rob9872
Well-Known Member
Surely this is as much to do with owners being cunts and cutting corners, not putting enough staff in than paying low wages?
Surely this is as much to do with owners being cunts and cutting corners, not putting enough staff in than paying low wages?Pretty horrendous and the consequence of paying fuck all wages to work in this sector
I went undercover as a cleaner at a failing care home.
Catriona MacPhee worked in a Highland care home for seven weeks as part of BBC Disclosure investigation.www.bbc.co.uk
Surely this is as much to do with owners being cunts and cutting corners, not putting enough staff in than paying low wages?
Charging nearly £100k a year for each resident while paying shit wages to workers who are in charge of very vulnerable people. Really isn’t ok.CQC should be all over it.
Private care home owners taking a fortune, paying peanuts.
Charging nearly £100k a year for each resident while paying shit wages to workers who are in charge of very vulnerable people. Really isn’t ok.
The low wages will be a factor in who you attract to do the job.Surely this is as much to do with owners being cunts and cutting corners, not putting enough staff in than paying low wages?
How much is a prison's cost p/p?Charging nearly £100k a year for each resident while paying shit wages to workers who are in charge of very vulnerable people. Really isn’t ok.
Is that Donny again with his shtick?I had some dealings with a care home owner and he was a prick, and despite being absolutely fucking loaded he tried to wiggle out of paying a bill/negotiate a lower amount after completion. So I can fully imagine that's how the homes are run too.
The CQC inspects them and puts bad ones in ‘special measures’ as Ofsted does to bad schools.Who's inspecting them? They need to be much tougher and give them consequences.
I don't disagree, but again that's on the owners and not the sector I'd say. I speak as someone who's not a fan of this govt, but it needs regulating in terms of number of staff and rules around the care provided which will naturally increase the wages, I'm not sure raising the salaries changes anything in this scenario. If anything they'll still protect their profit margins and cut more corners somewhere else. he legislation should be about who can own care homes and much tighter grip on the care provided than just looking at wages.The low wages will be a factor in who you attract to do the job.
My gut feeling is ‘if you pay peanuts you get monkeys’ but yes I agree the general issue is profiteering being put above the welfare of residents. It’s just the financial sacrifices made to pay for the care then your family member gets neglected anyway, there’s something deeply not right with that.I don't disagree, but again that's on the owners and not the sector I'd say. I speak as someone who's not a fan of this govt, but it needs regulating in terms of number of staff and rules around the care provided which will naturally increase the wages, I'm not sure raising the salaries changes anything in this scenario. If anything they'll still protect their profit margins and cut more corners somewhere else. he legislation should be about who can own care homes and much tighter grip on the care provided than just looking at wages.
I've seen it first hand from my wife who has worked in care homes and childrens nurseries. The good ones all have good owners who care about the residents or children. The bad ones are under-staffed (so much so that they all pretend to be hands on when Ofsted visits) and provide things even like the cheapest cuts of ham and value bread etc.
Here comes David Lammy to say that it's ok as the weapons are being used for something else
He's not just an idiot, he's dangerous.Lammy really is an idiot
David Lammy backtracks on Farage Hitler Youth claim
The deputy prime minister says he is "happy to clarify" comments he made about the Reform UK leader.www.bbc.co.uk
As someone with a parent in end of life care this is very much the case. We've been pretty lucky in that the staff are excellent and caring but that's no thanks to the company that runs the place, and that's been the case before and after ownership changed hands.Pretty horrendous and the consequence of paying fuck all wages to work in this sector
CQC should be all over it.
Private care home owners taking a fortune, paying peanuts.
My Dad's care home has in the past failed an inspection and also been put in special measures but the reality is there's very little they can do. When the home was put in special measures, which was at the time the visa rules were changed and was purely a result of them not being able to get enough staff, there were discussions about what could potentially happen.The CQC inspects them and puts bad ones in ‘special measures’ as Ofsted does to bad schools.
