Caught on camera

CQC’s launch of their document ‘A fresh start for the regulation and inspection of adult social care’ has created a barrage of debate. Amongst the raft of changes and proposals to overhaul the inspection and regulation of care services for adults are some ideas that CQC want to discuss with the public, including the “Potential use of mystery shoppers and hidden cameras to monitor care”. Concerns have been raised about whether hidden cameras are ethical, if their use would be legal, and whether we even need them.

To begin to illustrate my views, I want to pose a scenario to you:

A man of 84 is living in a care home. He has advanced dementia, and requires all of his needs to be met by a skilled team of care professionals, assisted by his family. His family are not present 24 hours a day, so much of his care is provided by different care professionals. His family become concerned for his welfare when the ownership, management and staffing of the home changes . The home is frequently short-staffed and running on agency staff (who don’t even know who each resident is). The man becomes more frail, has more infections, begins to develop pressure sores and is being kept in bed more than normal. This is also true of other residents. The few remaining regular staff, including the man’s keyworker, express concerns about the way that they are being instructed to care for the man and how new staff are caring for him. The man is eventually admitted to hospital with pneumonia after aspirating on his own vomit five times. The hospital are so concerned about the condition of the man that they make him the subject of a safeguarding order. He never fully recovers from the pneumonia and passes away four weeks later, less than two weeks after his 85th birthday.

That man was my dad.

I repeatedly raised concerns about my father’s care with the care provider after the changes in ownership, management and staff. Eventually I had to resort to phoning CQC three times before they would take my complaint seriously. They inspected, but then took two months to produce a report. It was too late for my dad. His keyworker, a wonderful care professional who had diligently looked after my father for eight years, was as heartbroken by the way in which the care deteriorated as we were. Indeed that care professional, and his colleagues who had  assisted with looking after my dad for many years, found alternative employment and left the home: they simply could not stand to deliver care in the way that the management wanted it delivered.

On the night my father aspirated on his own vomit, we believe he was put to bed too early and given a milky drink in bed without being properly upright – all of those actions going directly against our wishes and the recommended advice for his care from doctors (the management made their own care plans without our consent). The doctors treating my father at the hospital didn’t believe he would pull through the night – aspirating on your own vomit is a bit like pouring acid into your lungs they said. Imagine how that felt.

We will never really know what happened that night, because despite asking the staff on duty, no one could explain. I dearly wish we had had a hidden camera in my father’s room that night, and indeed in the months leading up to that fatal incident. I know it would have proven the poor care my father was subjected to, and it would also have proven some of the good care people like his keyworker provided, often fighting against the management to do what was best for my dad.

Do I think cameras should be routinely installed into care homes? No I don’t. But potentially they do have a value in certain specific circumstances when there are grave concerns for a person’s welfare that only indisputable footage can prove. Currently surveillance is limited to the few families who have installed hidden cameras to prove that their relative is being abused, or places like Winterbourne View that needed Panorama cameras to expose the appalling treatment being meted out.

It must be remembered that some people don’t have a family to monitor their care. People with dementia, learning disabilities and other conditions cannot always articulate what is happening to them. Proving how injuries are sustained can sometimes be one person’s word against another’s. Poor care many only really come to light following a crisis point when a person is admitted to hospital in a condition that no amount of treatment can cure, or it many only become evident on investigation after death.

I want to pose another scenario to you:

A lady living with dementia in a care home, almost completely deaf and blind, begins to lose a dramatic amount of weight and is always thirsty when her family visit. The family suspect she isn’t being fed enough. They often find drinks that have been left out of her reach, and suspect that staff aren’t communicating with her appropriately. She eventually passes away at a weight that would be considered severely malnourished.

I knew this lady, and her family agonised over what happened to her – a camera would have given them answers, and potentially ensured she received better care.

Dignity, privacy and respect are all vital in any care setting, but there is nothing dignified or respectful about elder abuse or premature death from negligence that hides behind a veil of privacy. Such practices – that are in the minority - must be rooted out: they taint the vast majority of wonderful care that is being provided. A hidden camera can prove or disprove allegations and suspicions, and it could potentially work in many different ways. For example: It can prove that a care worker is acting inappropriately. It can prove when a provider is negligent in not giving their staff the equipment or training needed to perform a task or to keep a person safe. It can assist a care provider to root out poor practice that they suspect an individual employee of but need to prove. It can show if a person receiving care has had a harmless accident or is self-harming. It can provide evidence if a family are being abusive, either towards their own relative or towards staff (yes, it does happen).

Cameras could also be helpful in certain specific circumstances in people’s own homes, where they are receiving home care or care from a family member, friend or neighbour.

