INSPECTORS CONCLUSIONS
EACH SERVICE USERS INDIVIDUAL FILE CONTAINS DETAILS OF THEIR LIFE HISTORY,
INCLUDING PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, RELATIONSHIPS AND ACTIVITIES ENJOYED. THIS
INFORMATION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CARE PLAN TO ENSURE THESE NEEDS ARE
ADDRESSED. RELATIVES AND RESIDENTS SPOKEN TO TOLD THE INSPECTOR OF VARIOUS
ACTIVITIES THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS. THIS INCLUDED A VISIT
TO A PUB IN THE COUNTRY, QUIZZES AND A VISIT TO GREENWICH PARK. THREE OUT
OF FOUR COMMENT CARDS RECEIVED FROM SERVICE USERS RECORDED THERE WAS NOT ALWAYS
ENOUGH ACTIVITIES ON OFFER. THE HOME SHOULD CONSIDER HOW THESE NEEDS ARE BEST
ADDRESSED AND ACTIVITIES PLANNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ESPECIALLY IN RELATION
TO THOSE WITH DEMENTIA. THE HOME HAS AN ACTIVITIES ORGANISER WHO WORKS FIVE
DAYS A WEEK AND WEEKENDS IF NEEDED.
MY CONCLUSIONS
WHAT THIS MEANS IN SIMPLE TERMS IS THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS DETAILS ON THEM
AS INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE WERE KEPT IN THE OFFICE FILES AND WERE NOT ACCESSIBLE
TO THE STAFF, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. THE REPORT FAILS TO
STATE HOW MANY PEOPLE WENT ON THE ABOVE OUTINGS, THE COMMENT CARDS SHOWED
THAT FOUR OUT OF FIVE SERVICE USERS THOUGHT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH ACTIVITIES
AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH STAFF BEING UNAWARE OF RESIDENTS INTERESTS, RESIDENTS
WITH DEMENTIA ARE OFTEN NOT OFFERED ACTIVITIES AT ALL DUE TO THE GREATER EFFORTS
THIS REQUIRES.
I WOULD THEREFORE GRADE THIS AS 1, A MAJOR SHORTFALL. STANDARD AWARDED, 2 MINOR SHORTFALL.
REQUIREMENT TO BE MET
SERVICE USERS ARE ABLE TO HAVE VISITORS AT ANY REASONABLE TIME AND LINKS WITH
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY ARE DEVELOPED AND/OR MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREFERENCES
INSPECTORS CONCLUSIONS
FEEDBACK FROM COMMENT CARDS AND THOSE SPOKEN TO WAS POSITIVE REGARDING HOW
THE HOME WELCOMES VISITORS, VISITING IS NOT RESTRICTED WITHOUT VALID REASON.
SERVICE USERS CAN HAVE THE OPTION OF MEETING THEIR VISITORS IN THE PRIVATE
ROOM OR ONE OF THE COMMUNAL AREAS OR SITTING ROOMS. THE HOMES STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE IS VERY CLEAR IN HOW IMPORTANT CONTACT WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS IS
AND REFLECTS A POSITIVE APPROACH CONFIRMED THROUGH FEEDBACK.
MY CONCLUSIONS
OPEN VISITING TIMES IS STANDARD IN ALL CARE HOMES, THE REPORT FAILS TO MENTION
HOW LINKS WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY ARE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESIDENTS
PREFERENCES, WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO STAFF, THE COMMENT CARDS WERE POSITIVE
ON VISITING BUT THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A
DOCUMENT THAT SERVICE USERS ARE NOT AWARE OF.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES I WOULD GRADE THIS AS 2, MINOR SHORTFALLS) STANDARD AWARDED 3 NO SHORTFALLS.
REQUIREMENT
TO BE MET
THE HOME IS CONDUCTED SO AS TO MAXIMISE THE SERVICE USERS CAPACITY TO EXERCISE
PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND CHOICE.
INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE RECORDED THAT NO SERVICE USERS MAINTAIN THEIR
BENEFIT BOOK OR MANAGE THEIR OWN FINANCES, THE MANAGER IS NOT APPOINTEE TO
ANY RESIDENT, THERE ARE THREE SERVICE USERS KNOWN TO THE HOME WHO ARE SUBJECT
TO POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE LAST INSPECTION RECOMMENDED THAT CARE PLANS SHOULD
RECORD HOW THEIR FINANCES ARE MANAGED AND BY WHOM, THIS GOOD PRACTICE HAS
NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. THERE IS VERY LITTLE USE OF ADVOCATES WITHIN THE HOME
AND THE INSPECTOR DID NOT NOTICE ANY INFORMATION ON DISPLAY OUTLINING HOW
ADVOCACY SERVICES COULD BE ACCESSED APART FROM ASKING STAFF. INFORMATION IS
IN THE BUPA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE ROLE OF ADVOCATES, HOWEVER
LOCAL
INFORMATION AND A SUMMERY OF PROCEDURES SHOULD BE MORE ACCESSIBLE. THE RECORDS
SHOWED THAT THE HOME DETAIL ANY CLOTHING BROUGHT INTO THE HOME, IT IS ALSO
POSSIBLE WITHIN REASON TO BRING PERSONAL POSSESSIONS, THIS IS OUTLINED IN
THE POLICY FOR PROPERTY AND VALUABLES.
MY CONCLUSIONS
SO WE HAVE NO RESIDENTS MAXIMISING THEIR AUTONOMY AT ALL, WE HAVE NO RESIDENTS
WHO HAVE ACCESSE TO AN ADVOCATE AND NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON HOW TO DO
SO.
I WOULD GRADE THIS AS 1, MAJOR SHORTFALLS. STANDARD AWARDED 2, MINOR SHORT FALLS.
REQUIREMENT
TO BE MET
THE HOME ENSURES THAT SERVICE USERS RECEIVE A VARIED, APPEALING, WHOLESOME
AND NUTRITIOUS DIET, WHICH IS SUITED TO INDIVIDUAL, ASSESSED AND RECORDED
REQUIREMENTS AND THAT MEALS ARE TAKEN IN A CONGENIAL SETTING AT CONVENIENT
TIMES.
INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE HOME OFFERS TWO HOT MEALS A DAY AT LUNCH AND SUPPER EXCEPT ON SUNDAY,
THE MENUS VIEWED LOOKED VARIED AND NUTRITIOUS WITH A CHOICE OF MEALS. FEEDBACK
FROM SERVICE USERS, STAFF AND VISITORS IDENTIFIED THERE WAS SOME INCONSISTENCY
AS TO THE QUALITY OF THE FOOD PROVIDED ON A DAILY BASIS. THE INSPECTOR IS
ALSO AWARE THAT ONE COOK HAS HAD NO FORMAL TRAINING IN CATERING. THE INSPECTOR
WAS PLEASED TO NOTE THAT THE TABLES ARE LAID IN A PLEASANT MANNER FOR EACH
MEAL, WITH THE MENU ON EACH TABLE, THE INSPECTOR ALSO OBSERVED STAFF OFFERING
REFRESHMENTS AND WHEN REQUIRED ASSISTING SERVICE USERS IN A PLEASANT AND SENSITIVE
MANNER, THE MANAGER INFORMED THE INSPECTOR OF SOME SERVICE USERS WHO HAVE
THEIR MEALS LIQUEFIED, GOOD DIETARY PRACTICE RECOMMENDS THAT SUCH FOODS BE
FORTIFIED WITH VITAMINS, REFRESHMENTS AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE DAY INCLUDING
LIGHT SNACKS.
