Care homes. Now there’s a subject most folk have common views on.
And it’s one it is very easy to finger wag about while highlighting the importance of social responsibility, especially when it comes to caring for the elderly.
But what is really needed is a selfish view. Put aside all consideration for others and just think of yours … and yourself. After all, when it comes to elderly care most will have some knowledge of it through grandparents, parents and, in the not too distant future, first hand experience may well be a reality.
One of the United Kingdom’s most influential leaders, perhaps of all time, was Margaret Thatcher. Her social revolutionary philosophy perhaps wasn’t new but she adapted it to modern times with dramatic, and lasting, effect. Her impact has been enduring and the seeds she sowed continue to bear fruit. Lenin’s Utopian dream last barely months after the 1917 Russian revolution but the subsequent isolated soviet communist system crumbled after 70 years. Thatcher’s system, in the opposite direction, has endured 40 years, and is arguably gaining in strength.
In 1987, she summed up her philosophy with this statement: “There's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
While liberal and left-leaning views may rage against that, most of that ire emanates from an injustice perceived from within a degree of individual comfort as advocated by Thatcher. More than a decade of national endorsement of right-wing policies by a majority of the electorate proves a degree of acceptance of putting self over society. Of course there are calls for reform but these are within safe parameters and led by splinter groups negotiating their own particular cause.
Care homes and particularly elderly care, other than the Covid 19 death tally, have never really been headline-grabbing collective issues, but they might be if more people took a personal perspective.
The days of the extended family in our society have virtually gone. The old saying that a mother may well care for 10 children but these children may not care for the mother has an uncomfortable resonance.
We don’t have the room; our house isn’t suitable; we don’t have the time; our job is too demanding; we’re not trained; we have our own lives …
It’s possible the father-adoring Thatcher might actually not have been too proud of these justifications. After all, these are used not for caring for neighbours but for close family.
Of course, we are as well absolving all responsibility because those to whom we entrust our loved ones are “trained”, “wonderful”, “caring”, “compassionate”, “couldn’t be kinder”. In that declared certainty limited visits can be justified, holidays enjoyed and reality tucked behind someone else’s door.
So who is it that actually looks after those residents? That is where we all should put ourselves first and ask, “What sort of person would I want to look after me?”
That person is most likely to be registered with the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). That is the governing body for all social services workers in the country and its work is overseen by a group of members selected from our own ranks. Can you name one? How many folk with a relative in residential care know who they are or how to contact them?
That is shameful.
However, the SSSC makes this pledge: “We protect the public by registering social service workers, setting standards for their practice, conduct, training and education and by supporting their professional development. By doing this we increase the protection of people who use services. Where people fall below the standards of practice and conduct we can investigate and take action.”
Good and well. There’s the safety net. Experts doing expert work with the expertise we as ordinary folk lack.
And, for belt and braces, this is the SSSC guarantee: “To create a safe, skilled, confident and flexible social service workforce with the appropriate values, knowledge, skills and qualifications for current and future sector needs; to be influential in policy making and the social services sector; to make sure the social service workforce is valued; that qualifications for social service workers are fit for purpose; that the right people are on the SSSC Register; ensure the SSSC’s resources, products and activities support the development of the workforce and increase its capacity and capability; to be recognised as a well-run, well governed and effective organisation.”
It’s hard to take issue with any of that and the fact that the SSSC takes that role very seriously indeed is shown in its fitness to practise decisions (https://www.sssc.uk.com/fitness-to-practise/decisions/).
If you have a look at these you will see that care homes feature very highly. There is plenty of juicy reading there, encompassing carelessness, callousness and cruelty. Although invariably only one side of the case is given the message is that we should be grateful that the bad apples are being plucked from the barrel and their actions published for all to see. There are very few instances where your sentiments would lie with the disgraced worker but if you take a selfish viewpoint consider that SSSC mission statement, “To make sure the social service workforce is valued; that qualifications for social service workers are fit for purpose; that the right people are on the SSSC Register.”
Trawling through these cases, put yourself in these residents’ slippers and place a value on the person you would want to sit with you when you are lonely and depressed; who would ensure you received the right medication at the right time; who would clean you up in your incontinence; who would comfort you when you break down at your own frailty and loneliness. Or, if in a state of dementia or being lost in Alzheimer’s, would you not wish to have someone close who would respond calmly and sympathetically to any abuse you might hurl or physical assaults you might attempt? Someone, without complaint or judgment, who would make you feel reassured and help restore your dignity, then willingly clean up the faeces you’ve smeared on your walls.
These are all instances from the SSSC decisions where the worker has not reacted to the standard demanded.
A care home member of staff has to commit psychologically, physically, emotionally and intellectually to every resident, all of whom want more time spent with them, more contact, more bonding, more companionship, and a little love.
It does take a special person to commit to that, so what is their value? The standards are high and the governing body has vowed workers should be valued.
In 2020, the national minimum wage in the UK was £8.21 an hour; the average hourly rate for a care worker was £8.65. Without disparaging any other line of work, it is an uncomfortable statistic that we, as individuals, reckon in our time of greatest frailty and vulnerability, we would be only willing to commit an extra 44p an hour to our personal care and dignity.
Yet, with little protest, we accept tax dodges from the wealthiest in society, advanced nuclear weaponry, the building of two of the world’s biggest aircraft carriers, the Royal purse slipping £250,000 spending money to a disgraced prince. We even accept subsidising the restaurants at Westminster while donating to foodbanks on our doorsteps. It is a bizarre public priority list.
The Covid 19 pandemic has taken a heavy toll in our care homes and prompted many questions over how this has happened. Parallels could be drawn with the NHS and the strains it has felt. The spotlight invariably falls on government, be it Westminster or Holyrood, but, once again, that is avoiding responsibility.
The care and health sectors are under resourced and under financed and we, as a nation, are compliant and complicit. It doesn’t matter your politics. None of us wants to be denied medical or physical help when we need it most.
It is up to every individual to demand answers over the recruitment, pay, conditions, training and support over those we rely, or will rely, on. It is within the power of every individual to start changing these sectors into what we want them to be.
There are too many sitting on boards and governing bodies who are anonymous to those they represent. Our silence and inaction has become viewed as an endorsement of the status quo. They have the position and power to effect change but there is no public pressure for them to do so, or even to be aware that it is sought.
The online crucifixion of those care home workers for failing to meet our standards is not proof that what we are doing is right, it is evidence that something is seriously wrong.
We have one of the lowest old age pensions in Europe in an economic system anchored in profit that inevitably means the caring professions are at an immediate disadvantage. Yet, we are the customer, more likely to complain over a poor meal than an overworked, stressed-out carer struggling on the poverty line while looking after our mother or father.
It doesn’t take much effort to drop an email to ‘your’ representative on the SSSC, to your MP or MSP, to your care home operator ... and open the dialogue. In this instance, you’re not doing it for someone else, you’re doing it for yourself.
Picture: Gerd Altmann
No comments:
Post a Comment