Comprehensive review of care industry does not go far enough, Orchid View families say (From Redhill And Reigate Life)
Got a story? Call 01273 544544 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Comprehensive review of care industry does not go far enough, Orchid View families say
11:00am Tuesday 10th June 2014 in News
The families of patients who died at Orchid View care home in Copthorne yesterday welcomed a raft of recommendations to stop the "institutionalised abuse" of elderly and vulnerable people - but said even more needs to be done.
Nineteen patients from Orchid View died after being poorly treated at the Southern Cross Healthcare-run home. An inquest last year found that five patients died as a result of neglect. Patients were underfed and locked in their rooms, staffing levels were unsafe and medical records changed to cover up medication errors. Ms Schofield said at the inquest's conclusion: "There was institutionalised abuse throughout the home and it started, in my view, at a very early stage, and nobody did anything about it." Yesterday, a serious case review (SCR) made 34 recommendations to care providers and local and national authorities, including a requirement to ensure staff are properly trained and families to be more involved with patients' care. Laura Barlow, a specialist medical negligence lawyer at Irwin Mitchell representing the families, said: “The recommendations in the Review are comprehensive and apply to many different organisations both locally and nationally, but for real change to occur they must be delivered, and there are questions over who will now drive these improvements and who is ultimately accountable not only for the neglect at Orchid View, but at other care homes across the country. “What is clear is that the independent sector needs to be subject to the same level of scrutiny that the NHS expects. “The fact is that we have an ageing population and the number of vulnerable older people is rising significantly and the whole care industry needs to find a way to support them while keeping resident safety at its core. “We still believe the horrific scale of neglect warrants a completely independent inquiry which would take into account this Review, as well as pulling together all the organisations involved in safeguarding care to provide a true blueprint for change in reforming the whole care industry – this must be the lasting legacy of the Orchid View scandal.” One of the main recommendations is that it should be a requirement for care businesses to prove that they can recruit and sustain a trained and skilled workforce and that they can prove this to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) - the care watchdog and regulator. Another states that relatives should always have a named point of contact within homes and that concerns relating to safeguarding issues should be escalated outside the home if they are not dealt with promptly and properly. And also, the emergency services should have named contacts, so that they have easier access to care homes, particularly at night time. Other recommendations include a call for care providers to be contractually required to hold open meetings with residents and their relatives on a regular basis to discuss issues of general concern and to make relatives aware of any significant safeguarding concerns in their home. The local authority should be invited to this and the minutes should be shared, the report states. And it calls for residents to be involved in CQC inspections with opportunities for their relatives to meet and discuss the care home with the inspection team. Also, the report makes the recommendation that West Sussex Adult Safeguarding Board should develop a threshold for informing the public about significant safeguarding issues and concerns that have been raised at homes. This would help people make informed choices about the homes they choose for their loved ones. The report states that organisations should make it very clear where and how this information can be accessed, known as a duty of candour. Nick Georgiou, independent chairman of the SCR, said that he supported calls for the independent care home sector to be placed under the same scrutiny as care under the NHS. Highlighting three main issues, he said: "Firstly, a number of the concerns identified in the recent past with hospital services in the NHS have been echoed at Orchid View, and it is right that the scrutiny and demands for improvement in the NHS are also expected from the independent sector. "As a result of the concerns about the NHS, there have been recent government consultations relating to a duty of candour, the fit and proper person test, and a new offence of wilful neglect where people have mental capacity. “This Serious Case Review wholeheartedly supports them being applied to independent sector businesses and organisations. "As the role of independent sector care businesses has grown, the number, frailty and vulnerability of people dependent on their care has increased. “It is critically important that these services demonstrate that they can provide the quality of care necessary. In this case the service provider failed. A number of these recommendations are intended to promote strengthened scrutiny of organisations, and the services they provide. "Secondly, people were making crucial decisions about their care, or that of their relative, and did so without full information about the home, and were largely dependent on the services and self- proclaimed quality described in Southern Cross Healthcare's own publicity. “They were also ill-informed by the information on the CQC website and unaware of the concerns that the statutory sector had about the home. This was a particular problem for people paying for their own care. "Thirdly, a great deal of work has gone into building this picture of the care at Orchid View and the volume of problems in the home. “With the benefit of hindsight the pattern of safeguarding concerns is now clear, for example in regard to medication, and consistent failures by the people working in the home, and the senior management of Southern Cross Healthcare, to provide positive management and leadership. This was not the case for the social work and nursing staff involved at the time. "Firm evidence and information about concerns, and the inability of Southern Cross Healthcare to follow through on remedial actions emerged piecemeal and, as the safeguarding investigations ended, Orchid View was closed." He added: "I want to acknowledge the information and understanding I gained from the families of former residents at Orchid View. I hope this report goes some way to addressing the serious and thoughtful questions they put to me based on their direct experience of the poor care their relatives endured. "Finally, I want to say that it is not possible to say that this report or any other will prevent all future safeguarding alerts. It will not do that, but acting on the recommendations will lessen the risk to other residents in other settings. “They also promote actions to support the statutory services and the service provider to respond constructively when there are safeguarding concerns to ensure safe and better quality services for people dependent on nursing care." Responding to yesterday's report, Peter Catchpole, West Sussex County Council’s cabinet member for adult social care and health, said: “What happened at Orchid View was harrowing. We welcome this report and its recommendations. "There is nothing more important than looking after the most vulnerable people in our society and in this respect Southern Cross Healthcare has been judged to have failed. "Statutory agencies such as West Sussex County Council had no choice but to take action to investigate and ultimately move people from the home to protect them. “Nothing will help ease the pain of the families who were affected by these terrible events and who lost loved ones. "I want to offer them my condolences and assure them that we will act on the recommendations made in this report and do all we can to ensure that the other agencies involved in managing and regulating the care of our elderly relatives do the same.”