Failing care homes may ‘slip net’

Elderly person in a care homeCare homes in England will no longer be inspected on an annual basis

A new way of checking up on care homes for the elderly in England will put vulnerable residents at greater risk, says a union representing inspectors.

Unison says the new system of written self-assessments will mean thousands of homes will avoid inspections altogether if they look good on paper.

But the Care Quality Commission, which introduced the system, said it would let inspectors focus on failing homes.

It also released figures it said showed adult care had improved significantly.

The new system replaces yearly automatic inspections for all homes.

It came into force in October and now means that homes which provide a good written self-assessment may not be inspected again, unless there is a serious complaint made about them to the commission (CQC).

Unison, which now represents about 700 inspectors, claims that the workforce numbers have halved since 2004.

Its officer for the CQC, Helga Pile, is concerned about the changes, and said the new inspections would take just a couple of hours, instead of a whole day.

She said: “Our members are really concerned about the lack of ability to really go into homes, spend enough time on site, really talking to people finding out about what is going on.”

The carer who blew the whistle on a care home scandal in Somerset in 2007 is also warning the new system would have meant her own care home could have avoided inspections for years on end.

It was because Sarah Barnett raised her concerns over several deaths at Parkfields Care home in Butleigh in Somerset, that its nurse manager was found guilty of killing a 97-year-old resident and stealing drugs to feed her own addiction.

“We just don’t know what’s going on in care homes”

A senior inspector for the CQC in England

Rachel Baker was sentenced to 10 years in prison earlier this year for the manslaughter of Lucy Cox.

Ms Barnett said: “My personal experience is that people will not blow the whistle, even if they have clear knowledge of what’s been happening.

“And as for relying on relatives or people in the community, then you are relying on people who have no medical knowledge and are assuming they will raise concerns.”

But the CQC has defended the new arrangements, which it says will allow time to concentrate on homes that are failing.

CQC director for the South West Ian Briggs said: “I can see that a move away from a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime of inspecting every six months, or every year… to a system that is more flexible that acts swiftly when we get information, is a new system.

“And everybody needs to get confident about how that system can work.

“I think we can rely on whistleblowers. We need to encourage them and we need to show them that if they report and whistleblow to us then we will act quickly and responsibly.”

But a senior inspector for the CQC in England, who wants to remain anonymous, told the BBC: “Larger private providers could be good at filling out forms that can hide a multitude of sins.

“Therefore there will be no need for us to go out and check. As long as the assessments are done, we look like we have done our job.

“It is only when there are gaps in paperwork that we need to seek more information from a provider. We just don’t know what’s going on in care homes.”

The CQC has published its final assessment of care provision under the old system.

It said 83% of care homes, home care services, nursing agencies and shared lives schemes were rated good or excellent, compared with 69% in 2008.

People were increasingly being supported to live in their own homes, rather in residential facilities, it said, and overall the quality of social care commissioned by councils was improving.

But CQC chief executive Cynthia Bower said “pockets of poor practice” remained.

The regulator also warned that further growth in provision would be needed to meet future needs.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Feeding frenzy

Former BP boss Tony Hayward

Former BP boss Tony Hayward says the company was “not prepared” to deal with media scrutiny over the Gulf oil disaster

The former boss of BP Tony Hayward has admitted that the company was “not prepared” to deal with fallout over the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the media “feeding frenzy” surrounding it.

In his first interview since resigning Tony Hayward said as the face of BP he had been “demonised and vilified”, but he understood why.

The blast on 20 April killed 11 workers and caused one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. It took five months for the well to be completely sealed.

BP was widely condemned for its slow response to the leak, which pumped out around half a million barrels of oil in to the gulf during the first month.

Every day crude oil was still leaking in to the ocean, US anger towards BP mounted.

The world looked to BP’s leader Mr Hayward for reassurance that the spill would be stopped as quickly as possible to limit the environmental and financial damage.

“If we’d been successful in killing the well in the first week of June, then so many things would’ve been different… I’d probably still be the CEO of BP”

Tony Hayward BP’s former chief executive

But he felt said it was hard to cope under such intense scrutiny.

He told BBC 2’s Money Programme special, BP: $30 Billion Blowout: “BP’s contingency plans were inadequate. We were making it up day to day.

