Tag Archives: Social Care

#Elderly care condition critical: we need ‘active’ leadership to create a care system that is both ethical and sustainable…..

As the BBC (Panorama, 17th June 2013) and CQC yet again bring to government and wider societies attention the poor levels of care some older people experience, one wonders will any government ever get to grips with this issue?

Whilst there are calls from government for families to step up and support older people, government seems totally unaware that the majority of families already do, and it is as a last resort that families call on public and private sector providers. However, far too many of these providers are simply not good enough, and for this, government has to accept some responsibility.

The transformation of ‘care’ into a commodity that can be bought and sold, like any other product, dominates current health and social care reform, however, discussion on what ethical principles might underpin the delivery of care has not emerged.

This raises the question is it wise to build a system of care provision with no clear ethical foundation?

We need greater ambition in developing great care for older people and a more strategic approach to make real improvements.

Developing ethically sustainable care for older people

Drawing on the ecology movement sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”. This captures two relevant issues; the need to support those older people currently requiring care, without compromising the future of the care system.

Need, capabilities and the ‘good life’

A first step in developing ethically sustainable care involves reframing our understanding of ‘need’.

Need in a health and social care context is often used to refer to a function to be fulfilled, i.e. nutrition, physical care. Such needs are viewed as a necessary condition for survival. However, we should also view older peoples’ needs in terms of security, respect, love and justice. The failure to distinguish between different types of need has led to limiting our understanding of how to care for older people, and has subsequently influenced how service provision has developed. Amartya Sens’ concept of ‘capabilities’ provides an alternative approach

Sen is concerned in this model with identifying what individuals require to flourish and live a ‘good life’. In this model it is recognised older people require different capabilities to flourish, depending on their personal circumstances and the community they live in, whether that community is within an in-patient/residential setting or in the wider community.

Successive governments’ appear to believe an expansion in a consumer culture within health and social care provision is the only route to a ‘good life’ for older people, as it enables individuals to increase choice and control by becoming consumers of care, rather than receivers of care. Yet many older people are clearly not flourishing in a culture that defines the good life in terms of their ability to engage as a ‘customer of care’.

A more useful way of thinking about this, from an ethical perspective, links Sen’s idea of capabilities and Aristotle’s vision of the ‘good life’. From this perspective achieving quality of life is central, rather than just meeting physical needs. In other words it is not just about achieving an ‘average’ notion of well-being but about the opportunities available to the individual which will enable them to develop their full potential, whatever that might mean for that individual. This approach moves beyond ensuring older people have the ability to flourish to consider whether they are actually flourishing. Commentators suggest there are five areas in which older people need to flourish to live a good life, regardless of where they live. These are: belonging to a family; belonging to a community; having access to material goods for sustenance, adornment and play; living in a healthy environment; and having a spiritual dimension to life. Arguably the commissioning and delivery of service provision based on achieving these five areas might enable older people to receive care that is both compassionate and dignified.

The way forward

Conceptions of what constitutes a good life are varied, however, within health and social care provision it is prudent to assume a good life involves at a minimum care provision that is not abusive to older people. Within the public sector the organisation and delivery of care is structured to focus on the meeting of targets rather than enabling the individual to flourish. The NHS is arguably over managed and under led, with the aim seemingly to move older people into residential care as quickly as possible to free up beds. In the private sector it could be argued a free market economy contains structural incentives for business to pursue a notion of the good life that supports the sale of a narrow range of care ‘products’, whilst there are not mechanisms in place to ensure the market operates within a clear ethical framework outside of the profit ethos. By not actively regulating care provision from an ethical stand point government may actually be unwittingly aiding the abuse of the most vulnerable within the care system.

A shift in focus from human need to human flourishing has already begun with the development of the personalisation agenda and emphasis on voice, choice and control however, this agenda has been overshadowed by a managerial approach to consumerism and consumption in a low paid, low status care system and this is undermining the ability of the care system to develop ethically.

Michael Sandel argues markets are not a mere mechanism designed to deliver goods, they also embody certain values, and the problem is these values ‘crowd’ out non market values like compassion and dignified care. Where values and ethics are weak we need a strong and active state to intervene, where both are weak those most vulnerable in society will continue to be exploited and abused.

