Making a Difficult Job Harder

[Phil D. Rolls]

I was speaking to a guy yesterday. His wife is a teacher in Fife, apparently there is a rule there that teachers can't touch their pupils, even to break up fights.

You might say it's PC gone mad, but to me it's the logical conclusion to all the hysteria over potential for abuse that has grown up over the last 20 years, or so. This is obviously a policy that parents agree with, and have maybe even instigated.

I think we are fast coming to the point where it will be unable to do certain jobs because the public or consumers demand too much control over what they get.

Nursing, for example, is a job in which it is necessary to lay hands on people. Could it be possible that the time will come that because people are so afraid of foul play that they ban human contact there?

There is already murmuring about installing CCTV in care homes. If they do how many people will be prepared to work in those circumstances?

It seems to me that some of the responses to the threat of sexual abuse or so disproportionate that people can't do their jobs without fear of some malpractice allegation. Surely they deserve protection as well?

[Beefster]

I was speaking to a guy yesterday. His wife is a teacher in Fife, apparently there is a rule there that teachers can't touch their pupils, even to break up fights.

You might say it's PC gone mad, but to me it's the logical conclusion to all the hysteria over potential for abuse that has grown up over the last 20 years, or so. This is obviously a policy that parents agree with, and have maybe even instigated.

I think we are fast coming to the point where it will be unable to do certain jobs because the public or consumers demand too much control over what they get.

Nursing, for example, is a job in which it is necessary to lay hands on people. Could it be possible that the time will come that because people are so afraid of foul play that they ban human contact there?

There is already murmuring about installing CCTV in care homes. If they do how many people will be prepared to work in those circumstances?

It seems to me that some of the responses to the threat of sexual abuse or so disproportionate that people can't do their jobs without fear of some malpractice allegation. Surely they deserve protection as well?

Considering the amount of neglect / abuse stories coming out of care home, I'm not convinced that CCTV is a bad thing. Surely, it would also protect the staff from baseless allegations too?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Considering the amount of neglect / abuse stories coming out of care home, I'm not convinced that CCTV is a bad thing. Surely, it would also protect the staff from baseless allegations too?

My first question is - how much abuse is coming out of care homes? Is it possible that one high profile case has such a horrific affect on people's perceptions, that it distorts their view?

That in essence is the point about the degree of protection being disproportionate to the threat. If I had to work with a camera scrutinising my every move, then I wouldn't be able to do my job.

We are dealing with human interaction, it is not possible to be perfect all the time. I hate this analogy, but anyone who has been a parent can tell you there are times when they've reacted wrongly to their child.

If there is serious abuse, then it will be evident without the need for a camera spying on staff. What is wrong is the way that whistleblowers are treated when they expose that abuse.

The worry is that people are expected to work to standards that no human being can uphold.

"Come on you old b*gger it's time to get up", can be taken at face value, or as part of the dynamic between a carer and someone they look after. But when you start to make rules about what people can and can't say then stupidity comes into it.

Before you know it, people will be complaining that nurses or teachers are far too officious and can't act like human being. The public doesn't always get what the public wants, because the public wants it all.

[Beefster]

My first question is - how much abuse is coming out of care homes? Is it possible that one high profile case has such a horrific affect on people's perceptions, that it distorts their view?

That in essence is the point about the degree of protection being disproportionate to the threat. If I had to work with a camera scrutinising my every move, then I wouldn't be able to do my job.

We are dealing with human interaction, it is not possible to be perfect all the time. I hate this analogy, but anyone who has been a parent can tell you there are times when they've reacted wrongly to their child.

If there is serious abuse, then it will be evident without the need for a camera spying on staff. What is wrong is the way that whistleblowers are treated when they expose that abuse.

The worry is that people are expected to work to standards that no human being can uphold.

"Come on you old b*gger it's time to get up", can be taken at face value, or as part of the dynamic between a carer and someone they look after. But when you start to make rules about what people can and can't say then stupidity comes into it.

