One in three nursing homes in England ‘fails safety’ | DisabledGo News and Blog

More than a third of England’s 4,000 nursing homes are failing on safety, according to inspectors. Drug errors, lack of staff and falls were highlighted by the Care Quality Commission in its review. Safety was also a major issue in other services for the elderly and disabled, including care homes and home help. The CQC said the failings were “completely unacceptable”, as it unveiled the full findings of its new inspection regime for the care sector. The new “tougher” system was launched in 2014, amid concerns problems were going undetected. The CQC has now completed inspections for all 24,000 services in the sector, which provide care to one million vulnerable people. More than 200,000 of them live in nursing homes, which had the most serious problems. Some 37% of homes failed on safety, with inspectors noting they had a particular problems recruiting and retaining nurses. Just below a quarter of care homes and home helps were rated not safe enough, while in community support,

Source: One in three nursing homes in England ‘fails safety’ | DisabledGo News and Blog


One thought on “One in three nursing homes in England ‘fails safety’ | DisabledGo News and Blog

  1. While this review does not mention it, is finance part of the problem. With Government austerity cuts over the last number of years the total finance packages being received by Local Authorities have been ever reducing and cuts have been required to Social Care these local authorities.

    This is at a time when the number of persons requiring social care packages is forever increasing in numbers and also complexity. This is, in part, due to an increasing aging population, but also an ever increasing number of disabled persons and the complexity of the conditions. This is especially so in respect of persons with learning disabilities and/or autism, for, with the advances in the medical services over the years, more persons with learning disability and autism conditions are proceeding to live longer from birth and with an increasing complexity of conditions. Again many of these persons, than ever before, are living into adulthood and proceeding into pension age.

    This is coupled with continuing lack of retention of staff for many of the residential/nursing homes and home care providers, as many of their staff will be on the minimum living wages, rather than the ‘Living Wage’. Many staff are therefore moving from one provider to another in the hope of receiving better employment packages. This leads to the lack of continuity of care as with any changes of staff the getting to know the cared for and the caring for is a ‘start to stop and then start again process., this in many cases results in a deterioration in the quality of care.

    Also with any changes of staffing this leads to increased costs for the providers in recruitment, training, etc. At a time of Local Authorities limiting funding for home care either direct funding to providers or individuals requiring care by Direct Payments so they can employ their own Personal Care Assistants or secure a provider to provide the care staff by direct funding to care homes this is bound to have some effect on the quality of care.

    While care providers should have their own quality check procedures in place and these be monitored the Local Authorities, are many of them only dealing with reactive processes rather than proactive processes. Being, reactive to a situation that has occurred, while proactive being means to reduce or minimise poor or bad quality occurring.

    As said above Local Authorities are charged with conducting quality checks on all care providers, but are these quality checks truly effective, as can be seen by the recent ‘Grenfell Tower atrocity’., Will the forthcoming enquiry report any relating to effective quality checks.

    If it can happen in tower blocks, surely it can in relation to care provision, as can only be proved by the ‘Winterborne View scandal’,, will home care be next.

    Now is the time for austerity provision to be reduced or withdrawn completely.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.