Consider this scenario:

Two elderly sisters live alone at home. A neighbour ‘befriends’ them. That neighbour manages to persuade them to sign a Power of Attorney and then gets control of all of their money. She tells them that they are now so poor they cannot afford heating. Professional carers often come in to find these ladies cold and hungry. One of the sisters develops hyperthermia. Eventually they end up in care, virtually penniless.

I knew these ladies – could a camera have helped them, and brought the person who prayed on them to justice?

Clearly there are huge ethical, moral and legal issues with the use of cameras in any setting, particularly if those cameras are hidden. Whether a policy allowing the use of hidden cameras in adult social care will ever be created and implemented isn’t yet decided – this is merely an idea that has been put into the public domain for debate. Personally I welcome healthy discussion on any proposal that could help to safeguard our most vulnerable people and stamp out elder abuse. I don’t believe sensitive use of such cameras in a minority of isolated cases would undermine the morale of social care professionals. In my mind, those who are providing good care have nothing to fear.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook

Restraints – The dark side of care?

"They kick, punch and bite us, what do you expect us to do?" The words of a social care worker caring for people in a residential dementia unit, explaining why they sometimes have to physically restrain their residents or request prescriptions for antipsychotics.

The use of restraints is only legal in England and Wales if it is covered by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) order which, according to recent figures released by the Health and Social Care Information Centre, have increased year-on-year since their introduction in 2009. 11,887 applications were made in 2012/13, of which 54 per cent related to people living with dementia, but as a society how do we feel about restraining people with dementia, even when it is done legally?

Restraints can involve using bedrails to keep someone in their bed, straps to tie them to a fixed object, seatbelts on chairs or locking them in a room. I’ve seen care home residents belted into wheelchairs to stop them from moving about – although one gentleman proved sufficiently strong to get to his feet and move around with the chair attached. I’ve also seen residents who have been strapped into wheelchairs injure themsevles trying to get out of the chair, with chairs ending up on top of them or arms and legs getting entangled with metal.

As far as bedrails are concerned, I saw extremely high ones used on a man in a hospital bed to try and prevent him moving around the ward, but this was entirely inappropriate since he managed to climb over them on numerous occasions and eventually hurt himself as a result. Very low-level bedrails were used on my dad’s bed in the last couple of years of his dementia, but my written consent was obtained before they were used and their purpose wasn’t as a restraint, but purely as a safety measure to ensure he couldn’t roll out of bed onto the floor (he was already immobile so wasn’t being prevented from getting out of bed by them, merely from falling during his sleep).

The use of antipsychotics was of course once commonplace in dementia care, as I wrote about here, with my dad enduring a period on this type of 'chemical cosh' medication before we managed to get it stopped. I am still regularly contacted by families who are having to cope with the trials and tribulations of having loved ones with dementia on antipsychotics, despite such prescriptions now being seen very much as an absolute last resort for only the most severe dementia symptoms when all other interventions have failed.

So how do you cope as a care worker if you are going into work every day and being kicked, punched and bitten? The answer is you potentially don’t, but more often than not that is due to a failing in the system, rather than something the person with dementia or indeed the person caring for them can control. If anything, those two individuals are the biggest losers in a system that too often resorts to factory farming our older people. A lack of funding for care has led to cutbacks in staffing levels and specialised training in many organisations, and the result could be described as a return to the dark-ages of care provision.

What is perhaps most alarming about the situation around DoLS applications isn’t the number of applications being made or indeed the number being approved, it is the persistent fear of how many restraining practices are being used illegally. Behind closed doors many ‘professionals’ are looking for a quick fix for ‘challenging behaviour’ that will take up minimum staff time but provide maximum effect in terms of containing someone who they see as a problem. For them, a DoLS order isn’t necessarily a priority, particularly as they would need to show that the restraint measure being proposed is appropriate, in the person’s best interests and is the least restrictive possible.

In my mind, depriving someone of their liberty should only be done in the most extreme cases, when all other avenues of care and support have been exhausted and the person with dementia is a direct danger to themselves or others around them. To avoid the need for restraining measures, organisations may need to implement institutional changes in the way care is provided in order to alter staff behaviour resulting from a cultural lack of understanding of dementia, with someone leading those changes who believes that there is another way to approach dementia care.

If staff have never been trained in how to cope with someone experiencing severe dementia symptoms, like aggression, confusion, walking, problems with orientation or issues with sleeping, they are likely to feel out of their depth and looking to resort to restraining methods to protect themselves and those around them. It’s a natural instinct, but it is an instinct that never needs to be seen if an organisation is capable of responding to the needs of individuals with appropriate staffing levels and by embedding a culture of person-centred care throughout their organisation.