Before you know it, people will be complaining that nurses or teachers are far too officious and can't act like human being. The public doesn't always get what the public wants, because the public wants it all.

I don't want to steer this into a debate about standards of care but if a nurse or carer was doing stuff with one of my family members that they didn't want on camera, I'd want to know why. Especially if the family member had dementia or something similar and was incapable of reporting abuse.

The child analogy is probably valid but the difference is that he's my flesh and blood and, although I might go off on one at him every now and again, I'd sacrifice myself to protect him. It's a different dynamic and emotional bond to some random nurse or carer looking after an old person.

Folk are taped and videoed everywhere now. It protects the 'consumer' from abuse or piss-poor service and protects the staff from false or exaggerated allegations. If it protected one child from abuse or one old person from being battered or left lying in their own waste, good.

[BEEJ]

I don't want to steer this into a debate about standards of care but if a nurse or carer was doing stuff with one of my family members that they didn't want on camera, I'd want to know why. Especially if the family member had dementia or something similar and was incapable of reporting abuse.

The child analogy is probably valid but the difference is that he's my flesh and blood and, although I might go off on one at him every now and again, I'd sacrifice myself to protect him. It's a different dynamic and emotional bond to some random nurse or carer looking after an old person.

Folk are taped and videoed everywhere now. It protects the 'consumer' from abuse or piss-poor service and protects the staff from false or exaggerated allegations. If it protected one child from abuse or one old person from being battered or left lying in their own waste, good.
What about the privacy of the Residents in their own rooms? How would you like to have CCTV running in your bedroom / living room 24 hours a day? :greengrin

I'm not aware of a vast number of cases of abuse in the care home sector. As 'solutions' go, it does seem like a hammer to crack a nut.

[IndieHibby]

I'm not sure if the law / statutory guidlines in Scotland differ to that in England (I doubt it, buy may be wrong), but in England there are provisions which allow a teacher to use reasonable force to prevent a pupil causing harm to themselves, others or buildings (e.g arson, vandalism etc.)

So maybe the OP has it wrong?

I have been in situations where I have had to use this provision to break up fights etc.

One of the problems, however, is that many teachers (not exclusively female, but in the main) don't feel confident in their own ability to intervene.

The law (again, may only apply in England) considers teachers in loco parentis, so when it comes down to it, if a parent can do it, so can a teacher. I think refers mainly to the responsibilities we have, but can't see why it wouldn't apply to this situation also.

Hope this helps.

[matty_f]

If it's the case that a teacher can't touch a pupil at all, then it's absurd. If there's a fight in the school a teacher should absolutely be allowed to break it up.
The vast majority of teachers don't get into teaching because they want the power trip or because they want to harm kids. It's because they want massive holidays and great pay and that.

Seriously, most people get into teaching because they recognize how rewarding it is to tap into the potential of young people and to be able to play a key part in that child's life and development.

Speaking as a parent, I trust my children's teachers totally, if I didn't I would be changing schools. If a fight broke out or a child was putting themselves or others at risk, I'd fully expect the teacher to intervene.

[Sir David Gray]

I work with children, not as a school teacher but in the sports industry, and I've never been told that I can't make physical contact with the children.

You do need to be careful that you don't cross the line, particularly with older children, because some of them are old enough to realise that if a certain allegation is made against an adult where a child is concerned then the adult gets into serious trouble. If you've upset them in the past then it is possible that they could be quite vindictive and exaggerate the nature of the contact that you've had with them.

One allegation of abusing a child that is under your supervision, regardless of whether it's true or false, and your life and career is basically in ruins and quite often beyond repair.

It is necessary for me to make physical contact with a child at times as sometimes, especially with the younger ones, they don't understand visual demonstrations by just looking at what I'm doing.

Sometimes you need to be careful with the contact you're making when you're having a laugh with the children and there is a point that I know not to cross.

