I confess I missed this last night and will be trying to catch-up with it on iPlayer later today.
Did anyone see it and was it any good (if you can use that phrase about a documentary of this nature)?
Joy! I have not missed this, but instead got the day of the week wrong.
It's on tonight. Will you be watching?
Shocking abuse and torture perpertrated against vulnerable people. An absolute disgrace.
I actually can't believe it. It was torture plain and simple. Makes me want to work that much harder for vulnerable adults. That kind of thing cannot not be allowed to happen.
I was uncomfortable watching it. I can't believe other fellow human beings treat people like animals. Even animals are treated nicely. Absolutely shocking! I had to change the channel, I couldn't watch it all. Sorry.
It doesn't appear to be available on i-player.
Is there normally a waiting time before it is available?
It just says coming soon - don't give up though it should be watched by everyone!
Julian: It doesn't appear to be available on i-player. Is there normally a waiting time before it is available?
Normally takes half hour or more before it a program thats just been aired gets in i player.....
Angered me. Upset me. Didn't shock or surprise me. Not even a tiny bit.
This is potentially the most horrific and distressing footage I have ever seen, I feel sick to the pit of my stomach and have so many questions.
Shame on CQC, shame on them.
4 Arrests already.
Although they failed to ensure there was a golden thread of values and principles between Leadership and front line (a common mistake in the care field) I'm quite impressed with Castlebecks open, honest and transparent response. Particularly the independent element of it http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9501000/9501416.stm
Horse and bolted come to mind - another case of whilstle-blowing being in vain.
Many staff knew and were involved - are the Recruitment and vetting Procedures fit for purpose?
Take any group of people generally seen by society at large to be worth less, gather them together out of public view, and view the difficult job of helping them have a good life as one that anyone with the 'right values' can do....
...this isn't new stuff. Anyone who is surprised needs to wake up.
The only real way to safeguard people is to help to make sure they aren't separated out and gathered together out of public view - to make sure people are known in their communities. This doesn't protect everyone from all abuse always, but it certainly makes this kind of environment less likely.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been told by staff (and manager) groups that they can't do inclusion work because it puts people at too much risk...
No amount of inspection (even good inspection) will prevent this kind of abuse if people are put together by label and hidden away from the world.
If history teaches us anything it has to be this - over and over and over.
What more can I say.
Although a somewhat dated book Goffman's 'Asylums' still has much to make us think about.
http://info.smkb.ac.il/home/home.exe/2710/2901
It was disgraceful. I work in the authority where this 'hospital' is situated and am shocked. This is a very good example of why the privatisation of health and social care is a very dangerous business.
The need for profit over patient care and skilled workforce. An absolute disgrace. What will Lansley have to say about itI wonder?
It is about labels.
Who listens to fantasists?
Once this label applies, usually to LD and children, the wolves move in.
(Am using the common view of wolves, not the reality of these lovely creatures)
cqc do not speak to the staff involved with the care of the people they are only interested in the paperwork and that care plans are up to date the only person they have any dealings with is the manager if they spoke to the staff im sure outcomes would be different ie staffing levels experience of staff training available i work with elderly emi emd although i am an experienced carer i have only had 1 day dementia training and as with these young vulnerable people there needs are complex i too was disgusted with the behaviour of these braindead louts they cannot be called carers and should be severely punished for what they did from the top down
Cameron:I am struggling to imagine how the staff, 'patients' and environment itself managed to present as okay during inspections...
Cameron - I'd ask this question the other way around....
Given that we know that an environment even this abusive, with all the flashing-red-light warning signs you mention (assuming the programme was honest with us), can slip through the quality net - then how much more abuse and neglect is likely going on without anyone noticing in places where bad things happen but not quite so bad - and indeed how many other places are there where even worse abuse is occurring unnoticed.
The point is that this level of ill-treatment can become so 'normal' that everyone stops noticing. If we expect people to have bruises they can easily be explained away. If we expect people to be unhappy their unhappiness can be said to have another cause. If we think that 'challenging behaviour' is always a symptom of a disability or illness, rather than a cry for help or an expression of distress...
