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:57 am
by bowlingbun
There would be little need for this forum if everyone did what they were supposed to be doing!

It's a good indicator of what is, and isn't, happening in social care. Yesterday, I had an email asking me to complete a questionnaire for our LA saying what my feelings were about cutting another £140m from their budget next year!! There are very few services in our area now. Two police stations closed, award winning day centre for learning difficulties closed, two children's homes closed..the list is endless. Living close to the county boundary is not a good idea, because services at the edge always seem to be the first to be earmarked for closure!

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:24 am
by jenny lucas
BB - so how money are the spending canvassing public opinion on something that is so blazingly obviously true (ie, we feel BAD about the money being cut!)(I mean, is there anyone who is GLAD???????).

It's that kind of insane Kafkaesque grotesque 'rationalisation' that makes ordinary folk want to scream to high heaven with frustration and rage.

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:41 am
by Mary_16121
We live on a 'county boundary' in a lovely village with a super community, BUT, and there always has to be a BUT.

My dear 'other half' is served by two hospitals, one in each county. One for his Crohns, one for his dementia. :roll: What we did not realise was that when we called the 'out of hours' service, what happened next had to be in the county we live in. Consequently, when he went off to hospital just before Christmas it was 30 odd miles away, and they knew nothing about him, kept him 2 nights and sent him home. Ten days later, I took him to the local surgery, they called the ambulance and sent him to the hospital which is nearer to us, but in the next county, where they DID know about him, and he was in there almost 6 weeks, and had to have emergency surgery to save his life, and this put us on the trail we are now on.

Moral of this story. If 'your' hospital is in the next county,and you need hospitalisation, don't call the out of hours service, either go through your own doctor or dial 999. :roll: :roll:

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:32 am
by bowlingbun
Mary,
999 will not always take you where you want either. My mum had a very special knee replacement, so special that her X rays are used at international conferences when apparently all attendees always take a sharp intake of breath when they see it!!
That was done in Southampton, so naturally that is where she needs to go if there is a problem. However, Royal Bournemouth is marginally nearer. Ambulance staff insisted on taking her to RB, diagnosed with sepsis, but they couldn't be bothered to listen to me when I told them about her knee. She was very weak from the sepsis, and although able to walk the week before admission, couldn't walk in hospital as she was weak.
The physio asked mum to do exercises which were impossible with her super special knee, the physio said "If you won't co operate I'm wasting my time". As a result, my mum lost her ability to walk forever. In total, she was in RB and then a hospital nearer my home, and never once did anyone see the x rays of the special knee replacement, or contact Southampton.
From this experience, I'd say put the patient in the car and physically take them where they need to be!!!

Re: under the Care Act

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:17 am
by jenny lucas
Yes, I can echo that about 999 not taking you to the hospital you want to go to (eg, that has been treating you previously).

Again, in a rural situation (but it might apply to urban ones too), someone I know with cancer was being treated at hospital A, where her consultant was, all her notes, etc etc. She had an emergency at home, called 999, who insisted they could only take her to hospital B, where she was not known, her consultant/MDT team were not there, etc etc. If she'd have gone she'd have been triaged in A&E, presumably admitted as an emergency patient, 'patched up' to keep her alive pro tem....and then shipped off to her 'real' hospital, hospital A! (An EXTRA ambulance journey, please note!).

That's the barminess of the kind of contracts, presumably, that bind the ambulance services - the paramedics simply were 'not allowed' to take her to the 'right' hospital.

Mary, as for the notes not being at both hospitals, this is something that over and over again the NHS tries to fix by having 'universal' hospital notes online, available to any NHS facility. They try over and over again to do this, it's always a disaster in IT - a horrendly expensive one! - because each NHS area has its own IT systems, and few of them overlap, etc etc, so something as simple as 'note sharing' becomes hugely difficult.

Plus of course there is the inevitable NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude as well that usually prevails at organisations wanting to do things there own way.

It seems to me that if the NHS can't manage 'universal notes' then the patients should have them, to take with them wherever they go!

(Though maybe our set would have to 'censored' of the acroyms that I think it was Henrietta told us about elsewhere on the forum a while ago, that hospitals use as 'code words' to indicate what kind of patients we are! There was a great acronym that translated as something like 'Little Old Lady Clutching her Handbag for Dear Life....I think that one will be me!!!!)