Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself’: Who holds the keys to the kingdom of knowledge?

This post is inspired by a research paper whose title many within academia may well have voiced themselves, ‘Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself‘. 

The author states ‘The objective of this study was to empirically test the wide belief that Reviewer #2 is a uniquely poor reviewer’.  Concluding ‘Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.'(Peterson,2020)

Peer review is the accepted academic foundation to the development, gatekeeping and dissemination of research, while underpinning professional hierarchies within academia. However, research has called this process into question, identifying different outcomes based on gender and nationality. Research by Murray et al (2018) on submissions to a biosciences journal found

‘…… a homophilic interaction between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors in determining the outcome of peer review; that is, gatekeepers favor manuscripts from authors of the same gender and from the same country. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes.’

Now it could be suggested peer reviewed Social Work  journals operate from a different ideological and philosophical  perspective to biosciences, however, my subjective experience over the past 14 years as an academic suggests to me social work might not be quite so different. On reviewing my publications I have been astonished to find that the majority of my successful submissions have been to  journals edited by females, whilst the majority of unsuccessful submissions have been to journals edited by males. In addition I have also realised the female edited journals have a lower metric rating, compared to the male edited journals. 

Why I wonder? The answer is likely to be multiple and complex, although hierarchies in power at both an individual and subject/content level would have a key role I believe. (Maybe that’s the subject of another blog or even a symposium?)

A recent experience of a ‘reviewer 3’s’ generally negative comments on a submission prompted me to think more deeply about  the role of peer reviewed journals as ‘gatekeepers’ of knowledge distribution, and how this might  inform the evidence base of social work. Commonly framed within the profession as ‘evidence based practice ‘ or ‘evidence informed practice’.

From a philosophical perspective Evidence Based/Informed Practice (EBIP) appears to operate on modernist foundations. For example seeking to adhere to methodological and analytic standards of rigour, which demonstrate the objectivity and reliability of a scientific approach, because this will provide clarity in establishing the ‘right’ evidence is combined to create systematic and cohesive frameworks of knowledge. The belief that by adopting this approach the ‘right’ research and knowledge is published is alluring,  and indeed may lead practitioners into a false sense of security when making decisions based on EBIP.

However, Postmodernist frameworks are of benefit here to thinking about the multiple discourses at play in social work practices, and understandings the dynamics between them,  particularly concerning power.

Academia is an interesting example of this if we consider the suggested positional power of some academics. Reid and Curry (2019) suggest such power is insidious, and  produces barriers for some scholars throughout their entire careers, disproportionately affecting women and people from black and minority ethnic groups. This template dictates certain research agendas, epistemologies, and methods as legitimate while discarding or marginalizing those that do not fit neatly within this framework. Reid and Curry argue In essence there is an acceptance of 

‘white male subjectivity as the norm (thus ‘objective’), rendering racialized (nonwhite) and genderized (nonmale) subjectivity as the ‘other,’ as lacking credibility.” Scholars who focus on critical theory, race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality and identities, qualitative methods and the like are marginalized because their work is supposedly not “objective” science.’

Add to this a cloak of anonymity, and a lack of transparency and accountability, there is very little discriminated groups can do to challenge such academic orthodoxy.

Peshkin (1988) provides an interesting perspective which extends, and troubles, the notion of objectivity by suggesting the ‘taboo’ of subjectivity stems from a misunderstanding of its potential role in EBIP. It is our own subjective involvement in practice—not the precise replication of the event—which can provide strong theoretical insight. However, we are somewhat conditioned as practitioners and academics to see subjectivity as a ‘contaminant’. Yet, that contaminant is always present, one can never get away from one self.  As Alan Peshkin eloquently reminds us

“Whatever the substance of one’s persuasions at a given point, one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed. It is insistently present in both the research and non-research aspects of our life. … our subjectivity lies inert, unexamined when it counts ….. ” (Peshkin 1988, p.17)

The key point here is that subjectivity cannot be removed. It shapes and mediates our thinking and action in a whole range of ways. Therefore, it needs to be valued understood and utilised . Instead of trying to remove the garment and declare ourselves clean of subjectivity, it is important to acknowledge it, and draw upon it to deepen our analysis. However, this is unlikely to happen if the ‘gatekeepers’ decide not to open the gates to their kingdom of knowledge, unless of course we can find another way in.