My point would be that the abuse starts at the point we decide that we (society) have the right to take someone and put them away out of sight, out of mind - away from the rest of the world. John McKnight says something profound... prison is a place where we're punished by not being allowed to contribute our gifts to the world at large (my words, his thinking).
I'm definitely not denying that people need support - that families reach a point where they can't cope. I'm not blaming families for reaching that point. I'm just arguing that the basic model of support is often flawed.
And isn't it oh so expensive to put people in prisons... surely there must be a better way.
But look what happens when a better way - or a way potentially better - is proposed. Go search on here for discussions about personalisation or person-centred planning for example. Look at how hard it is to introduce a new way of working - any new way of working. Look at how good ideas get twisted, resisted, opposed, diluted, re-designed, twisted again... until what we do looks oddly like the old ways again (at which point everyone can declare that the new way was tried and it didn't work).
What is the point in the CQC. I know abuse is hard to spot but a senior nurse made contact three times to report what was going on and they didn’t acknowledge his concern. Unbelievable
The underlying issue here??? Values and Principles.
How come some residential establishments have a fantastic ethic? A real embedded culture of valuing and respecting individuals whilst others do not.
Rupert M is right... its about recruitment, vetting and training. But my question is... how exactly do you test someones valuebase when you recruit them? How does YOUR organisation really do this?
We need to look at those organisations that have got this right and ask 'how?'
There is a better way, smaller residential homes and hands on management . By smaller I mean 4 people living in a house with well trained/paid staff.
Why is this not standard - cost? profit? risk of upsetting the 'big' profit driven establishments? (dare I mention southern cross...) Does it really cost that much more for this kind of care? Cost verses quality of care quality of life?
Lessons have not been learn't from the past as long as these large 'institutions' exist.
Our care for the elderly in residential homes also needs to be examined. I work for an agency and have reported numerous cases of neglect and abuse. Larger establishments were the worst - lack of staff (basic training, low wages, long hours). In one residential home there was only 2 members of staff to care for 34 older people with high complex needs. Task-centred care was evidenced in all of the 'homes'.
I think all trainee/social workers should work a shift (night-shift when all the fluffy bunny rabbits are put away for daytime display) and see for themselves how our vulnerable people are being treated.
Just a thought
...but now released on bail:
http://www.jackbristol.com/newscentre/bristols-news/4-people-arrested-in-bristol-care-home-investigation-released-on-bail-6156
Rainbowarch: The underlying issue here??? Values and Principles. How come some residential establishments have a fantastic ethic? A real embedded culture of valuing and respecting individuals whilst others do not. Rupert M is right... its about recruitment, vetting and training. But my question is... how exactly do you test someones valuebase when you recruit them? How does YOUR organisation really do this? We need to look at those organisations that have got this right and ask 'how?'
I think it starts from the beginning. In a mission statement and in recruitment, safeguarding the vulnerable has to be a clearly stated primary purpose- not in a 'lip service' way on a drop down menu- but at the forefront. References should be clearly followed up. Can the referee be trusted? Does your instinct tell you they are genuine? Sometimes you need to think the worst of people-we see how they can behave.
The cultural values then have to be endorsed. Safeguarding should always be on the agenda when working with the vulnerable. A management structure that reinforces this, is committed to it, knows what's going on and promotes good practice by setting a standard, rolling their sleeves up and getting involved.
Good working policies and staff that are valued and well trained. Enough staff. I'm sure others have different views, but those are my views based on very different experiences in different agencies. You know the organisations ropey when you are appointed on the spot, they seem desperate for staff and you get no training. No-one's mentioned the rights and safety of the service user etc etc.
@Innerstrength "Does it really cost that much more for this kind of care?"
Yes, absolutely. And therein lies the problem.
Very small settings are the worst!! Lack of support for staff and management is a crisis waiting to happen...
