Keeping those with appititude Caring, and not Typing….

Sadly often in private nursing homes they cannot attract nor keep staff who really want to work with the elderly.

Yes, there are many exceptions to this, but i for one have seen the lack of respect given to those who work in this section of the "care industry" and it has to change.

Instead of the person hidden being a secretary in the office being paid the most, the people doing the REAL gritty but rewarding job hands on get paid the most.

Far more status has to be given to people who work in this sector as i saw people who had lost jobs in learning difficulties move into elderly care as the care home was desparate for staff and didn't fully check them.

The elderly in this country are being given such a raw deal and by giving them helpers who are motivated and satisfied it will go a long way to them getting the care they deserve.

(please pardon any spelling mistakes)

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Sadly often in private nursing homes they cannot attract nor keep staff who really want to work with the elderly.

Yes, there are many exceptions to this, but i for one have seen the lack of respect given to those who work in this section of the "care industry" and it has to change.

Instead of the person hidden being a secretary in the office being paid the most, the people doing the REAL gritty but rewarding job hands on get paid the most.

Far more status has to be given to people who work in this sector as i saw people who had lost jobs in learning difficulties move into elderly care as the care home was desparate for staff and didn't fully check them.

The elderly in this country are being given such a raw deal and by giving them helpers who are motivated and satisfied it will go a long way to them getting the care they deserve.

(please pardon any spelling mistakes)

 

 

 

 

 

Shared Care, For Frail Elderly.

The government should organize care homes, in which relatives could actively contribute to their elderly relations and other the other residents care.  This could be achieved by allowing the relatives carry out  Non Medical tasks. Such as cleaning, food preparation, laundry, shopping, transport, odd jobs, gardening, reception etc etc. their contribution could then be used to reduce the high cost of their relatives care. It would also ensure that the residents were cared for properly. The government would only be responsible for the Nursing care, if this suggestion was set up properly. 

                                                                                                      

Why is this idea important?

The government should organize care homes, in which relatives could actively contribute to their elderly relations and other the other residents care.  This could be achieved by allowing the relatives carry out  Non Medical tasks. Such as cleaning, food preparation, laundry, shopping, transport, odd jobs, gardening, reception etc etc. their contribution could then be used to reduce the high cost of their relatives care. It would also ensure that the residents were cared for properly. The government would only be responsible for the Nursing care, if this suggestion was set up properly. 

                                                                                                      

Clarification of Planning Classes with regards to C3(b) and C2

Currently, Class C3 Dwelling Houses are defined as follows:

Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by—

(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;

(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or

(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within Class C4).

Within the  Communities and Local Government Circular 05/2010 there are additional comments which state:

C3(b) continues to make provision for supported housing schemes, such as those for people with disabilities or mental health problems.

It remains the case that in small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions class, regardless of the size of the home. Local planning authorities should include any resident care staff in their calculation of the number of people accommodated.

However, what this does not take into account is the more modern approach to small care homes whereby there are no resident staff and those living in the house are living as a single household.

The determination of C3(b) or C2 has further been confused by some recent case law such as North Devon DC v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 and Crawley BC v Secretary of State for Transport and the Regions [2004] EWHC 160.

This has left a situation whereby whether a small care home should be a C3(b) or a C2 is determined on the level of needs of the people who live there. Hence, a care home with 6 or less people could open under a class C3(b) but at some point an individual moves in who requires a level of care that a local planning officer (who has no training or experience in assessment of individuals with support needs) makes a determination whether this should now become a C2.

Also, this matter is determined differently by different planning authorities across the country. Indeed, it even varies within counties.

I believe that these planning classes definitions should be used to encourage integration of people with disabilities and mental health problems within the community and hence, allowing small care homes to be within “normal houses, in normal streets”. Not, as I have found that some communities prefer, to be able to challenge the planning in order to not have “those people” living next door to them.

Hence, I believe that this needs to be simplified so that any small care home with up to six people should be classed as C3(b) irrelevant of the level of care provided and that the only people to be included are those that actually live there (and not staff who provide support).