There is also an issue, I believe, in respect of practitioners opportunities to engage in research, and attain publication of their work, especially given the workforce is predominantly female (approx 85%). If there is gender bias in favour of males, specifically white males, this has major implication in who creates the evidence base for social work practice, and what does his mean for practitioners and service provision?

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

Fear & insecurity enslaves many today, time to challenge the political status quo …..

The exercise of imagination is dangerous to those who profit from the way things are because it has the power to show that the way things are is not permanent, not universal, not necessary. (Le Guin, The Wave in the Mind)

For those of us who have seen lives and cities decimated by the ideological mantra of neoliberalism  –  ‘free markets’ and ‘privatization’ good/ public sector bad – the reality of this ideological stance is personal.

As a society we have under estimated the power of this ideology. Yet it has under pinned successive governments’ since Margaret Thatcher with a blueprint of how society should be structured and has determined what, and whom, counts in society, differentiating between the deserving and underserving. This ideology has provided governments with a framework to structure the role the state, the free markets, families and individuals in meeting need in society. It still is driving government policy and tells society who will receive what, how much it will cost, who will pay for it and  how it will be provided. A particularly disturbing aspect of the current ideological crisis is the displacement of responsibility for ‘austerity’ and a failing public sector onto seemingly everyone, except those who have created it;  uncaring leaders, an under regulated financial sector and sheer corporate greed.

However, the exercise of neoliberal ideology is not just about political power and the domination and oppression of those most marginalized in society. It also requires the consent and compliance of wider society to operate without challenge.

For real change to occur society needs to withdraw its consent and compliance if we want to see a shift away from the current approach.

At last we are hearing an alternative discourse. Many will decry Corbyns’ vision, but it is for us, the people who will elect the next government to be brave, to open our hearts and minds to imagine a world not driven by neo-liberalism, free markets and the profit motive.

Arguably our biggest problem has been the lack of vision our politicians seem to have had over the last 40 years. Regardless of political persuasion, few have been able to conceive of a world not centred around neo-liberalism and a free market, and those who have, have been pilloried in our increasingly biased media machine.

Now we have an opportunity to forge a future based  on compassion not consumerism, valuing people not things and respect for ourselves, each other and our environment.

Rejecting neoliberalism  at the ballot box will do more long term good than sticking with the status quo. Neoliberalism is an ideology of fear and insecurity that enslaves us all. Maybe the time is coming for us, the people,  to be brave and imaginative and believe the unimaginable is possible for all our futures  ……

 

It is time to reject ideologies of fear and insecurity that enslaves us all ……. we need bravery and imagination to challenge the status quo, to re-imagine the future …..

The exercise of imagination is dangerous to those who profit from the way things are because it has the power to show that the way things are is not permanent, not universal, not necessary. (Le Guin, The Wave in the Mind)

For those of us who have seen lives and cities decimated by the ideological mantra of neoliberalism  –  ‘free markets’ and ‘privatization’ good/ public sector bad – the reality of this ideological stance is personal.

As a society we have under estimated the power of this ideology. Yet it has under pinned successive governments’ since Margaret Thatcher with a blueprint of how society should be structured and has determined what, and whom, counts in society, differentiating between the deserving and underserving. This ideology has provided governments with a framework to structure the role the state, the free markets, families and individuals in meeting need in society. It still is driving government policy and tells society who will receive what, how much it will cost, who will pay for it and  how it will be provided. A particularly disturbing aspect of the current ideological crisis is the displacement of responsibility for ‘austerity’ and a failing public sector onto seemingly everyone, except those who have created it;  uncaring leaders, an under regulated financial sector and sheer corporate greed.

However, the exercise of neoliberal ideology is not just about political power and the domination and oppression of those most marginalized in society. It also requires the consent and compliance of wider society to operate without challenge.

For real change to occur society needs to withdraw its consent and compliance if we want to see a shift away from the current approach.

Arguably our biggest problem has been the lack of vision our politicians seem to have had over the last 40 years. Regardless of political persuasion, few have been able to conceive of a world not centred around neo-liberalism and a free market, and those who have, have been pilloried in our increasingly biased media machine. The global pandemic provides an opportunity to forge a future based  on compassion not consumerism, valuing people not things and respect for ourselves, each other and our environment.

