News

After years of care home closures because the pressure to meet new standards was too great, the Department of Health performed a dramatic U-turn when it announced that some of the standards would be scrapped for homes open before April this year. Those sacrificed concerned environmental aspects of care homes, such as space, baths, doorways and single rooms; these standards had previously forced many care home owners out of the business claiming they were unable to afford the costs. New homes will still have to conform to the standards. Responses to the change of mind were mixed. National Care Homes Association chief executive Sheila Scott said care homes would now be able to focus on quality issues. But Association for Residential Care chief executive James Churchill said the amendments would result in a two-tier market as homes which had not complied with the standards would be able to charge lower fees.

Help the Aged said that the reason homes had closed had more to do with inadequate government funding than standards.

Martin Green, chief executive, Counsel and Care for the Elderly
"The government U-turn on care standards is disgraceful. It seeks to deal with the problems of closures by reducing the quality of life for older people. What we need is a proper, long-term response that puts quality of care at the centre of the agenda and deals with the inadequate funding of residential care. In other sectors, such as farming, when there is a crisis the government produces billions of pounds in unplanned expenditure, yet, when dealing with this issue, its response is not to spend more but to reduce standards. I think this says something about how older people are valued by both the government and society."

Julia Ross, executive director of health and social and social care, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
"Standards are standards and I'd hope that we will strive to get the best for older people regardless of this new announcement. I get fed up with pressure groups that oppose the upgrading of care homes on the grounds that standards are not required, almost as fed up with those that assume that we will not pursue standards just because we don't have to. Managing the market locally requires maturity and determination and that's what social services will continue to do."

Karen Warwick, senior practitioner, Barnardo's

"Another example of the government making a U-turn! I can understand why this has occurred but it does somewhat undermine those homes that have shown a commitment to improved standards. 'Flexibility' is the spin that has been used but I wonder how many older people will have to continue living in double occupancy rooms when they really have no wish to do so, yet don't feel empowered to speak out."

Bill Badham, programme manager, Children's Society
"For the government in effect to blame the loss of 50,000 care home places for elderly people in four years on seeking better quality is a remarkable bit of spin. To tackle the problem by getting rid of these quality standards for current accommodation undermines those who have made improvements and of course fudges the source of the crisis which is, as Help the Aged says, national and local government underfunding."

Phil Frampton, national chairperson, Care Leavers Association
At least this government retreat will take away the excuse for local authorities currently rushing to close their homes for the elderly, and also their children's homes. However, if the government is to avoid creating a two-tier system and to create quality provision, then there is a need to determine a phased and managed introduction of the quality standards - and the same should apply to children's homes before there are no children's homes left!