Speaking specifically about school teachers, I can actually totally understand why they are forbidden from intervening in fights, particularly at high schools. Say there's a fight between two 14 year old boys, these boys at that age could quite easily be nearly 6ft tall and be pretty well built. Add in all the rage and testosterone that would be flowing and if the school teacher tries to get in the middle of them to break it up then the safety of the teacher could be at risk.

I think primary school is slightly different and I personally don't see a problem with a teacher trying to break up a fight under those circumstances.

The trust involved between a parent and somebody who is looking after their child, even just for half an hour, is so important and I believe that 99% of people who are in a position of trust, where children are concerned, would never willingly break that trust. Sometimes their actions can be misguided and misinterpreted and those are difficult situations to deal with.

It's the 1% of the sick people who are going about and willingly abusing children who are the real problem and who are causing the rest of us to live in constant fear of everything we say and do when we're working with children.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't want to steer this into a debate about standards of care but if a nurse or carer was doing stuff with one of my family members that they didn't want on camera, I'd want to know why. Especially if the family member had dementia or something similar and was incapable of reporting abuse.

The child analogy is probably valid but the difference is that he's my flesh and blood and, although I might go off on one at him every now and again, I'd sacrifice myself to protect him. It's a different dynamic and emotional bond to some random nurse or carer looking after an old person.

Folk are taped and videoed everywhere now. It protects the 'consumer' from abuse or piss-poor service and protects the staff from false or exaggerated allegations. If it protected one child from abuse or one old person from being battered or left lying in their own waste, good.

I think that is just the sort of disproportionate response that illustrates my point.

I'm sure you don't mean to be disrespectful, but people who work on a daily basis with dementia sufferers often see their patients as being like family. It is that controlled emotion that makes them able to do their job.

What they don't need is people scrutinising their every move and taking their actions out of context. My main point though is that human contact is necessary in teaching and nursing, yet people's fear of something going wrong has prohibited that.

A teacher can't give a distressed child a cuddle, they can't ruffle their hair as encouragement. That takes away a huge part of the bond and takes emotion out of the kids lives. That has to be wrong.

Likewise, the time will come when a nurse can't give a patient a reassuring pat on their hand. Far from making dementia sufferers live safer, all it will do is make them more fearful.

Luckily, most patients' relatives are only too aware of the challenges of looking after them, having done so for a good while prior to their admission. They realise that it is a very challenging job and that things can't always be done textbook style. I'm sure they wouldn't expect other people to live up to standards they couldn't meet themselves. It tends to be those who know least about it that make these unrealistic demands.

That said, these people seem to have a lot of sway in society, and the time will no doubt come when we all work with cameras on us.

By the way, what kind of camera can detect whether someone's incontinence pad needs changed? :greengrin




I'm not sure if the law / statutory guidlines in Scotland differ to that in England (I doubt it, buy may be wrong), but in England there are provisions which allow a teacher to use reasonable force to prevent a pupil causing harm to themselves, others or buildings (e.g arson, vandalism etc.)

So maybe the OP has it wrong?

I have been in situations where I have had to use this provision to break up fights etc.

One of the problems, however, is that many teachers (not exclusively female, but in the main) don't feel confident in their own ability to intervene.

The law (again, may only apply in England) considers teachers in loco parentis, so when it comes down to it, if a parent can do it, so can a teacher. I think refers mainly to the responsibilities we have, but can't see why it wouldn't apply to this situation also.

Hope this helps.


Apparently Fife Council's policy is illegal.

[Beefster]

I think that is just the sort of disproportionate response that illustrates my point.

I'm sure you don't mean to be disrespectful, but people who work on a daily basis with dementia sufferers often see their patients as being like family. It is that controlled emotion that makes them able to do their job.

What they don't need is people scrutinising their every move and taking their actions out of context. My main point though is that human contact is necessary in teaching and nursing, yet people's fear of something going wrong has prohibited that.

A teacher can't give a distressed child a cuddle, they can't ruffle their hair as encouragement. That takes away a huge part of the bond and takes emotion out of the kids lives. That has to be wrong.