Rejecting neoliberalism will do more long term good than sticking with the status quo. Neoliberalism is an ideology of fear and insecurity that enslaves us all. Maybe the time is coming for us, the people,  to be brave and imaginative and believe the unimaginable is possible for all our futures  ……

 

‘Old age,more feared than death’…… have we ever cared about older people?

Has there ever been a ‘golden age’ where older people were consistently valued, respected cared for and protected by family and the institutions that make up wider society?

The World Health Organisation suggests the abuse of older people occurs in many parts of the world with little recognition or response. This serious social problem is often downplayed or hidden from the public view, and considered mostly a private matter. Even today, the abuse of older people continues to be a taboo, mostly underestimated and ignored by societies across the world. However, evidence is accumulating to indicate that the abuse of older people in the UK is an important public health and societal problem.

The full extent of abuse is unknown, however, its social and moral significance is obvious. As such, it demands an active response, one which focuses on protecting the rights of older persons, and a change in our perspective on whom, and what, we value in society.

Although representations of old age and societal responses to older people have differed over time it could be argued old age has always been viewed as negative.

In ancient Greece old age was portrayed as sad, with the Greeks love of beauty marginalising the old. Although some commentators suggest the reality was more complex with the portrayal of older people in the classics as ‘both pejorative and complimentary’ (Thane, p.32). For Plato reverence toward old people was a guarantee of social and political stability, whereas Aristotle disagreed with such positive images. Cicero’s work De Senectute, written in 44 BC, points to the variety in individual experiences of ageing, acknowledging that for those who are poor and without mental capacity ageing is miserable, however, suggesting older people need to strive throughout their life to remain intellectually and physically able.

Arguably this belief still underpins social care legislation and policy today in respect of older people.

It has been suggested older people’s status in society is linked to their ability to participate in society from an economic perspective, especially in terms of activity in paid employment. Historically where older people have been unable to participate in paid employment, help and support has been provided through a mixture of family and state support, with an emphasis by government on the former rather than the latter. However, commentators suggest, post industrial revolution, another victim of change were older people. The old did not merely lose power, they also lost respect. The rise of the alms-houses, and institutionalised poor-relief, may indicate their children were increasingly shedding responsibility for their support and transferring it to the community.

Although Thane  argued, this may have been due to families own depths of poverty, rather than lack of care or a shedding of responsibility.

The abuse of older people was not something government identified as a problem throughout this period, although, self-neglect was identified as an issue which government sought to address in the 1948 National Assistance Act.

This is not to say it did not occur, for example, the 1942 Exceptional Needs Enquiry found most older people living with families were there under sufferance. They were often less well off than those who lived with strangers, and lacked essential items of clothing, bedding or household equipment as families used any provision, such as clothing coupons, for personal use. Whether this constituted abuse is not clear as many families who cared for older relatives were often living in poverty themselves and older people often willingly gave their families any support they could, even if this meant going without themselves. Of course, records do not exist to either confirm or deny whether such relationships were abusive or mutually supportive, however, it might suggest in terms of individual worth and personal identity, a cultural norm existed where the welfare of the younger generation was prioritised over that of the old by both young and old.

However, Peter Townsend’s landmark study  of long-stay institutional care for older people in 1950’s Britain, provides a little more insight into the experiences of older people receiving care. One of the interviews he recorded was with a matron of a small private residential home in Greater London, which Townsend suggested was by far the worst home he had visited, was clearly describing abuse, as defined in legislation today.

This suggests the abuse of older people has been going on for a long time. It is increasingly clear the abuse of older people exists, and as a society we cannot ignore it any longer.

Social workers to learn how to earn ‘public trust’ from Politicians … Really!

Politicians to lead task force that will guide social workers in earning back public trust …… Really!

Forgive me, I almost choked on my coffee whilst reading a piece entitled ‘Social work needs to earn back public trust‘ on the Guardians Social Care Network.

The government has set up a task force to guide the social work profession on how to earn public trust. A stellar line up of politicians which include Michael Gove, Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith, those well-known advocates of social work and those they work with. When did Politicians earn the right to pontificate on how a profession might earn public trust I wonder? I must have missed this whilst reading about the numerous promises this government has reneged on since the general election, and which clearly must have enhanced the publics trust in them …..

