Skip to main content

Care Quality Commission Draft Guidance

My response to this hugely important and extensive draft Guidance finished and sent off today.

I found it impossible to devote enough time to reading and absorbing the whole thing so I concentrated on taking in selected sections, leaving out requirements on finance, staffing, management etc (just as important as the service quality sections but not my bag). Having read the sections I wanted to read, I concentrated my comments and suggestions on issues around full service user and carer involvement.

In short, the Guidance is to be comprised of detailed and comprehensive general requirements for categories such as: Respecting and Involving People who use Services; Care and Welfare of People who use Services; Safeguarding vulnerable people who use services; and more - too numerous to list here. Then it details specific guidance for specialist services such as Mental Health Hospitals and Mental Health Community Services. The specific requirements for these have to be complied with alongside the general requirements. The aim is to require people who deliver services to comply with comprehensive quality standards which promote equality across England.

I have said that if fully and properly implemented and enforced it will constitute the biggest step forward for health and social care I have seen in forty years!!!

If in place today it would certainly go a long way to sorting very serious problems of a distant friend with mental health and physical difficulties being denied choice, help and care and proper access to services by London trusts and a psychiatrist who thinks he’s a deity operating outside the laws and customs of this world (sounds like quite a few I’ve known!).

If anyone is interested my response can be read at http://www.ppeyes.org.uk/CQCGuideCons.html



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...
2 comments
Read more

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.
Post a Comment
Read more