Likewise, the time will come when a nurse can't give a patient a reassuring pat on their hand. Far from making dementia sufferers live safer, all it will do is make them more fearful.

Luckily, most patients' relatives are only too aware of the challenges of looking after them, having done so for a good while prior to their admission. They realise that it is a very challenging job and that things can't always be done textbook style. I'm sure they wouldn't expect other people to live up to standards they couldn't meet themselves. It tends to be those who know least about it that make these unrealistic demands.

That said, these people seem to have a lot of sway in society, and the time will no doubt come when we all work with cameras on us.

By the way, what kind of camera can detect whether someone's incontinence pad needs changed? :greengrin



To be honest, I couldn't care less if folk find me disrespectful when it comes to me protecting my family, whether it's my young son at nursery, my missus in a hospital or my dementia suffering grandparents in a care home or having help at home. You say 'disproportionate' because you'd be one of the ones being monitored, I say 'proportionate' because it's my loved ones that are involved.

I know from direct experience in recent years that not all carers, nurses etc give two hoots about the folk they are supposed to look after. I also know how difficult it can be to actually get to the root of the issue when there are no witnesses to the abuse going on and the person being abused isn't capable of highlighting it.

I think the flip side of the coin - that 'all nurses, teachers, carers, police etc etc are angels who care deeply about everyone and it's not 'just a job' to any of them' to be as dangerous as assuming that they all don't give a monkeys. It fails to acknowledge that problems exist.

Anyway, this is turning into a different debate from the OP so I'm going to withdraw as I've said everything I need to without going into specific examples.

[heretoday]

What about the privacy of the Residents in their own rooms? How would you like to have CCTV running in your bedroom / living room 24 hours a day? :greengrin

I'm not aware of a vast number of cases of abuse in the care home sector. As 'solutions' go, it does seem like a hammer to crack a nut.


There's a lot goes on we don't hear about.

Personally I hope I die before I'm packed off to a care home. I've seen enough of them over the years with my own and wife's oldies.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To be honest, I couldn't care less if folk find me disrespectful when it comes to me protecting my family, whether it's my young son at nursery, my missus in a hospital or my dementia suffering grandparents in a care home or having help at home. You say 'disproportionate' because you'd be one of the ones being monitored, I say 'proportionate' because it's my loved ones that are involved.

I know from direct experience in recent years that not all carers, nurses etc give two hoots about the folk they are supposed to look after. I also know how difficult it can be to actually get to the root of the issue when there are no witnesses to the abuse going on and the person being abused isn't capable of highlighting it.

I think the flip side of the coin - that 'all nurses, teachers, carers, police etc etc are angels who care deeply about everyone and it's not 'just a job' to any of them' to be as dangerous as assuming that they all don't give a monkeys. It fails to acknowledge that problems exist.

Anyway, this is turning into a different debate from the OP so I'm going to withdraw as I've said everything I need to without going into specific examples.

Sorry you've had bad experiences, I hope you have raised your concerns with the appropriate people.

I think your solution might make the problem worse. As well as that, it doesn't address some of the fundamentals, for example how do you invent a camera that tells when someone has been incontinent?

You are out of order with your assertion that I find it disproportionate because I would be the one being monitored. Personally, I would get another job, so it isn't an issue. Apart from that, I don't work with the elderly anyway.

I find it disproportionate because I don't believe there is widespread abuse of the elderly by carers, or that there is widespread abuse of pupils by teachers. Yet, based on a fear that there could be, people in those jobs will be asked to have every aspect of their jobs recorded.

They will have to act like automatons at all times, the use of humour or sympathy will disappear, lest it be misinterpreted. The patient themselves will become dehumanised as they will be dealt with in a formulaic manner, rather than seen as individuals.

Touching patients will become very difficult and things like cuddles or banter will no longer be possible, lest it be misinterpreted.

Given that most abuse of the elderly and children is perpetrated by other family members, do you think it would be a reasonable response to have CCTV in anyone's house that had the job of caring for them?