I am a tad perturbed the government seems to have ditched the comprehensive Munro Review, which provided a very balanced approach to reform that focused not just on social workers and their education but also the political and organisational contexts which also shape social work practice, and arguably go some way to explaining the current problems that bedevil the profession.

The piece suggests the new task force will focus on robust assessment of qualifying social workers involving employers, academics and those who use services …. ummm sorry to mention this, but I do not know of a qualifying social work programme that does not already do this. Social work programmes across the land expect students to pass a number of academic theory assignments and law based exams alongside practice based assessments which involve numerous observations of practice and a plethora of meetings and reports provided by employers, those who use services and academics commenting on the student’s performance and fitness for practice over a 2 or 3 year period.

The article goes onto suggest the social work profession needs to ask itself ‘why the college failed’ and ‘why the public mood’ supports changes in the law where social workers can be prosecuted for wilful neglect. In response to the first question, from my perspective, the reason I did not join the college is that I felt it represented the voice of the government not social workers. To the second comment I would hazard a guess that 30 years of inaccurate reporting in the media, oft-repeated by politicians, and flawed serious case reviews have played a part in the general publics perception of the profession.

Just read the book by Prof Ray Jones which looks at why politicians and the media were so keen to blame and vilify social workers and Sharon Shoesmith, Haringey’s then children’s services in the case of Baby P, to gain some insight into why the profession is held in such low esteem by the public, aided and abetted by the media and government I would suggest.

I was surprised the piece did not mention the problems with inadequate IT systems, how social work now operates in a call centre environment where workers hot desk and have limited contact with their peers, or how workers work in their cars, making phone calls in lay-bys on their mobiles because they cannot access secure office space. Nor does it mention the failing court system, or the outmoded model of fostering and adoption which is no longer fit for purpose and in many cases just adds to the trauma of already traumatised children’s lives, it fails to mention the knock on effect of welfare reform, the lack of affordable good quality housing or the deterioration in mental health support services to both adults and children, it does not dig deep into the effect on frontline service provision of high levels of stress related sickness and social work vacancies, or the impact of temporary agency workers in providing important continuity when working with children and families.

I have worked with hundreds of hard-working social work students, many of whom are accruing debts of up to £40,000 to become a social worker in children and family services. Despite public and government distrust, and potential imprisonment, they are committed to being the best social workers they can possibly be …. because of this I believe in social work. Time for another coffee I think …..

The ‘McDonaldlisation’ approach to reform in health and social care is as unhealthy as a triple whatever with cheese and fries….

A couple of years ago a social work student suggested government policy wanted to make us all ‘beige’. I know what she means.

Of course commentators might suggest we are seeing a radical shift in emphasis across health and social care under the coalition resulting in an ideologically driven reshaping in our understanding of legitimate nature, and limits, of the state in individuals lives. However, how radical is an agenda premised on ‘consumerism’ and ‘consumer choice’? Policy designed to create a society of depoliticised consumers is hardly going to address the very real issues around equality and social justice that exist in Britain today.

In ‘Cameron & Co dream world’ delegating care provision to corporate providers is really about delegating power to places where there is limited protection for consumers, ‘choice’ takes precedence over ‘voice’. The McDonaldlisation of care is really a watered down version of consumer choice, and some believe by engaging with it you are living the neoliberal dream.

I have nothing against beige, or McDonalds, really, but a bit of colour and a change of diet would not go amiss in the current debates around the future of health and social care, and social work is well placed to provide the colour needed to create greater vibrancy in how we meet future challenges.

As government concerns itself with winning the next election we need to keep the debate going, we need tasty morsels to stimulate a much better quality of debate and deeper thinking about how to address current, and future, issues.

‘Over 50’s more scared of dementia than cancer’: I’m more terrified of the ‘harrowing neglect’ in our care system ……

As The Telegraph report people over 50 are more scared of dementia than cancer, I have to say I am terrified of any condition which might mean I need to rely on our care system when I get older.