Rule around number of staff and levels of care already exist. The problem is what do you do when you can't recruit staff, you can't just shut down care homes and chuck people out on the street. Wages do need to go up but its a sector wide problem. As with anything and everything we've handed over to the private sector there's people at the top making a fortune with the absolute minimum investment being made and poverty wages being paid.I don't disagree, but again that's on the owners and not the sector I'd say. I speak as someone who's not a fan of this govt, but it needs regulating in terms of number of staff and rules around the care provided which will naturally increase the wages, I'm not sure raising the salaries changes anything in this scenario. If anything they'll still protect their profit margins and cut more corners somewhere else. he legislation should be about who can own care homes and much tighter grip on the care provided than just looking at wages.
Our experience of them is that they skirt around the rules to make them apply. Unfortunately visits to check aren't on the spot and are pre notified. Since the owners and managers are all qualified staff themselves who never normally do anything 'hands on', what they do is make sure on those visits they are all available and look like they're taking an active part to show more staff on shift than the day to day reality. Unfortunately with unscrupulous owners who behave like this, you could double the staff wages and they still wouldn't be able to deliver improved care, because the real workers are run off their feet chasing around. I believe there are more people out there who would work in the industry, but the vacancies aren't available because they're purposely understaffed.Rule around number of staff and levels of care already exist. The problem is what do you do when you can't recruit staff, you can't just shut down care homes and chuck people out on the street. Wages do need to go up but its a sector wide problem. As with anything and everything we've handed over to the private sector there's people at the top making a fortune with the absolute minimum investment being made and poverty wages being paid.
Realistically unless you create some sort of National Care Service that is highly unlikely to change. Any improvements in pay and conditions will just lead to increased prices so those at the top can continue to take millions out in profits and dividends.
Exactly how it works with school inspections. Senior management suddenly realise they need to do some arse covering.Our experience of them is that they skirt around the rules to make them apply. Unfortunately visits to check aren't on the spot and are pre notified. Since the owners and managers are all qualified staff themselves who never normally do anything 'hands on', what they do is make sure on those visits they are all available and look like they're taking an active part to show more staff on shift than the day to day reality. Unfortunately with unscrupulous owners who behave like this, you could double the staff wages and they still wouldn't be able to deliver improved care, because the real workers are run off their feet chasing around. I believe there are more people out there who would work in the industry, but the vacancies aren't available because they're purposely understaffed.
Would be interesting to see how many vacancies are available in private care homes compared with other industries. I suspect it's very low, despite the need for more, but this is only my assumption, I don't have any data to back it up.
It's always going to be the problem. Supply is massively under demand so shutting them down isn't really an option. Fines they'll just add onto the cost people pay.As someone with a parent in end of life care this is very much the case. We've been pretty lucky in that the staff are excellent and caring but that's no thanks to the company that runs the place, and that's been the case before and after ownership changed hands.
My Dad's care home has in the past failed an inspection and also been put in special measures but the reality is there's very little they can do. When the home was put in special measures, which was at the time the visa rules were changed and was purely a result of them not being able to get enough staff, there were discussions about what could potentially happen.
Ultimately they close the home but then you have the issue that there is already a massive shortage of places so in reality they want to avoid that at all costs.
You could hand out big fines to the owners but we all know that would just be passed on.
Rule around number of staff and levels of care already exist. The problem is what do you do when you can't recruit staff, you can't just shut down care homes and chuck people out on the street. Wages do need to go up but its a sector wide problem. As with anything and everything we've handed over to the private sector there's people at the top making a fortune with the absolute minimum investment being made and poverty wages being paid.
Realistically unless you create some sort of National Care Service that is highly unlikely to change. Any improvements in pay and conditions will just lead to increased prices so those at the top can continue to take millions out in profits and dividends.
This is such an obvious thing to me but it seems a concept people will put a huge effort into arguing against it.I will say this until I'm blue in the face but adding a profit motive into a service sector, especially one like this, is never, ever going to result in better outcomes for those needing the service.
Hahahahaha of course you’d drop school inspections in, all we need now is you announcing you used to be a teacher 2 years ago. It’s embarrassing nobody caresExactly how it works with school inspections. Senior management suddenly realise they need to do some arse covering.
