News

To read a recent Community Care article featuring the views of former inspector John Burton, and NCSC corporate policy director Trish Davies click here

These are the responses we received:

"As Bolton Adult Placement we have found that NCSC inspections have simply been a paper trail with adult placements caring for one person in a domestic home being inspected in the same way as large residential homes. In many cases the inspectors did not meet the service user, who was out at the day service when they called. In one case the inspector did not inspect the bedroom and yet demanded to see written evidence that equipment had been serviced - this in a house where there is no specialist equipment! 

The requirements in the reports have been completely inconsistent. For example, although all adult placement carers have the same paperwork supplied by the adult placement scheme, some have been told it is not adequate, others have not. There are many other inconsistencies. 

The first round of inspections were not done until February. The second round of unannounced inspections were done in March when carers were told that the inspector was calling in for a coffee and a chat. These "inspections" cost the adult placement scheme £50 each! There has been no recognition by inspectors that an adult placement worker visits each placement every month, and has a detailed understanding of all aspects of the carer provided. Inspectors made it clear that they did not wish to meet with us or for us to be present during inspections.

In conclusion, the NCSC has brought a steep increase in our workload and much anxiety to adult placement carers without any increase in quality for the service users."

Anonymous

"From my observations of a residential home for older people, the NCSC inspection has had little positive impact on the lives of the residents. I have reluctantly concluded that the reasons for this are
twofold.

1. The Inspection process is not rigorous. In the field of higher education, when claims are made about standards for the purposes of an inspection, these are not accepted at face value. Evidence is required. Whilst this can lead to excessive bureaucracy it does mean that claims and supporting evidence can be scrutinised for their validity. My experience of a NCSC inspection was that the reassurances of  the manager were seen as sufficient evidence -  there appeared to be little exploration or checking.

2. It does not appear that the NCSC has a real concern for the quality of life of residents. The reality of day to day living at the home and what this means for the hopes and aspirations of the residents was not checked out. That a list of activities existed was sufficient. Whether this was accessible and meaningful to the residents was not of concern."

Hilary Walker

"The NCSC does not accept criticism from within and will take disciplinary action against anyone speaking out. I agree with a number of John Burton's points.

The way that change to NCSC has been managed was poor. Information was slow to be given to inspectors. Much of it was inaccurate and the message given was that your former practice was bad. The NCSC has a thoroughly disillusioned workforce, and further change will ensure morale remains on rock bottom.

The IT system is unreliable and has lead to scandalous inefficiencies. An enormous amount of time and work has been lost through this.

In many ways the new body has weakened protection. Many health authorities could call on experts on infection control, estates, engineering, medical physics, pharmacy and other specialisms. All that has been lost and not replaced. Inspectors are being asked to make judgements in areas where they are not competent.

There is such a reliance on "the third way" of partnership with providers and "the virtuous cycle" of inspection, that requirements are not being enforced and service users are at risk because of an unwillingness to prosecute providers of dangerous services.

A recent case has come to light of health and safety prosecuting a home, in which a service user was badly burned by an unguarded radiator. The Health and Safety Executive was quoted as saying this was the second case that had been prosecuted.
When will something ask the question "why are NCSC not enforcing standards to prevent injury before it occurs?"

Rather than "Speaking softly and carrying a big stick," NCSC talks tough, but leaves the big stick in the umberella stand."

Anonymous

"With eight years experience of supporting vulnerable adults, and currently being in my second year of a three year BA (Hons) degree in social work at the University of Salford, I am fortunate to have acquired knowledge of who to contact in the instance of bad practice etc.

I do however question with concern, whether the situation would have resulted in the same outcome had I been a service user on the receiving end. It seems equally concerning, that a decision was taken to investigate, only after I had requested a point of contact in order to take the matter further and above NCSC, something a service user may not feel confident in doing. So the question remains, who actually monitors the monitor? and where do we go if the NCSC do not respond appropriately?"

J. Kelly