As someone over 50, and who is currently spending every weekend at the hospital bedside and my mother in law because I’m so scared that without family around she will be seen as nothing more than ‘care home fodder’, the thought of requiring care, either in hospital or outside of hospital, once you hit the post 80 mark is a terrifying prospect to me.

There has been too many high profile inquiries to suggest these are anomalies in the care system, for example, following the inquest into care at Orchard View the Serous Case Review into the deaths of 5 older people has been published. The coroner has heavily criticised the quality of care at the Southern Cross home, and expressed incredulity that many staff were still working in the care industry, stating that “there could be another Orchid View operating somewhere else”.

The Daily Mail reports

‘Britain’s worst care home’: Damning report into ‘harrowing neglect’ at £3,000-a-month home aims to stop ‘institutionalised abuse’ of the elderly: Serious Case Review has made 34 recommendations after examining failings at Orchid View care home in Copthorne, West SussexRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2652709/Orchid-View-care-home-receive-damning-report-published-today.html#ixzz34ELlbfW6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I’m afraid the type of ‘care’ received by those at Orchard View is not confined to Orchard View.

In 2010 the Royal Medical Colleges concluded inadequate hospital care for older people condemned many to death. In 2011 The Health Service Ombudsman suggested the NHS was inflicting pain and suffering on older people, and was indifferent to older people. In 2012 Bingham suggested the treatment of older people in care is now so bad in many cases it meets the definition of ‘torture’.

Just for clarity Amnesty International has outlined the techniques used in ‘torture’, these include isolation, enforced trivial demands, degradation, threats, displays of power (i.e. controlling food and hydration, physical assault).

For some older people in care today, whether in the public or private sector, that is their care, torture.

No wonder from a European perspective research suggests older people’s experience of ageing in the UK falls behind that of many of it’s European counterparts (WRVS,2012).

Older people’s experience of ageing in the UK can be improved, and it is all of our responsibility to try to achieve this. However, we first need a coherent strategy to bring about the change desired by many who work with older people. Government in the UK tend to address issues associated with an ageing population in individual ‘silos’. Research from Europe suggests those countries taking a joined up approach where government consider how factors such as income, health, age discrimination and inclusion interact , the more successful policy approaches are likely to be to improve the experience of ageing. However, any policy needs first to have a strong ethical foundation founded on a clear understanding of, and agreement to, promoting older people’s equality and human rights.

There is clear evidence in the UK that poor levels of care, in both the private and public sector, is far to prevalent in our care system. Whilst the focus currently is on the leaders and professionals charged with developing and delivering care, wider society too has a role in ensuring compassion in care is the ‘norm’ and not the exception, as The Independent suggests

‘For a while we may pause to express outrage. But we then move on to the urgent business of our daily lives. Spot checks and hit squads may arrest the worst practice…but they will not do much about a society that has hardened its heart against the elderly’

Whilst many older people receive good quality care, the majority provided by friends and family, far too big a proportion of those requiring higher levels of care are failed by care providers in our system. It is not good enough to keep using the same old rhetoric, better training (what type and where from?), minimum standards (we have these), ‘big society’ need to take more responsibility. We have heard all of this before, and still the abuse continues.

Both my mother (82yrs) and mother-in-law (86yrs) have made clear to me this weekend they do not want to end up in residential care, the very thought fills them with horror. They remind me of the older people I worked with two decades ago who used to equate a stay in hospital with the workhouse and its associated horrors.

It struck me, it must feel terrifying being an older person requiring care today.

Re-think on outsourcing: Mr Gove, privatisation and the ‘missing shade of blue’ …..

Academics and experts have expressed their concerns in a letter to the Guardian following the Department of Educations announcement that it is considering outsourcing children’s services to private firms.

Professor Eileen Munro rightly highlights the ‘fickleness and failings’ of the market, suggesting caution in establishing a market in child protection which could create perverse incentives for private companies. A recent headline highlights the less savoury side of outsourcing – ‘Now troubled children are an investment opportunity: 18% return on the most disturbed and needy children in care homes is the extreme end of Britain’s outsourcing culture’ (Polly Toynbee)

A poll in the Guardian found 95% of respondents felt private firms should not be allowed to run children’s services.

However, the outsourcing/privatisation of children’s services is already here, and it’s extension into child protection is the next target for this government.