I’m not saying that dementia is an easy disease to manage, but however hard it is to look after someone experiencing it, it is far harder for them to actually be living that experience or indeed handling the consequences of the actions of those who are charged with caring for them. Sadly most organisations are so financially squeezed that they are operating on budgets that don’t allow for either specialised training or one-to-one care provision, therefore restraints, be they physical or pharmacological, are a cheap, simple solution.

In situations where that is true, I feel a deep and profound sense of shame that we cannot respond in any other way, and even when organisations have a DoLS application approved and are acting entirely within the law, I struggle to comprehend how we cannot enshrine in law care practices that could avoid the need for restraint altogether. Idealistic maybe, but consider this. Dementia may remove someone’s ability to be proportionate in their response, but those not living with dementia cannot claim the same. In my mind we must always be proportionate in our response.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook

From care to catastrophe

Back at the start of D4Dementia I wrote about the importance of continuity of care for people with dementia. It cannot be over-emphasised just how beneficial this is, not only to the person living with dementia, but also their families and indeed people working as carers. The chance to form a bond with a person is what can give the greatest job satisfaction and leads, in turn, to the most compassionate and personalised care.

We were particularly lucky that my father formed a bond with a carer that lasted from the day they met to the day dad died – indeed this man even came to dad’s funeral. In the almost eight years in between, this carer brought such joy to my father’s life that it could honestly be said that dad was often more pleased to see him than he was any of us.

As a family we valued this carer’s input into dad’s life higher than any other professional we worked with, so imagine our heartbreak when a change in ownership and management at dad’s nursing home resulted in wholesale changes to the care structure. Suddenly wonderful staff who had delivered an excellent CQC report just a few months previously were now leaving, bullied, ostracised and driven away, initially we suspected for racial reasons before it became clear that whatever your skin colour or race, if you were well-liked you were not wanted.

What you soon discover as a relative, when you try to halt this tide of change, is that A) private companies can run care homes as a dictatorship rather than a democracy so long as they can keep the inspectorate happy, and B) that as a relative you have no say over what happens, CQC are reluctant to support you, and the only real option you have is to move your relative to another home.

In this case, having no say included having care plans made for my father without any consultation with or agreement from us, carers who knew my dad being forced to implement care plans that went directly against what they, and us, knew to be in dad’s best interests, and no care review for a year. Ultimately this led to a chain of events that resulted in my father being admitted to hospital with pressure sores and a catastrophic aspiration pneumonia that would eventually kill him.

You cannot force intransigent managment to answer your questions, you cannot change the dictates on your relative’s care, even though you know your loved one better than anyone else, and when you turn to CQC for help, you are left very disillusioned by the incredibly slow response, lack of transparency in their actions, and that fundamentally they seem very unmoved by so many vulnerable elderly people being at risk.

Add to this the loss of care staff who you have known since the day your relative moved into the care home, and whose work and reputation you would defend as both a relative of someone in their care and also as their friend, and you have a situation where you feel utterly helpless. No matter how many times you mull it over in your mind, you will never find a resolution to the fundamental question of why people with no knowledge or understanding of dementia, no concept of compassion or indeed a caring bone in their body, would wish to run a care home where the most vulnerable, sensitive and highly dependent amongst our cherished elderly live.

To see what had been such a happy home, where relatives, residents, staff and management worked together, pulled apart within a matter of weeks is something I will never forget. Not only did my dad lose the continuity of care that had added immeasurable quality and richness to his life over all those years, our time with him was blighted for weeks by on-going arguments, upset and disharmony. We lost friends, happiness and actually, in the end, dreaded visiting.

Having a loved one in a care home is hard enough for any family, but it is the bonds you form with staff, and the joy and comfort you see them bring to your relative, that make it bearable. There is no price you can put on that, and no agency that you wouldn’t beg for help to try and halt the tide of catastrophe. Tragically, having persevered with trying to change a situation we clearly could never change, we had actively begun to seek a new home for dad when, on that fateful night in March 2012, he aspirated on his own vomit five times, setting up a pneumonia that his body just could not fight off.

My advice to anyone going into the caring profession, be it as a carer, nurse or in a management role, would be don’t do it unless you can care about others as much as you do your own flesh and blood. If you are a manager, don’t be a dictator, don’t treat residents as a commodity, and don’t make the lives of their families unbearably hard. When staff are loved by residents and relatives it is for a reason; we know how hard it is to find these wonderful people, and how special they are, so listen to us. Finally, above all else, remember this: care homes are for caring, prisons are for punishment.

Until next time...

You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

LIKE D4Dementia on Facebook