This begs the question can we afford not to have an ethical care system? I guess those older people who have already suffered abuse would say we cannot.

To see a wrong and not expose it, is to become a silent partner in its continuance (John Raymond Baker)

Today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day 15th June 2013: this is not about blame, it’s about change…………

The United Nations has designated the 15th June of every year as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Across the world communities come together on this date to shine a light on the problem of elder abuse.

The abuse of older people is not a new phenomenon unfortunately. The US was one of the first to identify the abuse of older people as a social and political issue that required action. Research developed in the 1980’s in Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Norway, Sweden and the US 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 (World Health Organisation,2002).

In the UK staying out of harm’s way for many is just 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, on the hospital ward, in the residential institution or in the individuals own home, well hidden from public view. For those living in the midst of abuse violence permeates many aspects of their lives, sometimes perpetrated against them by carers’, professionals, family members or others known to them. Although government and society are increasingly aware of the abuse of older people it stills seems to persist. The Francis report highlights how poor care in a hospital setting actually constitutes abuse, we have also seen disturbing media reports regarding abusive treatment of older people in residential homes. Sadly even in individuals own homes some older people are not safe from abusive behaviour. This provides a disturbing view of how older people are valued in society and how some are cared for in the UK.

This is not about blame, it’s about change, let’s make a difference together.

You can get involved and make a difference by contacting Action on Elder Abuse, a charitable organisation fighting to improve the care and protection of older people across the UK, click here to find out how you can work together on the 15th of June to raise awareness and make a difference to older people in your community.

If you, or your organisation, is involved in the care and support of older people in the UK the National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work have developed resources to help develop the skills and knowledge required in the workforce to ensure older people are protected from abuse and supported to live lives without fear. Please click here if you would like more information, or go to our website http://www.ncpqsw.com

If you know of an older person being abused contact your local social services Safeguarding Adults team, or ring Action on Elder Abuse helpline 080 8808 8141. If you feel someone is at immediate risk of harm contact the appropriate emergency services.

The ‘Big Society’ will not necessarily lead to better elderly care treatment by @dianegalpin

A fantastic blog by our senior Lecturer Di Galpin for LSE Policy and Politics Blog a recommended read!!!

The ‘Big Society’ will not necessarily lead to better elderly care treatment.

Di Galpin looks at the Big Society from a philosophical standpoint and questions whether it can be achieved without encouragement from an active state.

‘Big Society’ and the future of health and social care

David Cameron suggests the Jubilee party was a ‘perfect example of ‘Big Society’.  Whilst it’s okay for a knees up, is it a suitable foundation for improving the quality of care  older people receive in Britain?

Unfortunately, David Cameron’s comments on Big Society do little to help us understand what “it” actually is, and to be honest, I am not even sure he  knows what it is beyond the usual sound bytes of ‘kitchen sink economic theory’*.  However, could the concept of Big Society actually have something to contribute to the debate on the future care of older people?

What is ‘Big Society’?

Big Society has been vilified as a return to the politics of the New Right,  a Trojan horse for smaller government,  and feted as the anatomy of the new politics  on which to establish the legitimate nature, and limits, of the relationship  between the  state and individual in a 21st century system of health and social care.  Phillip Blond is a central figure in the development of the concept of Big Society.  Blond  argues both the political Left and political Right have presided over a collapse of coherent cultural values and a shared commitment to a ‘common good’,  suggesting a redistribution of power from the ‘top’ (state) to the bottom (individual) is required, aligned with a more compassionate form of capitalism, to re-establish the common good.  For the current government this rests on the empowerment of local communities founded on voluntary networks of trust and mutuality.  From this perspective the purpose of Big Society appears to be to extend responsibility for the care of older people to local communities, rather than extending the responsibility of the state.