The letter has achieved its’ purpose in highlighting the issue and stimulating debate, the question is where do we go from here? I agree with my learned peers, we have to move beyond the ‘outsourcing’ of child protection and focus on our primary concern that vulnerable children will be exploited for profit, not unlike the vulnerable patients of Winterbourne View Hospital. A hospital set up by a Swiss equity company who primarily saw it as an investment opportunity and when the abuse of its’ patients was exposed promptly closed it down, probably moving onto the next investment opportunity provided by this government in the outsourcing of services.

Sadly government chooses to ignore this aspect of outsourcing. However, they do not ignore the opportunity to expose the failure of ‘social workers’ whenever possible. Although, they are less than explicit about the serious structural issues that prevent social workers delivering good services. The Munro Review provided a blue print for change which was universally accepted, however, it has been quietly watered down by the present government, a massive mistake in my opinion, but not unexpected as it really does not fit their ideological agenda and the dichotomous thinking of Mr Gove and co i.e. public sector bad, private sector good.

The issue is not about ‘outsourcing’, it is about the principles, values and ethics of those we outsource to. It is really about profit being made from the lives of those most vulnerable in society which feels abhorrent. Personally I feel the time is right to abandon the notion there is only one way of constructing the world of safeguarding, whether child or adult, if we are to move forward in this debate.

In a famous passage in his Treatise of Human Nature the political philosopher Hume writes about ‘the missing shade of blue’. According to Hume, if we are shown samples of two different shades of blue we can conjure up in our minds a third shade that fits between the two: the missing shade of blue.

The point of interest in Hume’s writing is not that we can invent a new shade of blue but that we can invent new ideas which connect to existing ideas.

Those working daily on the frontline of child protection I feel sure are more than able to achieve this, however, I have little faith, or trust, in those in government to move beyond their preferred shade of Tory blue.

The abuse of older people is an age old problem globally…..

As the BBC expose the abuse of older people with undercover filming on Panorama (9pm,30/04/2014), I wonder will we ever care about older people?

For many staying out of harm’s way is a matter of locking doors and windows and avoiding dangerous places, people and situations; however for some older people it is not quite so easy. The threat of abuse is behind those doors, well hidden from public view and for those living in the midst of such abuse violence permeates many aspects of their lives, most frequently perpetrated against them by those charged with providing their care. Regardless of where the care is provided, or who is delivering it, many older people today are at significant risk of harm.

At the heart of the problem lie the individual, personal and institutional attitudes of those charged with providing care for older people, which fails to treat older people compassionately. Our culture of indifference toward older people does a great deal of harm, not just to them, but to us as a society. I rememeber a quote from an article published  three years ago following  a report from the Health Service Ombudsman, that highlighted the abyssmal care older people received in hospital settings, the headline was ‘A society lacking in humanity’,  It’s still pertinent today.

“(F)or a while we may pause to express outrage. But we then move on to the urgent business of our daily lives. Spot checks and hit squads may arrest the worst practice… But they will not do much about a society that has hardened its heart against the elderly.” (Independent.co.uk, 16.02.11)

The question is what will soften those hardened hearts?

Government is reluctant to intervene and introduce a stronger legislative framework, Instead, it is seeking to extend responsibility for protecting older people from abuse to “Big Society” , stating ‘people and communities have a part to play in preventing, recognizing and reporting neglect and abuse. It is everyone’s responsibility to be vigilant whilst Government provides direction and leadership, ensuring the law is clear but not over intrusive’ (DoH, 2010, p.25).

However, is ‘Big Society’ able, and willing, to make the care and protection of older people its business, has it ever?

Historically older people, and old age, have often been viewed negatively, and this has arguably contributed to wider societies apparent indifference.  Cicero’s work De Senectute, written in 44 BC, points to the variety in individual experiences of ageing, acknowledging that for those who are poor and without mental capacity ageing is miserable, however, suggesting older people need to strive throughout their life to remain intellectually and physically able. A couple thousand years later not much seems to have changed, as research suggests those most vulnerable to abuse are the poor, women, and those over the age of 85 years with dementia.

The abuse of older people is clearly not a new phenomenon, it’s an age old problem, one not just confined to the UK.