I also think that respect helps to find the best solutions, and it is worthwhile for people to try and understand both sides of the coin. It is much easier to get people to listen if you can show some empathy with the challenges they face.

Not all nurses are angels, we know that, in fact some are power mad nut jobs, some are lazy sods, and some are imbecilic incompetents. There are supposed to be safeguards against these things though, and - on the whole - most are honest, and have a genuine positive regard for their patients.

At the end of the day, bad people will always be able to do bad things. Now, if you make the work place intolerable for some people to do their job properly, which ones do you think will leave, and which will stay?

The main point of my original post is that humanity will be removed from people's jobs stands. Let's not forget how this all started out, Fife Council have a policy which forbids teachers from making any physical contact with pupils. How the heck do you look after a class of five year olds without the use of the basic tools of humanity?

[BEEJ]

There's a lot goes on we don't hear about.

Personally I hope I die before I'm packed off to a care home. I've seen enough of them over the years with my own and wife's oldies.
Ideally all of us would want to remain at home until the end and not have to go into residential / nursing care. However, that's not possible for everyone, particularly as the extended family structures in our society that once might have supported elderly care are all but gone.

No one wants to have to move to a care home, but statistically some of us will have to. In which case we will rely on our next of kin to do their research in order to get us into one of the many better care establishments that are out there.

The sector has improved massively over the last decade. The days of the cowboy operators opening up a care home to make a fast buck have long gone. Today it is a very intensive operation subject to much independent scrutiny and a difficult operation to run successfully.

Comments such as "There's a lot goes on we don't hear about." need to be backed up with recent evidence in the sector of widespread abuse / theft etc., otherwise they are merely hearsay.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ideally all of us would want to remain at home until the end and not have to go into residential / nursing care. However, that's not possible for everyone, particularly as the extended family structures in our society that once might have supported elderly care are all but gone.

No one wants to have to move to a care home, but statistically some of us will have to. In which case we will rely on our next of kin to do their research in order to get us into one of the many better care establishments that are out there.

The sector has improved massively over the last decade. The days of the cowboy operators opening up a care home to make a fast buck have long gone. Today it is a very intensive operation subject to much independent scrutiny and a difficult operation to run successfully.

Comments such as "There's a lot goes on we don't hear about." need to be backed up with recent evidence in the sector of widespread abuse / theft etc., otherwise they are merely hearsay.

That is one of the points I have been trying to bring out. So many decisions are made without evidence to back up the benefits. This seems to be particularly the case if there is any chance of a child being harmed, no matter how slight.

Far from making things better, the restrictions that are put in place make things worse. Decisions that affect the welfare of people have to be thought out and the risks carefully weighed up.

Consider the scenario where Johnny is battering Bejaysus out of Jimmy, if the teacher can't physically intervene and seperate them, where is Jimmy's right to be protected?

[steakbake]

Far from making things better, the restrictions that are put in place make things worse. Decisions that affect the welfare of people have to be thought out and the risks carefully weighed up.


I've always thought that the raft of child and vulnerable adult protection regulations which have come out in the last 10 years or so have been over the top. You always get the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" kind of line from people that support them but that isn't an argument.

The problem is that many of the rules have been put in place to seek to address public concerns - often raised in media frenzies in individual cases - over what is wrongly perceived to be the widespread occurrence or potential occurrence of abuse at the hands of public professionals. Every teacher, social worker, doctor, sports coach, youth group leader etc is considered a threat to those in their care unless they have some documentation which the government decides shows otherwise.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of abuse of children and adults occurs in a family/domestic setting never really seems to be considered. When you add to this an increasingly litigious society, it's no wonder that governments have drafted draconian legislation which is intended to primarily protect the authorities from blame and liability, but as a by product make the jobs of front-line staff difficult to the point of absurdity at times.

I don't really know what the answer is. Of course you need to protect children and vulnerable adults, but it seems to me that the way we're going about it just now is out of balance with the actual threat posed.

[Alec Splode]

I was speaking to a guy yesterday. His wife is a teacher in Fife, apparently there is a rule there that teachers can't touch their pupils, even to break up fights...