Policy programmes already implemented by the current government to develop Big Society include the National Citizen Service, which organise voluntary opportunities for young people, and the creation of the Big Society Bank, which will act as a central source of investment income for third sector organisations.  The Localism Bills’ accompanying guidance states ‘Big Society is what happens whenever people work together for the common good.  It is about achieving our collective goals in ways that are more diverse, more local and more personal (HM Government, 2010: p.2).

However, whilst at one level Big Society can be viewed as a mechanism of transferring more responsibility onto individuals, allowing the state to reduce public sector spending (Alcock, 2012) Big Society is also about believing in, and building on, the inherent ‘good’ within humankind.

Jesse Norman suggests Big Society involves moving beyond the ‘two way opposition of state vs. individual’ in the provision of care to ‘the three way relationship of enabling state, active individual and linking institution’ (2010,p.7).  For Norman the former is flawed because it ignores the diversity of human beings and their ability to act morally without interference from the state.  By justifying the legitimacy of the state, it polarises the individual and ignores the positive power and potential of individuals to create and maintain a ‘good society’, which cares for one another for altruistic reasons, rather than because the state legislate that society provide care and support.  Norman suggests state interference is a negative response to care provision, quoting Alex de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

“The more [the state] stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance.  These are cause and effect that unceasingly create each other.”

The ‘associations’ that mediate between individuals and the state can be conceptualised as operating within civil society.  Civil society is the space of un-coerced human action, the place where people take action as moral beings,  via all organisations and associations above the level of the family and below the level of the state.  The place where your jubilee street party was planned presumably.

Importantly for advocates of Big Society the role of government in this ‘space’ and ‘place’ is minimal.

How does this support the current approach to caring for older people?

From this perspective caring for older people, and ensuring care is dignified, is viewed as something we all agree is a ‘good thing’ and freely engage in, rather than something government should regulate or legislate for.  In this context government relies on ‘phillic’ associations, taken from the Greek ‘philia’, meaning friendship ties, affection or regard that are the essence of the space between individual and state.  Government would rather rely on these to guide human behaviour in the care sector than introducing legislation or regulation.

Hence, the governments  support for the introduction of a voluntary dignity code  (The Telegraph., 2012).

Big Society, freedom and money

However, whilst government may think treating older people with dignity and respect is viewed as a ‘given’, assuming we are all willing to  care for, and protect,  older people,  this is not necessarily true, as evidenced by a number of reports on the poor levels of care provision  older people experience across the care sector.

At the heart of the current debate are two related themes.  Firstly, an attempt to understand how the relationship between the state, private sector and individual should be formulated to fulfil a mutual responsibility in supporting dignified care for older people, and secondly  the affordability of care provision.   Successive governments since Margaret Thatcher have relied on a consumerist approach to improving the quality of health and social care provision. The question is has turning vulnerable older people into consumers improved their care?  For some yes, but for many of the most vulnerable older people in society, those older old people with dementia and who are frail, I’m not so sure.  However, what it has done is hide the abuse and mistreatment of older people from collective view for the last 30 years, and led society to engage in debate that does not move beyond the financial.  Research suggests this has had a detrimental effect on the moral health of society and academics are now suggesting the use of market mechanisms can change people’s attitudes and values, having a  ‘corrosive effect’.    Michael Sandel makes a pertinent point suggesting

It calls into question the use of market mechanisms and market reasoning in many aspects of social life, ……to motivate performance in education, health care, the work place, voluntary associations, civic life and other settings in which intrinsic motivations or moral commitments matter‘ (What money can’t buy, 2012, p122).

It is impossible to ignore the effects of systematic inequalities in liberal societies that effectively exclude, or compromise the rights of a variety of social groups.  Nor can we ignore the corrosive effect successive governments use of a consumerist approach to health and social care might have had on those ‘phillic‘ associations so vital to a ‘Big Society’.   The ‘Osborne Supremacy’  assumes the existence of a single unified ‘big society’ when it actually consists of many ‘societies’ with competing interests where the interests of powerful elites are advanced in the name of defending common interests, whilst the interests of marginalised groups, such as older people,  leave them without support.

Big Society or Big Con?