As someone with a parent in end of life care this is very much the case. We've been pretty lucky in that the staff are excellent and caring but that's no thanks to the company that runs the place, and that's been the case before and after ownership changed hands.
My Dad's care home has in the past failed an inspection and also been put in special measures but the reality is there's very little they can do. When the home was put in special measures, which was at the time the visa rules were changed and was purely a result of them not being able to get enough staff, there were discussions about what could potentially happen.
Ultimately they close the home but then you have the issue that there is already a massive shortage of places so in reality they want to avoid that at all costs.
You could hand out big fines to the owners but we all know that would just be passed on.
Rule around number of staff and levels of care already exist. The problem is what do you do when you can't recruit staff, you can't just shut down care homes and chuck people out on the street. Wages do need to go up but its a sector wide problem. As with anything and everything we've handed over to the private sector there's people at the top making a fortune with the absolute minimum investment being made and poverty wages being paid.
Realistically unless you create some sort of National Care Service that is highly unlikely to change. Any improvements in pay and conditions will just lead to increased prices so those at the top can continue to take millions out in profits and dividends.
They need to give the staff some kind of career pathway, as well as higher wages and make carers jobs a job that people want to stay in.
As it stands, anyone at all can become a carer and I`m sure many just see it as a stop gap until they can get another job, hence one of the reasons why there`s such a high turn over of staff.
Staff turnover across the entire care sector is something ridiculous like 30% and you'd assume the vast majority of those are the ones doing the actual caring. There's constantly tens of thousands of unfilled roles as well. You can't run a service like that.The whole thing is a mess, but the cost of reforming it and putting things right is mind boggling and every government that comes in, does the same thing, sticks it`s head in the sand and kicks the can down the road.
This is exactly what happened to us. My Dad went into hospital and they would not allow him to come back home. We were given no choice other than to move him to an end of life care home. The consultant at UHCW spent nearly an hour detailing exactly why this was required due to his complex care needs that couldn't possibly be dealt with even with multiple at home visits every day.Families often told me that they had no option but to place their loved ones in a care home.
It hadn't really been a choice, it was the result of a crisis or a lack of care support at home.
The guilt weighed heavily on them, as did the burden of the complex financial arrangements that come with care homes.
Essentially like about 30years ago?They need to give the staff some kind of career pathway, as well as higher wages and make carers jobs a job that people want to stay in.
As it stands, anyone at all can become a carer and I`m sure many just see it as a stop gap until they can get another job, hence one of the reasons why there`s such a high turn over of staff.
A mate of ours lost her job at short notice with a small company, she did IT and all the sales stuff for them.
Due to the fact that she lived in a rural area, jobs of any kind are hard to come by.
She had all the usual bills to pay and had to find a job to avoid rapidly falling into debt and the week after she lost her job, she was working as a carer for an agency, getting paid per client, a small mileage allowance, but crucially, not getting paid for her travelling time and ended up working mental hours due to the travelling and trying to fit all the clients in.
She lasted two weeks, before she packed it in.
All of her training was online and she never went on any type of induction or training course.
Another thing I`ve come across through one of my previous jobs and coming into contact with nursing home staff, is that you can have whole generations of families working within a nursing home - mother / her daughters / their daughters and in some case their daughters too !
This creates a very unhealthy working environment, where families like I`ve mentioned above, quite literally call the shots within the nursing home and this can lead to serious abuse and neglect of the residents, as well as a high turnover of staff.
The whole thing is a mess, but the cost of reforming it and putting things right is mind boggling and every government that comes in, does the same thing, sticks it`s head in the sand and kicks the can down the road.
Costs money probably and wokeAnother political tangent from me, but why do we not have a can/bottle deposit scheme like most other European countries?
Adult social care is completely broken and without money it can’t be fixed but small boats but make Britain great again ffsStaff turnover across the entire care sector is something ridiculous like 30% and you'd assume the vast majority of those are the ones doing the actual caring. There's constantly tens of thousands of unfilled roles as well. You can't run a service like that.