Would be interesting to see the official guidance on that.
Sounds a bit ridiculous tbh.

[lapsedhibee]

I wouldn't mind having CCTV in my house. What's on it anyway, endless reruns of the manager's most interesting interviews?

FR your point about the restrictions on Fife teachers seems absolutely correct. Perhaps they're a result of too many youngsters knowing and bandying about the term "peedo" and, as a consequence, too many innocent teachers having their careers blighted. Perhaps the red-tops are to blame for introducing the term into our popular consciousness. But then the red-tops were sorely provoked by, amongst other things, one particular church's sordid history. It's all kafflicks' fault!

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wouldn't mind having CCTV in my house. What's on it anyway, endless reruns of the manager's most interesting interviews?

FR your point about the restrictions on Fife teachers seems absolutely correct. Perhaps they're a result of too many youngsters knowing and bandying about the term "peedo" and, as a consequence, too many innocent teachers having their careers blighted. Perhaps the red-tops are to blame for introducing the term into our popular consciousness. But then the red-tops were sorely provoked by, amongst other things, one particular church's sordid history. It's all kafflicks' fault!

I think all men live in fear of having that term bandied at them. As a result our input into society is restricted. We are less likely to intervene in a fight between kids, and - more alarmingly - are often frightened to comfort or look after a lost child. Still if it makes one child safer.....:rolleyes:

I, in particular, am frightened to walk down the street in a dog collar, lest a lurking paparazzi snatches a picture of me reading a Beano and eating dolly mixtures. That's what the filthy swine do you know.

[BEEJ]

I've always thought that the raft of child and vulnerable adult protection regulations which have come out in the last 10 years or so have been over the top. You always get the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" kind of line from people that support them but that isn't an argument.

The problem is that many of the rules have been put in place to seek to address public concerns - often raised in media frenzies in individual cases - over what is wrongly perceived to be the widespread occurrence or potential occurrence of abuse at the hands of public professionals. Every teacher, social worker, doctor, sports coach, youth group leader etc is considered a threat to those in their care unless they have some documentation which the government decides shows otherwise.
Correct. It's a kind of "guilty until proven innocent" approach to the problem.


The fact that the overwhelming majority of abuse of children and adults occurs in a family/domestic setting never really seems to be considered. When you add to this an increasingly litigious society, it's no wonder that governments have drafted draconian legislation which is intended to primarily protect the authorities from blame and liability, but as a by product make the jobs of front-line staff difficult to the point of absurdity at times.

I don't really know what the answer is. Of course you need to protect children and vulnerable adults, but it seems to me that the way we're going about it just now is out of balance with the actual threat posed.
:agree:

[Beefster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13551728

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13551728

This is exactly the sort of treatment that I was referring to in my earlier posts. As I said earlier, it is dangerous to assume that every nurse is an angel who cares passionately about their patients. I think patients might be willing to forgo some hugs as long as they were fed, not drugged to the hilt and respected as a human being.

[SlickShoes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13551728

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13551728

This is exactly the sort of treatment that I was referring to in my earlier posts. As I said earlier, it is dangerous to assume that every nurse is an angel who cares passionately about their patients. I think patients might be willing to forgo some hugs as long as they were fed, not drugged to the hilt and respected as a human being.

One nursing home in edinburgh has shut down or is being investigated by the police. I had a relative in there who has now been moved, and from what I have been told went on, I am not surprised it has been shut and very glad my relative has been moved somewhere else now!

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13551728

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13551728

This is exactly the sort of treatment that I was referring to in my earlier posts. As I said earlier, it is dangerous to assume that every nurse is an angel who cares passionately about their patients. I think patients might be willing to forgo some hugs as long as they were fed, not drugged to the hilt and respected as a human being.

Roper Logan and Tierney identify all of these things as essentials of nursing care. Hugs are as important as drugs.