“What was going on was some extraordinary engineering.

“But when it was played out in the full glare of the media as it was, of course it looked like fumbling and incompetence.”

By the end of May, the company’s best hopes of plugging the leak rested on pumping heavy drilling fluid down the well – in an operation known as top kill.

“I remember being in the control room in Houston,” said Mr Hayward.

“The whole team had assembled, we were all watching the charts, listening to the read-out, and there was an incredible feeling of hope.”

But the top kill attempt failed.

“If we’d been successful in killing the well in the first week of June, then so many things would’ve been different.

“Not least I’d probably still be the CEO of BP,” he said.

But Mr Hayward’s personal remarks and actions enraged residents of the Gulf coast and US politicians. During attempts to clean up the oil, Mr Hayward told journalists that he “wanted his life back”.

“I hadn’t seen my son for three months, I was on the boat for six hours… I’m not certain I’d do anything different”

Tony Hayward Former BP chief executive

Two months in to the disaster Mr Hayward was called to a hearing in Washington where he was grilled over his handling of the operation.

Two days later, Mr Hayward was seen on a yacht off the Isle of Wight where his son was taking part in a yacht race, which made headlines around the world as a publicity own-goal.

He was criticised by President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who said the boating incident has “just been part of a long line of PR gaffes and mistakes”.

“To quote Tony Hayward, he’s got his life back,” he said.

But for the first time Tony Hayward defended his move to take some time off, and said he would do it again.

“I have to confess, at the time I was pretty angry actually.

“I hadn’t seen my son for three months, I was on the boat for six hours… I’m not certain I’d do anything different.

“I wanted to see my son,” he told the programme.

President Obama, who was extremely outspoken about Mr Hayward, continually reassured the American public that the cost of the clean-up and compensation would fall to BP.

Photo thought to be of Tony Hayward on a yacht in the Isle of WightThis photo thought to be of Tony Hayward during the crisis, sparked angry criticism of his leadership

“The emotion, and anger and frustration was entirely understandable actually,” Mr Hayward said.

“The US administration hadn’t created this mess, we had.”

Despite the criticism, Mr Hayward said that the blame was justifiable.

“I don’t feel like I’ve been made a scapegoat, I recognised the realities of the world we live in.

“In some senses it comes with the patch and you simply have to take the rough with the smooth.”

He reflected that his comments about the spill and the reaction to them, contributed to the anger towards him.

“If I had done a degree at Rada [The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art] rather than a degree in geology, I may have done better, but I’m not certain it would’ve changed the outcome,” he said.

“But certainly the perception of myself may have been different.”

A Money Programme special, BP: $30 Billion Blowout is broadcast on BBC2 on Tuesday, 9 November 2010, at 2100 GMT, or afterwards on BBC iPlayer.

Former BP boss Tony Hayward

Former BP boss Tony Hayward says the company was “not prepared” to deal with media scrutiny over the Gulf oil disaster

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Panel backs BP on spill findings

Fred Bartlit speaking before the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore DrillingFred Bartlit challenged congressional claims during his presentation to the commission

An inquiry ordered by US President Barack Obama into the BP oil spill has given support to many of the company’s own findings, challenging claims BP sacrificed safety to save money.

During a presentation to the oil spill commission, the panel’s chief investigator said he agreed with 90% of BP’s conclusions about the disaster.

Preliminary findings are expected to be released later on Monday.

BP has been widely criticised since the 20 April blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11 workers, polluted hundreds of miles of coast and led to the worst environmental disaster in US history.

Fred Bartlit challenged congressional claims during his presentation to the seven-member National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, countering allegations that BP had made disastrous choices to save millions of dollars.

“We see no instance where a decision-making person or group of people sat there aware of safety risks, aware of costs and opted to give up safety for costs”

Fred Bartlit National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling

Among the claims, Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Bart Stupak of Michigan sent a letter in June to then-BP chief executive Tony Hayward claiming the oil company had made multiple decisions because of economic reasons that “increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure”.

Criticism of the disaster has sprung in part from decisions made over the design of the BP well, which used a single pipe, known as a “long string”, that ran from the seafloor to the bottom of the well.

“We see no instance where a decision-making person or group of people sat there aware of safety risks, aware of costs and opted to give up safety for costs,” Mr Bartlit said.

