HOW THE RAT­INGS SYS­TEM WORKS

The Jewish Chronicle - - NEWS -

bod­ies but be­moans an ab­sence of “in­tel­li­gent reg­u­la­tion. It’s a tun­nel vi­sion ap­proach rather than a holis­tic and in­tel­li­gent re­port.

“We are mov­ing to a world where if it isn’t writ­ten down, it hasn’t been done.

“When I go around the homes, staff will be sit­ting in the lounge try­ing to write up a re­port. Then a res­i­dent will say they need the toi­let. Hope­fully they will go and take them rather than stay and fill in the pa­per­work. But the CQC sees an in­com­plete care plan and then the home gets a ‘re­quires im­prove­ment’.” He also takes is­sue with the CQC cat­e­gories, ar­gu­ing: “There is not any­thing be­tween ‘good’ and ‘re­quires im­prove­ment’. Where is the ‘sat­is­fac­tory’ la­bel?”

Jewish Care is pi­lot­ing touch screen tech­nol­ogy in a bid to cut down on pa­per­work. If suc­cess­ful, many man­power hours will be saved.

“Our staff are torn be­tween meet­ing the needs of the CQC and the in­di­vid­ual res­i­dents and that is ridicu­lous. At the end of the day, we are in the busi­ness of care and not ad­min­is­tra­tion.”

The char­ity also has to deal with the con­se­quences of ever-tight­en­ing coun­cil bud­gets. And al­though Chan­cel­lor

THE Care Qual­ity Com­mis­sion is the in­de­pen­dent reg­u­la­tor of health and adult so­cial care in Eng­land, aim­ing to en­sure ser­vices are high qual­ity, safe, ef­fec­tive and com­pas­sion­ate.

Its in­spec­tors make as­sess­ments in five cat­e­gories — safety, ef­fec­tive­ness, car­ing, re­spon­sive­ness and well-led. There are four pos­si­ble out­comes in ev­ery cat­e­gory— out­stand­ing, good, re­quires im­prove­ment and in­ad­e­quate.

For an out­stand­ing over­all rat­ing, a home has to be found out­stand­ing in at least two el­e­ments with the re­main­ing marked as good. A good over­all rat­ing will gen­er­ally be achieved if no more than one cat­e­gory re­quires im­prove­ment and no as­pect is graded as in­ad­e­quate.

If the CQC finds that a home re­quires im­prove­ment in two or more cat­e­gories, that will also be

Philip Ham­mond has pledged a fur­ther £2 bil­lion to­wards adult so­cial care, “how that gets spent, no­body knows”, Mr Mor­ris says.

For lo­cal author­ity-funded res­i­dents, the coun­cil con­tri­bu­tion is barely half the true care cost of around £1,000 weekly. “We never want to get into a sit­u­a­tion where we’re lim­it­ing the num­ber of peo­ple we help, or say­ing to the most vul­ner­a­ble peo­ple: ‘You can’t come into our homes.’

“We are not in a cri­sis sit­u­a­tion. It the over­all rat­ing. Where care is judged to be in­ad­e­quate, spe­cial mea­sures are in­tro­duced.

Homes with an over­all rat­ing of re­quires im­prove­ment will be re­vis­ited within a year. In­spec­tors will re­turn to a fa­cil­ity deemed in­ad­e­quate and in spe­cial mea­sures within six months. The CQC has the ultimate sanc­tion of clos­ing a home, al­though there is an ap­peals process.

isn’t good but it’s man­age­able. We can work through this with the sup­port of the com­mu­nity.”

Fam­i­lies of clients are con­sulted reg­u­larly. “At Rubens House there were a num­ber of rel­a­tives who were quick to com­ment on the good work at the home,” Mr Mor­ris adds.

“As with any­thing in life, there are al­ways go­ing to be peo­ple who are happy and peo­ple who have con­cerns and we have to deal with ev­ery one of those.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.