I disagree. All places can be a crisis waiting to happen if there is poor management. Small services run well are better for the people involved. But whatever the setting it has to be led from the top that safeguarding and respect are key values within that work place. And it's not always true that smaller services are more expensive I have seen many cases, specifically with people who have challenging behaviour, who cost a small fortune to be cared for in a bigger place and then once they had their own service the behaviour improved because their staff were there for them and not 10 other people as well and the smaller service cost less to run that providing a place in a larger group home.
redana:Innerstrength, some of the smaller organisations can be the worst. Worst place I ever worked was in a residential setting for 1 young person with challenging behaviours. I was appointed on the day of interview. I could have been anyone. No training was given, other staff moaned constantly about YP, no mention of safeguarding. YP was seen as a huge problem to staff. They had no awareness of the deeper issues or the fact they were they to meet YP's needs. In my area, the springing up of these small residential homes all over the place has created huge safeguarding issues for the LA.
Hi Redana,
I am disturbed about your post - and do not dispute this but my posting is about my experience only. My findings were that the smaller units had better values and principles. The larger organisations could not give quality of care because of their size and lack of hands on management. The key seems to be lack of management and poor quality of staff (due to lack of training and poor selection). How to overcome this should be the government's priority but it all boils down to cost.
Dalylama... Please do elaborate!?! Where is this brilliant small residential service that meets the needs of highly complex individuals AND is far more cost effective than a larger establishment? We need to know so that we can replicate their service model.
Innerstrength... I can shed light on the small home theory.
It will all depend on the geographical proximity of other homes. If the organisation has just one single home for one client in a geographical area, then the costs will be absolutely extortionate which is a significant pressure on a services ability to deliver quality. Think about management costs, overheads, on-call staff, relief staff, RI requirements etc... all attributed to one fee. In addition the staff isolation, lack of support, high staff turnover...Very rarely a long term model.
If however a small home is located close to a number of similar small homes and staff can feel part of a larger team, managers can support each other with on call, training etc. There is scope for career advancement, opportunity to experience work with other users etc, then this model can be successful.
In summary, the organisations structure and business model has a huge impact on cost and quality of service delivery. It is not enough to say a size of a home is good or bad, you need to look at the whole organisation.
lol I thought someone might ask! I used to work in Hertfordshire but I can't tell you the name obviously and it was a general observation that specifically for challenging behaviour triggers can be missed in a larger environment which is the long run can cost more. The other service I know of is actually in New Zealand, their system is very different to ours because they don't have local government so the funding goes straight from national government to providers. I worked as a support worker in that organisation and the reduction of challenging behaviour was amazing and therefore ended up being cheaper. Obviously this is individual to the service as a previous example has been given of an individual service where they didn't care who they hired. My main point was more than we all need to be aware that this kind of abuse happens and we all need to be on the look out for it and make others aware so that such things don't continue to splip through the net - no matter what the size of the service.
Rainbowarch: ...where is this brilliant small residential service that meets the needs of highly complex individuals AND is far more cost effective than a larger establishment? We need to know so that we can replicate their service model.
Did I mention personalisation? I'm sure I did. If the average cost given by Panorama is to be believed... I'd have thought that the families of the people in the programme could do quite a lot with £3500 per week.
Yes I know it's not quite that simple in practice - but do some sums about how many members of staff this equates to...
Anyway abuse is abuse whether it's alongside 10 others or to you on your own. A bigger, or a smaller, flawed model is just as flawed. Out of sight out of mind is out of sight out of mind.
I agree with DalyLama.
However, I am disturbed by Redana's post and do not dispute this, my posting relates to my experience only. Complaining about the YP should have alerted management to the carers unsuitability. Why do these people get employment is the question we should be asking. The larger establishments lacked good hands on management and staff. The key seems to be lack of funds and the profit driven environment which our government promotes. It's not working - more investment of funds is needed - but that costs and this is the underlining problem.