Recognition of the abuse and maltreatment of older people throughout the world is not new. Research developed in the 1980’s in Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Norway, Sweden and the USA confirmed this was an international phenomena. The following decade saw developments in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India, Israel, Japan, South Africa, the UK and other European countries. Undercover filming in Italy last year showed the shocking abuse some older people experience in care, it’s distressing to watch, I cannot imagine how distressing it was for those experiencing it.

However, none of this means we can be complacent in the UK.

From a European perspective research suggests older people’s experience of ageing in the UK falls behind that of many of its European counterparts, with the UK performing most poorly on indicators such as income, poverty and age discrimination. The report states “the UK faces multiple challenges in providing older people with a positive experience of ageing, scoring poorly (although not always the worst) across every theme of the matrix” (WRVS, 2012, p.8).

It would be foolish to think the abuse of older people is just about problems with individual carers because we cannot ignore the effects of systematic inequalities in liberal societies that effectively exclude, or compromise the rights of older people. Older people’s experiences of ageing in the UK can be improved, and it is all of our responsibility to try and achieve this. However, we need a coherent strategy to bring about the change desired by many who work to support older people. Government in the UK tend to address issues associated with an ageing population within individual silos. Research from Europe suggests those countries taking a joined up approach, where government consider how factors such as income, health, age discrimination and inclusion interact, the more successful policy approaches are likely to be to improve the experience of ageing.

Addressing the abuse of older people is a complex issue, there is no one answer but a series of answers that if woven coherently together would make a difference.

It must be terrifying being an older person today in need of care and support.

Share this:

In January (2014) I wrote a blog regarding the setting of the threshold for the ‘duty of candour’ suggesting Mr Hunt had ignored advice from David Behan on the inclusion of ‘moderate harm’.  Since writing the Department of Health Media Centre contacted me, via Twitter, to tell me Mr Hunt had not, as I suggested, ignored David Behan.  After several requests to the media centre for further clarification they have now sent me a link to a document published in March this year entitled ‘Introducing the Statutory Duty of Candour: A consultation on proposals to introduce a new CQC registration regulation’.

I think this was supposed to clarify the issue for me, instead it has left me somewhat perplexed.  It appears health and social care will be using different thresholds.

For Healthcare

In the regulations, the harm threshold for healthcare is set at the threshold recommended by Dalton/Williams to include ‘moderate’ harm. This means that all harm that is classified as moderate or severe or where ‘prolonged psychological harm’ has arisen gives rise to a Duty of Candour to the service user, or a person lawfully acting on their behalf. The Duty will also apply in cases of death, if the death relates to the incident of harm rather than to the natural course of the service user’s illness or underlying condition.

For Adult Social Care

‘……..we intend to use the existing CQC notification requirement for ‘serious injuries’ as the Duty of Candour harm threshold for adult social care. The notification requirement for serious injury is broadly similar in scope: CQC has indicated that it covers the ‘severe’ and some of the ‘moderate’ harm categories recommended by Dalton Williams. It also covers prolonged psychological harm. Thus for adult social care providers, the duty will apply to death, serious injury, some moderate harm and prolonged psychological harm, broadly consistent with the application in the NHS’.

So, there we have it.  I wonder how  the  ‘some’ moderate harm threshold will be implemented in practice.

As this is a consultation document I thought I would respond with my thoughts on the matter, however, this document was sent to me on the day the consultation closed.  The consultation period seems a tad short (26th March – 25th April), I wonder has anyone responded?

If I had responded I would have said in my view to really change the culture of care that currently exists in some areas of health and social care we need to take a zero tolerance approach to harm, whether its mild, moderate or severe, it has no place in health and social care .  Thresholds that are confusing,  and complexly defined, will do nothing to change organisational cultures.  What they will do is send mixed messages to providers, managers and employees because basically they are saying a little bit of harm is acceptable and indeed, even ‘some’ moderate harm might be okay!

The truth is the type of harm that was perpetrated against patients at Mid Staffs and places like Winterbourne View did not start at the thresholds now being suggested, they started with low-level abuse and failures to address them, probably  they did not meet a ‘threshold’ for intervention, and so a culture developed where many began to accept the unacceptable as ‘normal’ practice.

If we needed a lesson on how to take something positive that could bring about substantial change and make it so complex it is unworkable, this is probably it.