Almost a year after the3towns carried an Opinion column by Campbell Martin, headed ‘The disgrace of care at home in North Ayrshire’, the consumer group Which? has published a report on the standard of care provided for older people in their homes, labelling it “shocking and disgraceful”.
As is the case in North Ayrshire, Which? found local authorities across the UK had contracted much of the ‘care at home’ service to private companies, whose prime motivation was generating profit rather than providing care. The Which? investigation discovered carers missed visits, left food out of people’s reach, did not give medication and left elderly residents lying in soiled beds. Overall, Which? concluded that many senior citizens faced a “constant battle” to just get basic help.
Across the UK over half-a-million people rely on ‘care at home’ services, including help with washing, dressing, preparing meals and getting ready for bed. During its investigation, Which? noted some “examples of excellent care”, but found that “too many people were being poorly served”.
One worker with a private care company said, “I've been in this profession for 10 years. The agency I work for doesn't pay travelling time, so it's rush, rush, rush and the time I spend travelling is taken from each customer.”
The carer continued, “Fifteen-minute visits used to be check calls or to give medication. Now they're used to microwave a meal, empty a commode and travel to the next person. It's impossible.”
The UK Home Care Association, which represents agencies providing many ‘care at home’ services, said its members were increasingly under pressure to cut the length of visits by councils wanting to save money. Mike Padgham, the group's chairman, said, “The report supports our growing concern over state-funded homecare. People and their families must be confident that they will receive dignified and effective care. They must look to government and local councils to place the needs of elderly and disabled people at the forefront in the current economic climate, to avoid the concerning picture described in the Which? report.”
In Campbell Martin’s Opinion column from May 2011, the former MSP told the story of an 89 year-old Saltcoats man who was in receipt of a ‘care at home’ package delivered by a private company on behalf of North Ayrshire Council.
The article read:
“The man is now registered blind and has also had a catheter fitted. However, with adequate support, he is able to remain in his own home.
“The crucial words in the last sentence are ‘with adequate support’. North Ayrshire Council administers the provision of ‘care at home’ services for people like the man in our story. My understanding is that Council staff generally provide a very good level of service, but senior management at North Ayrshire – backed by the Labour councillors who run the Council – have embarked on privatising much of the ‘care at home’ work. According to figures presented in the Council’s budget for the current financial year, NAC anticipates ‘saving’ around £400,000 by withdrawing from directly providing care to approximately fifty-percent of local people who need it. Instead, they will continue to award contracts to private companies to provide the service.
“The motivation for these contractors, like all private companies, is to make money. Private ‘care at home’ companies often spend less time with ‘clients’, resulting in less being done for those requiring care. Such firms also pay their staff much less than the Council workers they replace, and many expect their employees to buy their own uniforms and use their own mobile phones when contacting the office. At least one such private company with a North Ayrshire Council contract also does not provide staff with ‘travel time’ between ‘clients’. In other words, it is impossible for staff to maintain the schedule of ‘visits’ unless they cut-short the time they spend with each ‘client’.
“Clients’ needs are assessed by the Council and our 89 year-old Saltcoats man needs four ‘visits’ per day. During these visits care staff should help him wash, dress and, crucially, ensure his catheter is emptied. Now, there is a very long list of failures relating to this man’s care but, for the purpose of this article, I’m going to restrict my references to just one day last week. Staff from the private company did not turn-up for the last two ‘visits’ of the day, meaning the man’s 73 year-old female neighbour – not a relative – had to make his dinner, prepare him for bed and ensure his catheter was emptied. This was far from the first time she’d had to perform the role of carer in such circumstances.
“Had the neighbour not done the work for which the private company is paid by the Council (as we fund the Council it is us who pay them), the man would have had no food from lunchtime one day until breakfast the next. Disgracefully, his catheter would not have been emptied either, with potentially fatal consequences.
“On a number of occasions when this private company has failed to deliver the care for which they are paid, the man’s neighbour has had to call-out staff from the Council’s Alert service, resulting in a double-hit on public finances – we pay the private care company and also fund Alert.
“North Ayrshire Council has consistently been advised of the failures relating to the care of this vulnerable man, but they still happen on an almost daily basis. If a child was left without food and care for almost 24-hours, and through that was exposed to a potentially life-threatening situation, then people would be facing prosecution.
“While North Ayrshire Council is looking to ‘save’ money by privatising services, the level of care being provided to some of our elderly relatives, friends and neighbours is nothing short of a disgrace.
“The incident described above – just one of many – is completely unacceptable, and North Ayrshire Council cannot claim it does not know such appalling failures in care are happening: our 89 year-old man’s neighbour has kept a log and has regularly complained to the local authority.”
Campbell Martin’s article concluded: “Do we have to wait until someone dies before action is taken?”