MY CONCLUSIONS
THE REQUIREMENT STATES ALL MEALS SHOULD BE BASED ON ASSESSED AND RECORDED
NEEDS AND RESIDENTS PREFERENCES, WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THIS INSPECTION
FOUND THAT RESIDENTS HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO THE HOME WITHOUT THE TWO STATUTORY
REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS, IT HAS ALSO BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT DIETARY NEEDS ARE NOT
RECORDED IN CARE PLANS, INCLUDING THOSE OF RESIDENTS WITH DIETARY NEEDS SUCH
AS DIABETICS, THEREFORE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THE MAIN PART OF THIS
REQUIRED STANDARD. WE ALSO HAVE FEEDBACK THAT THE FOOD IS OF INCONSISTENT
QUALITY ON A DAILY BASIS AND THE COOK IS UNTRAINED, THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON
IN THE ANNOUNCED INSPECTION, IS THAT STAFF WERE ASSISTING RESIDENTS, DRINKS
AND SNACKS WERE AVAILABLE, THE TABLES WERE SET NICELY AND THE MENUS IN PLACE
SAID THE FOOD WAS VARIED AND NUTRITIOUS.
BASED ON THIS I WOULD GRADE THIS AS 1, MAJOR SHORTFALLS. STANDARD AWARDED 2, MINOR SHORTFALLS.
REQUIREMENT
TO BE MET
THE HOME ENSURES THAT THERE IS A SIMPLE AND ACCESSIBLE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
WHICH INCLUDES THE STAGES AND TIME SCALES FOR THE PROCESS AND THAT COMPLAINTS
ARE DEALT WITH PROMPTLY AND EFFECTIVELY.
INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE HOME HAS A COMPLAINTS POLICY AND PROCEDURE THAT MEETS WITH REQUIREMENTS,
A COPY OF THE PROCEDURE IS SUPPLIED TO ALL SERVICE USERS IN THEIR WELCOME
PACK. A PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION REQUIRED THE HOME TO ENSURE ALL COMPLAINTS,
WHETHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN, ARE RECORDED WITH OUTCOMES AND ACTIONS TAKEN BY
THE HOME. THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO MONITOR AS THE HOME HAS HAD NO COMPLAINTS
IN THE LAST YEAR. THE INSPECTOR IS AWARE THAT THERE IS A COMPLAINTS FORM USED
TO RECORD SUCH COMPLAINTS. HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RECORDING FOR ACTIONS
OR OUTCOMES. THIS IS ADDRESSED ON THE HOMES MONTHLY MONITORING TO THE HEAD
OFFICE.
MY CONCLUSIONS
A PREVIOUS INSPECTION RECOMMENDED THAT ACTIONS ON OUTCOMES OF COMPLAINTS BE
INCLUDED IN THE HOMES COMPLAINT FORM, THIS COULD NOT BE MONITORED AS THE HOME
HAD RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS IN THE LAST YEAR, BUT HAD THEY DONE SO THEN THE
REQUIRED PAPERWORK WOULD STILL NOT HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENT.
WHAT IS OF MORE CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT COMMENT CARDS AND CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS AND RELATIVES HAVE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED CONSISTENT PROBLEMS WITH LACK OF STAFF, POOR FOOD AND LACK OF ACTIVITIES AND YET NO ONE FELT ABLE TO RAISE THESE ISSUES IN THE HOME, FURTHERMORE STAFF SPOKEN TO CONFIRMED THE FOOD WAS NOT CONSISTANT AND EVEN THEY HAVE NOT FELT ABLE TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS WITHIN THE HOME.
I WOULD JUDGE THE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE TO BE INEFFECTIVE AND GRADE THIS AS A MAJOR SHORTFALL. STANDARD AWARDED 2, MINOR SHORTFALL.
REQUIREMENT
TO BE MET
SERVICE USERS HAVE THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS PROTECTED, ARE ENABLED TO EXORCISE THEIR
LEGAL RIGHTS DIRECTLY AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CIVIC PROCESS IF THEY WISH.
INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE HOME SUPPORTS SERVICE USERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTING PROCESS WHEN
ABLE, THE HOME ALSO HAS DETAILS OF LOCAL ADVOCACY SERVICES, WHICH THEY WILL
HELP SERVICE USERS TO ACCESS IF THEY WISH OR A NEED IS IDENTIFIED. THE DETAILS
SHOULD BE MADE MORE ACCESSIBLE IN THE HOME. A POLICY IS AVAILABLE WITHIN THE
HOME PROVIDING GUIDELINES ON THE ROLE OF ADVOCATES AND THE PROCEDURE TO BE
FOLLOWED.
MY CONCLUSIONS
THE REPORT NOW STATES THE PROCEDURE ON ADVOCATES SHOULD BE MORE ACCESSIBLE,
WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE AT ALL. THE ACTUAL NUMBERS
OF RESIDENTS WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE VOTING PROCESS HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM
THE EVIDENCING PROCEDURE. I AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT THE INSPECTOR HAS
ACCEPTED THE MANAGERS ASSURANCES THAT STAFF WOULD HELP RESIDENTS ACCESS ADVOCATES
SHOULD THEY WISH, THE DETAILS OF HOW TO CONTACT AN ADVOCATE SHOULD BE GIVEN
TO THE RESIDENTS, THE IDEA OF ADVOCATES IS THAT RESIDENTS MAY WISH TO HAVE
SOMEONE SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF OTHER THEN A MEMBER OF STAFF OR MAY FEEL UNABLE
TO APPROACH A MEMBER OF STAFF FOR NUMEROUS REASONS.
I WOULD THEREFORE GRADE THIS AS 1, MAJOR SHORTFALLS. STANDARD AWARDED, 2 MINOR SHORTFALLS.
REQUIREMENT
TO BE MET
THE HOME ENSURES THAT SERVICE USERS ARE SAFEGUARDED FROM PHYSICAL FINANCIAL
OR MATERIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL OR SEXUAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, DISCRIMINATORY ABUSE
OR SELF HARM, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT, THROUGH DELIBERATE INTENT, NEGLIGENCE
OR IGNORANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH WRITTEN POLICIES, THE HOME HAS A ADULT PROTECTION PROCEDURE, INCLUDING
WHISTLE-BLOWING WITH COMPLIES WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE ACT 98 AND
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GUIDANCE.
INSPECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
THE HOME HAS A WHISTLE BLOWING POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF
VULNERABLE ADULTS. THIS PROCEDURE REFERS TO LOCAL INTER AGENCY GUIDELINE,
A COPY OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE HOME ( IN THE OFFICE ) ALTHOUGH THE INSPECTOR
WAS ABLE TO DISCUSS SUCH ISSUES WITH STAFF MEMBERS, THE INSPECTOR WAS NOT
ABLE TO JUDGE FULLY, WHETHER STAFF HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE HOMES PROCEDURES
AND GUIDELINES. THE HOMES INDUCTION AND FOUNDATION TRAINING COVERS SUCH AREAS
AS WHAT IS ABUSE AND WHAT STAFF SHOULD DO IF THE SUSPECT ABUSE OCCURRING,
HOWEVER THERE ARE ONLY A FEW MEMBERS OF NEW STAFF WHO HAVE UNDERTAKEN THIS.
N.V.Q TRAINING ALSO INCLUDES TRAINING IN THIS AREA. THE TRAINING MATRIX IDENTIFIES
THAT FOUR MEMBERS OF STAFF HAVE ATTENDED TRAINING PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
WITH FURTHER STAFF TO ATTEND IN FUTURE. THE MANAGER IS NOW AWARE WHAT TO DO
IF SUCH INCIDENTS ARISE WITHIN THE HOME AND HAS MADE THE COMMISSION AWARE
OF ISSUES TO ENABLE SPEEDY ACTION BY THE RELEVANT AGENCY'S. THE ORGANISATION
ALSO HAS PROCEDURES RELATING TO CONFRONTATION AND RISK, INCLUDING RESTRAINT
AND MANAGING VIOLENCE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN HOW STAFF HAVE BEEN INFORMED
OF THESE PROCEDURES.
