Yesterday, it was announced that the government was going to set up a website, the details of which would be unveiled  in the Spring White Paper on Adult Social Care which could bring a kind of ‘Trip Advisor’ model of rating and commenting to providers of care homes and nursing homes.

Sounds good so far. I certainly welcome more open and accessible information for those who are choosing care homes but there are some real and obvious differences that need to be highlighted between the choices that are available to those who are picking hotels in New York City and those who are choosing care homes for Granny in Wallsend.

On a positive note, Burstow claims that these plans came from user-led discussion groups which shows that he is listening but there are some important points that have to be taken into consideration, lest this is seen as a way of trying to provide regulation on-the-cheap because the actual regulatory body – the CQC – is unable to carry out its function.

Burstow proposes that alongside this website, the local ‘scrutiny’ teams would be able to visit care homes and report back on them – and these would involve family members of those who are residents.

As someone who has long felt that independent lay visitors could provide a further safeguard I welcome that development. I hope there are sufficient safeguards, perhaps through the use of independent advocates, for those who do not have family members or friends.

My concerns are that:-

I worry there may be an overburdening of responsibility where it is not sought, on family members to ‘inspect’ properties.

A majority of the people whom I am involved in placing and reviewing in residential and nursing care have no family and would not have the capacity to participate fully themselves in these ‘scrutiny’ organisations.

We had ratings previously. The old ‘star system’ that was scrapped by the government (I can’t remember if it was this govt or the last). Sure, they would be different people providing the ratings but I can’t see how it will be any different from the providers point of view. Maybe it will be better in that they will judge on more than desk based inspections and quality of paperwork but there is more to care than a headline figure.

Also, very importantly, the market  for care is not as fluid as that for hotels. If you want your mother placed in a particular geographic area and within a certain cost, you may be pushed to find one provider. This is not going to be a case of picking and choosing the way one picks and chooses hotels. That’s not to say more information isn’t good, it is, but pretending this is anything similar to a ‘hotel and restaurant booking’ is facetious at best and deceptive at worst.

My worry is that this is an attempt to plug in the holes of the CQC by resorting to ‘Big Society’.  This comes after Lansley demonstrated his lack of faith in the quality of the leadership in the CQC by ordering an investigation into the way it has been managed.

These announcements, this bright new way forward of accessing information about care and the concerns raised about the regulator can’t really be detached from each other.

I welcome more information and knowledge but I worry that this is a path towards the disappearance of professional expert regulation that is being followed ‘on the cheap’ and the intention is to replace rather than bolster scrutiny and regulation in what is a much more complex setting than hotels and restaurants.

5 thoughts on “CareAdvisor

  1. vox pop opinions have their place but surely can never replace the qualified professional assessment of care homes

  2. Although there isn’t the same level of capacity on the care system as there is in the holiday industry, I think it’s a good idea that the care industry should look to take a lead from the holiday industry, as there are lots of similarities.

    When it’s time to choose my care I would like the opportunity to view it on-line, read about it, see pictures, 360 degree ones if possible, watch a video and read testimonials from current and past residents, and the same should apply for home care agencies too.

    These shouldn’t be used to replace or supplement the regulators (CQC) and their inspections, but reading testimonials and reviews is the way forward.

    Any system needs to avoid some of the issues with Trip Advisor though, as they seem to allow anybody to leave a review with little or no proof that they have actually used the service and then make it virtually impossible to remove the false comments.

  3. I worry a lot about a consumerist approach to care or indeed health. Personally I want to be a patient or client to a professional who feels they have a duty to put my interests first, regardless of monetary interest. I am a customer of Talk Talk but that doesn’t seem to guarantee me very much.

    I have also seen too many instances of really vexatious families who have totally unrealistic expectations and take out their collective guilt/neurosis/sibling rivalries on care staff. Some of these are very articulate middle class types who are very convincing on paper and they will be able to destroy a home’s reputation. The Home won’t be able to answer back because of confidentiality.

    The sad fact is that institutional care means, yes, you will sometimes have to wait because someone else has more urgent needs than you. Plus, if you spout constant racist abuse at the night staff, yes they might answer back now and then. Properly qualified, regular inspection including unannounced inspections and careful, objective investigation of complaints is the answer but unfortunately it is not a cheap solution.

  4. Pingback: That was the localgov week that was « We Love Local Government

  5. Pingback: David Cameron provides some respite for the CQC | Adult Care Blog

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 )

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