The answer will depend on your political and ideological viewpoint on the legitimate role, and limits, of the state in the provision of health and social care.  Whilst it is true Big Society clearly already exists, evidenced by the number of people already providing care freely in society, what is in doubt is whether it can be extended any further without an active state (Sullivan, 2012).

* Kitchen sink economic theory -this is a term used in my household to describe David Cameron and George Osbornes approach to the financial crisis.  It refers to a vision I have of a post war couple discussing there finances whilst stood washing up at the kitchen sink.  Gladys turns to husband Frank and says “money is tight Frank, what will we do?”  Frank turns to Gladys and answers “never fear mother, we’ll just have to tighten our belts, don’t worry we’re in this together”.  Of course Frank and Gladys are very naive and do not realise their actions will make no difference because the problem is a global financial crisis and not related to Gladys splashing out on a new apron!

Share your experiences of being a child carer

Zoe is exploring the experience of adults, who as children cared for a parent with mental health problems. Through interviews they can share their journey of growing up with, and older with, a mentally ill parent. Shebelieves that the individuals will all have a unique tale to tell and as such will allow the participants to tell their story in their own way.

If you grew up with a parent who suffered with a mental illness which included symptoms such as hallucinations or delusions, are aged 30 + and would like to take part in Zoe’s research, please contact Zoe Cowie through any of the following:

Address: B412, Bournemouth House, Bournemouth University, 17 Christchurch Rd Bournemouth BH1 3LH 

Tel: 01202 967345

Email: zcowie@bournemouth.ac.uk.

To find out more information go to Zoe’s blog – http://zoecowie.wordpress.com/ 

All communications will be treated in complete confidence and contact will not mean that you are committing to take part at this stage.  You will be sent more information before making any decision and will be able to withdraw from the study at any stage should you wish.

There is a million reasons why ‘big society’ and ‘choice’ are not enough when providing care to older people

Research suggests as many as 500,000 older people are abused each year (Action on Elder Abuse), in the main by those supposed to be providing their care.  Therefore, since the election in May 2010 up to one million older people may have been abused.  

This information is not new, successive governments have been aware of this issue for many years but all have stopped short of introducing a coherent legislative framework to protect those most vulnerable in the care system.  The coalition appear to believe in the power of ‘big society’ and service user and patient ‘choice’ in a market led health and social care system.  My difficulty with this approach is it offers nothing new,  it looks no further than the rhetoric of the ‘free markets’  beloved of every government since Thatcher.  Nobody appears interested in thinking deeper and developing care from a philosophical perspective.  Surely we need to understand what motivates us to care before we can reform the system ?

Historically societal attitudes toward older people have always been poor.  In ancient Greece old age was portrayed as sad with historians arguing the Greeks love of beauty marginalised the old, especially women, sounds familiar!  Cicero’s work De Senecute, written in 44BC, pointed to a variety of individual experiences of ageing, however acknowledging that for those who were poor and without mental capacity ageing is miserable.  Sadly, all of this is still true today with research suggesting those at greatest risk of abuse and mistreatment are elderly women suffering from some level of dementia.  This,  along with the fact that the abuse and mistreatment of older people is a global issue identified by the World Health Organisation over a decade ago, suggests the issue  extends well beyond political systems and party politics in the UK.

I’m with social contract thinkers Hobbes (1588-1679) and Locke (1632-1704) when they suggest as human beings we are inherently selfish and our individual pursuit of pleasure is destructive to society, suggesting the law can be used as an apparatus to modify such human desires.  In my view the  continued economic approach to health and social care has fed such selfishness, to the detriment of certain groups in society, i.e. older people,  and we now require a strong lead from government.

Successive governments since Margaret Thatcher have relied on a consumerist approach to improving the quality of health and social care provision. The question is has turning vulnerable older people into consumers improved their care?  For some yes, but for many of the most vulnerable older people in society, those older old people with dementia and who are frail, I’m not so sure.  However, what it has done is hide the abuse and mistreatment of older people from collective view for the last 30 years, and led society to engage in debate that does not move beyond the financial.  Research suggests this has had a detrimental effect on the moral health of society and academics are now suggesting the use of market mechanisms can change people’s attitudes and values, having a  ‘corrosive effect’.    Michael Sandel makes a pertinent point suggesting

It calls into question the use of market mechanisms and market reasoning in many aspects of social life, ……to motivate performance in education, health care, the work place, voluntary associations, civic life and other settings in which intrinsic motivations or moral commitments matter‘ (What money can’t buy, 2012, p122).