MY CONCLUSIONS
I WILL START BY QUOTING FROM BUPAS EVIDENCE TO THE HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY, THIS EVIDENCE IDENTIFIES LACK OF TRAINING
AS THE MAIN FACTOR WHEN ABUSE OCCURS,
" BUPA, 7.1 THE BURDEN OF REGULATION IS ALREADY ADEQUATE TO SAFE GUARD VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN CARE HOMES. BUPA BELIEVES THAT EXISTING NCSC REGULATIONS COUPLED WITH STRONG INTERNAL WHISTLE-BLOWING AND COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE QUALITY OF CARE, THERE SHOULD BE NO NEW REGULATIONS "
" BUPA 7.2 BUPA BELIEVES THE BETTER THE TRAINING THE GREATER THE REDUCTION IN INCIDENCE OF ABUSE. ADEQUATE TRAINING IS MADE DIFFICULT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY'S WHO PAY CARE HOMES FOR CARE WITH NO SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION FOR THE SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF TRAINING. LOCAL AUTHORITY FEES NEED TO BE SET AT FAIR RATES THAT MAKE THE SECTOR VIABLE AND ALLOW SERVICES TO BE IMPROVED THROUGH INVESTMENT IN, FOR EXAMPLE, STAFF TRAINING"
BUPA 7.3 CARE HOMES SHOULD INCORPORATE INTO THEIR INTERNAL POLICY'S STAFF TRAINING ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF ABUSE AND THE PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS AND DESIGNATE MEMBERS OF THE CARE TEAM AS RESIDENT ADVOCATES"
THE INSPECTORS REPORT STATES THAT APART FROM THE TRAINING PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN HOW STAFF HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF BUPA POLICY'S AND PROCEDURES, THE REPORT ALSO STATES THAT AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT JUDGE IF STAFF WERE AWARE OF THE POLICY'S AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE KEPT IN THE OFFICE, THEREFORE STAFF WOULD BE RELIANT ON THE HOME MANAGER FOR THIS INFORMATION.
HOWEVER THE REPORT THEN STATES THAT THE MANAGER IS "NOW AWARE" OF WHAT TO DO IF SUCH INCIDENTS ARISE AND IT SEEMS THEY HAVE ARISEN AS THE REPORT GOES ON TO STATE " THE MANAGER HAS MADE THE COMMISSION AWARE OF ISSUES TO ENABLE SPEEDY ACTION BY THE RELEVANT AGENCIES"
AS A FORMER WHISTLE-BLOWER I AM ONLY TOO AWARE OF HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO BLOW THE WHISTLE, ONE SUCH DIFFICULTY WOULD BE FEAR THAT IF YOU RAISED CONCERNS OUTSIDE THE HOME THAT YOU WOULD BE IDENTIFIED, I AM THEREFORE ASTOUNDED TO FIND THAT BUPAS " STRONG INTERNAL WHISTLE BLOWING POLICIES " WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A STAFF MEMBER TO APPROACH HIGHER MANAGEMENT OR AN OUTSIDE AUTHORITY, WITHOUT FIRST GOING TO THE OFFICE AND ASKING THE MANAGER FOR A COPY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWING POLICY.
I ALSO NEED TO INCLUDE THE STANDARDS OF STAFF TRAINING IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THIS REPORT AND REFER TO PAGE 37 AND 38,
THE LAW REQUIRES THAT, 50% OF CARE STAFF ARE QUALIFIED AT N.V.Q LEVEL 2, BY NEXT YEAR.