He added: “We do not say everything done was perfectly safe. We’re saying that people have said people traded safety for dollars. We studied the hell out of this. We welcome anybody who gives us something we missed.”

But Mr Bartlit did say BP had left some important information out of its investigation into the disaster, which unleashed more than 200m gallons (757m litres) of crude oil into the Gulf. He added that there were areas where the panel’s probe would conflict with BP’s findings.

Mr Bartlit’s 13 key points focused on tests done to check the cement used in the well, decisions made by BP when plugging the well and the actions of those at the company hours before the disaster aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig.

The presentation on Monday kicks off a two-day hearing that is scheduled to include reaction from BP, Transocean and Halliburton, the company’s primary contractor – which did the cement job on the Macondo well.

A final report from the panel is due by 11 January.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Inquiry to probe ‘terrible’ care

Stafford Hospital signFormer NHS executives and health ministers will give evidence
Related stories

A public inquiry into the scandal-hit Stafford Hospital is due to open later, years after campaigners first demanded an open hearing.

A 2009 report condemned conditions at the hospital, said to have caused hundreds of unnecessary deaths.

The last government ordered a private investigation, but refused a wider public inquiry.

But in June the coalition government said the families of those who died deserved to know what went wrong.

The problems at Stafford Hospital – run by the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust – were first exposed by the NHS regulator in March 2009.

The Healthcare Commission said there had been hundreds more deaths than there should have been between 2005 and 2008.

Catalogue of failings

It listed a catalogue of failings, including cases where untrained A&E receptionists had assessed emergency cases.

The Labour government then launched several investigations.

“We deserve to know why it was allowed to happen, and whether it could happen anywhere else”

Julie Bailey, Cure the NHS

These included an independent inquiry, led by Robert Francis QC. However, this was held in private and did not have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence.

When it reported in February it said the trust had been driven by targets and cost-cutting.

Managers had been focused on winning elite foundation trust status during the problem years.

But campaigners said the failings went far wider than the hospital itself, and that the broader NHS and regulators should have realised there were problems and stepped in.

They demanded a full public inquiry with stronger legal powers.

In June, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced that Robert Francis would continue the work he had already done on investigating the hospital by leading just such an inquiry.

Mr Lansley said this would focus on how the culture in the NHS had allowed the failings to happen.

He said the families of patients who suffered at the hospital deserved to know that.

The inquiry will consider more than a million pages of evidence and will hear from dozens of witnesses.

Hoping for answers

Campaigners are hoping they will now get some of the answers they have been seeking for years.

They want to hear from the chief executive who was in charge at the time, as well as senior managers from the NHS in Staffordshire and Whitehall, and former health ministers.

Julie Bailey, who set up the campaign group Cure the NHS, said it was an important day for her.

“It means such a lot to us,” she said. “I hope this will lead to a big culture change in the NHS. We deserve to know why it was allowed to happen, and whether it could happen anywhere else.”

Stafford Hospital has been working hard to improve patient care over the last 18 months.

The new chief executive, Anthony Sumara, said they had taken on 140 more nurses, improved training, and changed procedures in the areas which had problems.

He welcomed the public inquiry and hoped it would help improve confidence in the hospital.

“It’s desperately important for the NHS in general that we get some answers,” he said.

He worries that the impending reorganisation of the NHS and a tougher financial climate could provide the ingredients for similar problems to be repeated.

“We need to make sure we don’t take our eye off the ball again,” he warned.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Moat victim’s dignity recognised

Pc David RathbandPc Rathband hopes to raise £1m through his charity

The policeman shot and blinded by gunman Raoul Moat has received an award for the dignity he has shown.

Pc David Rathband was shot in the face as he sat in his patrol car in Newcastle in July.

The prize, in the emergency services section of the awards, is in recognition of the courageous way in which he has dealt with his injuries.

Mr Rathband has said that he “bore no malice” towards Moat, who later shot himself in Rothbury, Northumberland.

Moat had shot his ex-girlfriend Samantha Stobbart and her new boyfriend Chris Brown – killing him – before attacking Pc Rathband.

He was found following a massive manhunt in Northumberland.

Pc Rathband has set up a charity called the Blue Lamp Foundation and is trying to raise £1m to help injured members of the emergency services.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.