This means that it is not for planning officers with little or no experience of care to make determinations on whether an individual has the capability of living within a household. Also, it means that the planning requirements of a small care home are not a moving target.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, Class C3 Dwelling Houses are defined as follows:

Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by—

(a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household;

(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or

(c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within Class C4).

Within the  Communities and Local Government Circular 05/2010 there are additional comments which state:

C3(b) continues to make provision for supported housing schemes, such as those for people with disabilities or mental health problems.

It remains the case that in small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions class, regardless of the size of the home. Local planning authorities should include any resident care staff in their calculation of the number of people accommodated.

However, what this does not take into account is the more modern approach to small care homes whereby there are no resident staff and those living in the house are living as a single household.

The determination of C3(b) or C2 has further been confused by some recent case law such as North Devon DC v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 157 and Crawley BC v Secretary of State for Transport and the Regions [2004] EWHC 160.

This has left a situation whereby whether a small care home should be a C3(b) or a C2 is determined on the level of needs of the people who live there. Hence, a care home with 6 or less people could open under a class C3(b) but at some point an individual moves in who requires a level of care that a local planning officer (who has no training or experience in assessment of individuals with support needs) makes a determination whether this should now become a C2.

Also, this matter is determined differently by different planning authorities across the country. Indeed, it even varies within counties.

I believe that these planning classes definitions should be used to encourage integration of people with disabilities and mental health problems within the community and hence, allowing small care homes to be within “normal houses, in normal streets”. Not, as I have found that some communities prefer, to be able to challenge the planning in order to not have “those people” living next door to them.

Hence, I believe that this needs to be simplified so that any small care home with up to six people should be classed as C3(b) irrelevant of the level of care provided and that the only people to be included are those that actually live there (and not staff who provide support).

This means that it is not for planning officers with little or no experience of care to make determinations on whether an individual has the capability of living within a household. Also, it means that the planning requirements of a small care home are not a moving target.

Public land being sold off

In BaNES there have been several instances of land and spacious buildings (used as care homes) which had been "Gifted" (if that's the right word) and sold off as the deeds had been "lost" or they hike up the rental charge of playing pitches so they are unaffordable, so the use drops and then thay sell them off.  i believe that there needs some sort of protection for the public.  Should this be in new legislation or proper use of the laws which we have but aren't enforced properly?

Why is this idea important?

In BaNES there have been several instances of land and spacious buildings (used as care homes) which had been "Gifted" (if that's the right word) and sold off as the deeds had been "lost" or they hike up the rental charge of playing pitches so they are unaffordable, so the use drops and then thay sell them off.  i believe that there needs some sort of protection for the public.  Should this be in new legislation or proper use of the laws which we have but aren't enforced properly?

Make residents in independent care homes subject to the Human Rights Act

How unjust that convicted criminals in UK prisons are permitted their human rights (frequently claiming massive compensation for the 'terrible' indignity of slopping out, poor dentistry etc ) while law abiding pensioners who reside in a private care home are not.

Stories of cruelty and neglect that cannot be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act are becoming more common as these residents (unlike those referred there by a local authority or residing in a local authority care home) are not protected by the law.

Although very recent changes mean that from October 2010 those living within a private residential home will be able to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman via their local authority it is still not the same automatic right via the Human Rights Act afforded to criminals.

It seems incredibly inhumane for this to be the case in our ‘decent society’. I urge people to demand that the government change the law.

If criminals continue to be given their Human Rights then no law abiding citizen should be denied them.

Why is this idea important?

How unjust that convicted criminals in UK prisons are permitted their human rights (frequently claiming massive compensation for the 'terrible' indignity of slopping out, poor dentistry etc ) while law abiding pensioners who reside in a private care home are not.

Stories of cruelty and neglect that cannot be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act are becoming more common as these residents (unlike those referred there by a local authority or residing in a local authority care home) are not protected by the law.

Although very recent changes mean that from October 2010 those living within a private residential home will be able to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman via their local authority it is still not the same automatic right via the Human Rights Act afforded to criminals.

It seems incredibly inhumane for this to be the case in our ‘decent society’. I urge people to demand that the government change the law.

If criminals continue to be given their Human Rights then no law abiding citizen should be denied them.