Sunday, 31 October 2010

The CQC: death, gender, disability, mental health, religion and sexual identity.

The CQC is a giant spider that has been directed to spin its web over the former Health Care Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI).  It is not mature enough to deal with the massive task that it is expected to undertake, nor does in have the spider power to fulfil its required tasks.  It makes mistakes!  Its intricate web is full of holes.  It has become a predator that eats itself!

It does however, have the ability to write great paper work!  Although I realise that its territory is now wider than 'starring' nursing  homes (which it doesn't do anymore and there is nothing yet in place to replace it!) - it does write a pretty mean 'Statutary notification' of death, that covers both hospital environments and care home settings.

This is (or was) was going to be it (the viewing of the document) - but now it aint!  Although I can recover the document on my personal site as I have saved it - it now shows 'error on the page' if I write the URL here!  So much for the CQC!  I have re-entered the CQC site and can no longer find this document!

Breaking it down on my print out (lucky I did this!), Sections 1-3 relate to location,  person and circumstances of death and are mandatory.   Section 4 asks for details of  the last person involved in providing care - but it is not mandatory.  Why not?  Sections 5-9 relate to medicines and medical devices and possible errors that could have caused death - yet are still not mandatory.  Why?  If we are going to have all this paperwork - it has to mean something.  It must have a purpose.  If not, why the need for it?

Section 10 deals with gender, ethnicity, disability, mental health, religion and sexual identity - again not mandatory but...why O why does it matter?    It is requested that non-mandatory information be provided.

If Mrs. Miggins was a white, Irish, disabled Zoroastrian with mental health issues relating to her doubts over her sexual identity - why does it matter?  She is dead!  Who will collate this unnecessary information?  What purpose does it serve? 

Please tell me - for I do not know!

Anna :o[  ???

3 comments:

ned ludd carer said...

From a consumer point of view (carer and advocate rather than service provider) we don't see CQC as primarily a watchdog anyway. They only appear to make their presence felt as a high level beaurocracy (sorry never could get the spelling) imposing heavy handed rules the service providers were too terrified not to enforce. A sort of 1984 thought police. Real care takes place in spite of them.

HyperCRYPTICal said...

Hi Nedd,

Sorry to hear your apparent victory might be in jeopardy - hope not.

The CQC - I really don't know what to make of it! I worry that they are not big enough or experienced enough to take on their now enormous role. They have made enormous errors in the past.

It is interesting to note that even a few years ago when the CQC was the JIU - they never gave a local authority home a bad rating.

I can remember (as a student nurse) working in the community, when visiting a local authority home, I was told by the manager that they 'stacked' those who were ill - until they had quite a few - so, as not to upset GPs. I was appalled!

Until they find their feet - they will continue to make errors and the innocent will suffer. They are constrained by budgets and that will impact on all.

I hope you win your fight Nedd!

Anna :o]

wheelchairs : Manish Steel Works said...

This blog Is very informative , I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog

Hearing Aids