Add in the fact that we're reliant on immigration to fill roles and you can see why as soon as they tightened the rules around visas the entire system came close to collapse within weeks and the changes had to be hurriedly reversed.
Nobody wants to touch it as nobody has the answers. The main concern at the moment is shifting as much of the cost as possible on to the individual.
This is exactly what happened to us. My Dad went into hospital and they would not allow him to come back home. We were given no choice other than to move him to an end of life care home. The consultant at UHCW spent nearly an hour detailing exactly why this was required due to his complex care needs that couldn't possibly be dealt with even with multiple at home visits every day.
When he went in the expectation was he had 3 months left, I can remember the consultant telling me 6 months would be the absolute top end - we're now in year 4. So when he first went in he was NHS funded, that meant regular assessments and meetings with myself, a social worker, care home nursing staff and specialist assessors from the NHS to ensure he was receiving the correct care. Technically these meetings also covered if he was still eligible for funding but dementia is a one way thing, you aren't getting better, so there was never really any question that he was going to suddenly improve to the point that he required less care.
Then the government got rid of clinical commissioning groups and replaced them with integrated care boards. It was very clear that the aim was to reduce the amount being paid out. Overnight the focus shifted from my Dads requirements to how to get out of paying. Meetings took place without my knowledge, let alone me attending. At one of these meetings, without anyone actually visiting my Dad, it was decided that he had improved to the point he no longer met the threshold for funding.
From the point they decided they weren't on the hook for funding, which is now 3 years ago, there has not been a single meeting or visit to ensure he is getting the correct level of care. The appeals process is a joke, and now part way through the process that in all liklihood will take the best part of a decade they are changing the system again. Control is moving to Neighbourhood Health Providers except nobody seems able to tell you what that means, when it is happening, or how it will impact things. So basically everything in terms of appeals is now in limbo.
System is totally and utterly unfit for purpose and leaves many people, myself included, building up huge amounts of debt to cover costs.
I’m so sorry that’s fuckin horrendousStaff turnover across the entire care sector is something ridiculous like 30% and you'd assume the vast majority of those are the ones doing the actual caring. There's constantly tens of thousands of unfilled roles as well. You can't run a service like that.
Add in the fact that we're reliant on immigration to fill roles and you can see why as soon as they tightened the rules around visas the entire system came close to collapse within weeks and the changes had to be hurriedly reversed.
Nobody wants to touch it as nobody has the answers. The main concern at the moment is shifting as much of the cost as possible on to the individual.
This is exactly what happened to us. My Dad went into hospital and they would not allow him to come back home. We were given no choice other than to move him to an end of life care home. The consultant at UHCW spent nearly an hour detailing exactly why this was required due to his complex care needs that couldn't possibly be dealt with even with multiple at home visits every day.
When he went in the expectation was he had 3 months left, I can remember the consultant telling me 6 months would be the absolute top end - we're now in year 4. So when he first went in he was NHS funded, that meant regular assessments and meetings with myself, a social worker, care home nursing staff and specialist assessors from the NHS to ensure he was receiving the correct care. Technically these meetings also covered if he was still eligible for funding but dementia is a one way thing, you aren't getting better, so there was never really any question that he was going to suddenly improve to the point that he required less care.
Then the government got rid of clinical commissioning groups and replaced them with integrated care boards. It was very clear that the aim was to reduce the amount being paid out. Overnight the focus shifted from my Dads requirements to how to get out of paying. Meetings took place without my knowledge, let alone me attending. At one of these meetings, without anyone actually visiting my Dad, it was decided that he had improved to the point he no longer met the threshold for funding.
From the point they decided they weren't on the hook for funding, which is now 3 years ago, there has not been a single meeting or visit to ensure he is getting the correct level of care. The appeals process is a joke, and now part way through the process that in all liklihood will take the best part of a decade they are changing the system again. Control is moving to Neighbourhood Health Providers except nobody seems able to tell you what that means, when it is happening, or how it will impact things. So basically everything in terms of appeals is now in limbo.
System is totally and utterly unfit for purpose and leaves many people, myself included, building up huge amounts of debt to cover costs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?