Shocking abuse of patients, however one home from many, and still no justification for making people work in front of CCTV cameras. I think responses have to be proportionate to the scale of the problem, and evidence is that - on the whole - care is being delivered properly to the vast majority of people in homes.

If anything, this incident is a good defence of present arrangements. As for the people who were willing to work there, you have to question their sanity. Surely there comes a point where you have to walk away - they can't need the £6 an hour and 50 hour working week that much, can they?

Regarding the Ninewells story, I have to say that is all too typical of the way dementia sufferers are treated in hospital. More nurses are needed on general wards with experience of managing confused patients. The question is - will the public be prepared to pay for this, or will it result in a cutback in another area of care?

[Beefster]

RLT identify both all of these things as essentials of nursing care.

Shocking abuse of patients, however one home from many, and still no justification for making people work in front of CCTV cameras. I think responses have to be proportionate to the scale of the problem, and evidence is that - on the whole - care is being delivered properly to the vast majority of people in homes.

If anything, this incident is a good defence of present arrangements. As for the people who were willing to work there, you have to question their sanity. Surely there comes a point where you have to walk away - they can't need the £6 an hour and 50 hour working week that much, can they?

Regarding the Ninewells story, I have to say that is all too typical of the way dementia sufferers are treated in hospital. More nurses are needed on general wards with experience of managing confused patients. The question is - will the public be prepared to pay for this, or will it result in a cutback in another area of care?

Sorry, the second link was supposed to be to the story regarding the Care Commission's report into elderly care in some NHS hospitals. It's definitely not a single home/hospital and anecdotal evidence backs that up. I accept the point that the majority of people get acceptable care (and I've seen someone go from horrendous treatment in an NHS hospital to exemplary care in a private home first hand) - it's the all-too-many that don't that we need to tackle more vigorously though.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry, the second link was supposed to be to the story regarding the Care Commission's report into elderly care in some NHS hospitals. It's definitely not a single home/hospital and anecdotal evidence backs that up. I accept the point that the majority of people get acceptable care (and I've seen someone go from horrendous treatment in an NHS hospital to exemplary care in a private home first hand) - it's the all-too-many that don't that we need to tackle more vigorously though.

I accept that elderly patients admitted to hospital for medical procedures don't get the care they need. This is partly down to staffing levels, that don't take into account the extra time needed to look after a confused person.

It is also down to nurses on those wards forgetting the core skills and treating people with humanity. Whether that is down to pressure of work, or to a basic lack of understanding of their patients I don't know.

However, my feeling is that care provided to the elderly in units and homes specifically set up for that purpose, is pretty good. The Elsie Inglis story illustrates that the Care Commission and Mental Welfare Commission are doing their job, and that people's concerns will be taken seriously by them.

Personally, I think the resources should be directed to bolstering these already effective organisations. At the end of the day, you can have all the CCTV cameras you want, but if the person watching them isn't reporting things, then you are no further forward.

[Pete]

Considering the amount of neglect / abuse stories coming out of care home, I'm not convinced that CCTV is a bad thing. Surely, it would also protect the staff from baseless allegations too?

100% agree with that.

My mother in law worked in an NHS care home looking after the elderly. The patient she was looking after kicked off and she followed procedure.
However, she recieved a serious complaint because this patient had said something to a relative and they went mad assuming they had been mistreated.
CCTV would have proved her innocent and backed up her story but the middle-management in such places seem to be so scared of legal action they feel they almost have to go on the word of the patient...even though their evidence is ropey at best.
The unions reaction was so feeble...so she just handed her notice in even though she'd been doing the job for 30 odd years.

I actually think CCTV protects more than it restricts. I would love to have it in the back of my cab.
A few weeks ago I had a girl pass out in the back of the cab. I'd taken her to her stair but she was that drunk I couldn't find out what number I should buzz to get someone down. I simply cant make physical contact with her such as shaking her to wake her up. She could claim I assaulted her or even worse...and I know the cab office would roast me no matter how spurious the claim.
It took 10 minutes of clapping and shouting in her ear to get a reaction.

Some say less but I say more.