Health Secretary Wes Streeting MP yesterday announced the Care Quality Commission, the 'care regulator', is 'not fit for purpose - to breathless surprise from no one.
OK, Labour has only recently won an Election. But for three years previously Mr Streeting was Shadow Health Secretary - and he has only just noticed the CQC is incompetent and that families should not rely on their reports? Where has he been?
Anyone who has ever visited a care home, or just driven past one, has long known the CQC is not fit for purpose. It was not a secret. Six years ago, I wrote an article - with the sub-heading 'The official regulators are not fit for purpose'.
To recap, the CQC is not fit for purpose because:
Snapshot inspections are useless - it is impossible to assess a home from a couple of days, for which the care home will have prepared.
The only care homes that get criticised are the ones who cannot afford lawyers. CQC is terrified of legal action and also terrified of closing down bad care homes - I mean, what do you do with the residents?
So, Mr Streeting, what are you going to do? Will you put much more money into regulation - get rid of snap inspections and be tougher with wealthy owners?...No, I thought not. So how do you make care better, even when no one is checking?
The City managed to drive up standards, after a slew of financial scandals and even collapses. These were costing the Square Mile money. So, when the financial regulator became more scary and put up standards for individuals and made compliance a key part of life for institutions, firms fell into line. They had to - but it became worth their while.
If care groups had to pay proper wages to properly qualified staff, rather than relying on individuals, with no interest in caring, it would improve care. Caring would become a job with status, rather than something desperate people are imported to do - because we do not want to pay decent wages. Yes, it would cost. But, if a more scary regulator were on the prowl, it would be cost cost-effective - and might even help save their businesses.
They might be riding high now. But care groups are effectively killing their own business. They have relied for too long on the fact the regulator does nothing and the 'customer' has no alternative. It is a very short sighted and bad business strategy. Have they learned nothing:
no one wants to go into a care home and they will find alternatives, even if Mr Streeting fails to improve regulation
.
Comments