HOWEVER THE REPORT STATES THAT THE HOME MANAGER HAS INFORMED THE INSPECTOR THAT FIFTEEN OUT OF 44 STAFF ARE CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING N.V.Q TRAINING, HOWEVER FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS SIMILAR NUMBERS OF STAFF HAVE BEEN QUOTED BY THE MANAGER AS UNDERTAKING N.V.Q TRAINING.
THE CURRENT NUMBER OF STAFF THAT HAVE ACTUALLY COMPLETED N.V.Q TRAINING, ONE. SO THE REQUIRED 50% TARGET HAS A SHORTFALL OF 48%.
PAGE 38 OF THE REPORT ALSO REFERS TO TRAINING, IT STATES THAT STAFF HAVE RECEIVED BASIC INDUCTION TRAINING BUT DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF CONFIRMED THAT THE COMPANY'S OWN INDUCTION OR FOUNDATION TRAINING DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATIONS.
FURTHER BUPA EVIDENCE TO HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE
3.2, " IN 2002, BUPA CARE SERVICES COMMITTED TO SPEND 3 MILLION ON TRAINING OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS"
ONE MILLION A YEAR SEEMS IN ITS SELF A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE REALITY OF THE TRAINING STANDARDS AT ISARD HOUSE, WHICH IS A CARE HOME UNDER MORE SCRUTINY THEN MOST DUE TO THE INQUIRY THAT UPHELD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS IN 1999 AND RESULTED IN RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLACED TRAINING AS THE PRIORITY, IT IS OF SOME CONCERN THAT THIS ONE MILLION A YEAR INVESTMENT IN TRAINING IS HARDLY EVIDENT.
GIVEN THAT BUPAS PROFIT IN THE PAST YEAR WAS 134.5 MILLION AND THAT THEIR CHIEF EXECUTIVE, VAL GOODING, IS REPORTEDLY PAID 2 MILLION A YEAR, ONE MAY LIKE TO CONSIDER BUPAS TRUE COMMITMENT TO TRAINING TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THIS SUM WOULD BE SPREAD BETWEEN THEIR 245 NURSING AND CARE HOMES.
WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED THE REQUIREMENT
STANDARD FOR THIS SECTION IS PROTECTION FROM ABUSE, THE FINDINGS ON PAGE 37
ARE RELEVANT FOR THIS SECTION ALSO, DESPITE THE INSPECTOR RATING THE FOLLOWING
GAP AS A MINOR SHORTFALL, WHEN FIVE RANDOM STAFF FILES WERE CHECKED, TWO NON
CARE STAFF WERE FOUND NOT TO HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORDS BUREAU CHECK, OF COURSE
THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT AND RIGHTLY SO WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE NON TEACHING
MEMBER OF STAFF, IAN HUNTLY, AND THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THAT TRAGEDY.
I THEREFORE SAY THAT SUCH SERIOUS FAILINGS COULD ONLY BE GRADED AS 1, MAJOR SHORTFALLS. STANDARD AWARDED, 3, NO SHORTFALLS AT ALL.
I WOULD THEREFORE HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH BUPAS EVIDENCE THAT NO NEW REGULATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD VULNERABLE ELDERLY PEOPLE FROM ABUSE AND ALSO THEIR STATEMENT APPORTIONING BLAME ON THE LOCAL AUTHORITY'S WHO SHOULD BE DOING MORE THEY SAY, TO ENCOURAGE TRAINING BY LARGER FEES BEING PAID, AS THIS REPORT HAS STATED THE ONLY TRAINING THAT MET STANDARDS OR COULD BE EVIDENCED AS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE, WAS THAT WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.
ANY COMPANY THAT RECOGNISES THAT TRAINING PREVENTS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF ABUSE AND THEN GOES ON TO INVEST TWICE AS MUCH IN ONE PERSONS YEARLY SALARY AS IT DOES IN TRAINING, IS HARDLY IN A POSITION TO CLAIM THAT MORE MONEY SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE CARE IT PROVIDES.