So what can we do? Helen Sullivan suggests ‘a big society needs an active state’.   A useful first step would be for government to accept the Law Commissions recommendations on reforming the law in respect of Safeguarding Adults without delay.  Secondly, abandon the rhetoric of ‘choice’ and ‘free markets’  and develop a meaningful dialogue based on concepts such a honesty, morality and dignity from a philosophical  rather than financial perspective. A new approach might be to have a dialogue that goes beyond party politics (and winning the next election) and begins by asking big society what it wants to afford, rather than politician telling us what we cannot afford.

I am sure many will say we cannot afford to reform the system on philosophical grounds, I would ask those individuals “can we morally afford not too?”

The trouble with personalisation is, its not personalisation…….

Personalisation occupies a central position in social work with adults today and was at first welcomed by social workers as a positive step forward,   however, our understanding of ‘personalisation’ is somewhat different than governments.  This is not a surprise when we look at the driving force behind its development.  Personalisation was driven not by social work, but by the think tank DEMOS (favoured first by Tony Blair and more recentlyDavidCameron) and in particular Charles Leadbeater, a journalist and writer who spent ten years working for the Financial Times and who was an adviser to a number of major private companies, including Chanel Four Television and British Telecom.  A key document from DEMOS should have set the alarm bells of social work ringing in 2004.  The ‘Pro-am Revolution’  provided the rationale for delivering personalisation.  The pre title blurb sets the direction of travel

 ‘The 20th century was shaped by the rise of professionals. But a new breed of amateurs has emerged….’

The central tenet of the Pro-Am Revolution is that with the advent of new technologies and educational systems we no longer need to rely on professionals to undertake particular tasks because amateurs are now able to operate at the same level as professionals, but without requiring large organisational structures.  DEMOS looked specifically at areas such as web design and astronomy, suggesting the same premise could be applied to education and social care, going onto say ‘Pro Ams are creating new, distributed organisational models that will be innovative, adaptive and low-cost’ which will also be ‘light on structure and largely self regulating’.  Hmm sounds familiar.

 For DEMOS, a service user was a service user, no distinction was made between the needs of those with disabilities or mental health difficulties or older people (nor for that matter the difference between a web designer and older person with dementia!).  This resulted in a flawed conception of the people who use services and their ability/willingness/desire to manage their care and the markets that would provide care.

 The conception of personalisation in a think tank has never boded well for its implementation.  However, it has been useful at a political level as it has acted as a mirage to conceal a very different agenda linked to the equally nebulous concept of ‘choice’.

Clarke (2005) suggests choice is the engine of public sector reform, with choice seen as desirable in empowering individuals to move from passive consumers to activated and responsibilised citizens. Choice as a concept remains controversial for some as it is also viewed as a route along which the marketisation of public services can travel without challenge. Whilst this is a logical extension of the previous government’s agenda for Cameron and Co, for many in practice a free market approach to service delivery underpins many of the problems experienced in social care today.

Government has exploited the ambiguity in meaning of words such as personalisation and choice to enable the social work profession to retain a semblance of loyalty to its own values, whilst unknowingly carrying out the bidding of politicians with very different ideas about social care.  

Research has explored how organisations encourage workers to engage in an agenda they do not necessarily agree with. Courpasson (2000) introduced the notion of ‘soft coercion’ which induces, simultaneously, commitment and obedience to the organisation and its aims.  Ambiguity in meaning is one such instrument of soft coercion, however, you also need to ensure the workforce accept your perspective.  One strategy used by large organisations has been the ‘company song’, often represented by the company policy which provides an organisational mantra, for example ‘personalisation leads to greater choice’.  

Maybe it’s time to change the company song and for the social work profession to choose its own playlist, if it does not there will be many in government who will be happy to do it for us!