Okay, I admit it, when it comes to adverse reporting on care homes - I am definitely hypersensitive, defensive and probably many more ' 'ives' than I can bring to mind at this moment in time.
I know that in the big bad world out there, there are indeed, many bad care homes - as, as is, dire care in hospital settings (I acknowledge some of the reasons - dangerous staffing levels, etc), but nevertheless, bad care exists there too. There are uncaring doctors both in hospitals and GP practices. But, whatever the wrongs outside care homes - it doesn't make bad care in care homes right!
The reason for this post - stuff I read in Pulse today. It was "Call to reduce 'counter-productive' cardiovascular drug prescribing in the over-80s" Video to watch at the bottom of this (Pulse) page too. I have no problem with this and have also considered the chemical cocktails that the elderly receive. I know I am not a doctor and therefore readily admit, I don't know what the hell I am talking about! However, it appears to me, that even though drug A does not interact with drug B, or drug F does not interact with drug H (or even if it does - Flossy needs both of them anyway) - does a combination of A, D and E unknowingly interact with drug G?
Is polypharmacy a GP and/or hospital doc initiated (possibly fatal in the elderly - or anyone?) chemical cosh, that falls outside the care home initiated (in your dreams) chemical cosh of antipsychotics?
Nevertheless, I digress! A bullet point in the aforementioned "Call to...." in 'Problems with care home prescribing' was "On any one day 7 out of 10 patients experienced at least one medication error" - Ooh, dear me(!), this sent the defensive hackles into overdrive! I am not brilliant at stats, but easily worked out, that on an average day/night; I routinely gave (on my shift), 30% of my lovely residents, the wrong meds! Am I thick!? Would I not know?
Yes, on one (known) occasion, I did give a resident somebody else's meds (distracted by World War Three, for care home residents are not continually semi-comatose by home inspired antipsychotics!) - but I instinctively knew that I had! I immediately consulted the BNF - thought "Oh My God" (possible bad drug interactions) and contacted the local A & E - for I would rather lose my job, than have somebodies death on my hands. Given instructions on observations and luckily, everything was tickety-boo!
I have digressed again! Further research at NHS Choices gave a wider view! I am relieved! It is not only care home staff, but pharmacists, GPs et al that produce the 7 out of 10 figures. But will the general public see this? No - they will not! They will just see that care homes are dangerous places (and 'Yes', some of them are) and they will be so afraid.
I do remember Copperfield writing a post on this issue, earlier this year - but I cannot find it. Yet again, Copperfield's understanding of this situation earned my respect. I don't care that, at times, Copperfield alludes to 'granny'stackers' for he/she/they are in touch with the real world.
In my experience, many GPs enter homes with a negative view - and the vicious circle continues - mistrust abounds. The patient (or residents) interests are paramount - and we must remember this For if not, we are doing the most vulnerable a great disservice.
Anna :o]
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Rank Indifference
An Old Man.
Yesterday, I worked a night shift. As per usual, I boarded a bus for the forty minute journey from the town in which I live, to the city in which I work. The next part of my journey involves a ten minute taxi ride to my place of employment.
Prior to this second part, I usually enjoy my last fix of nicotine - and I make no apologies for being a smoker - as I stand (like a leper) in the street.
As I stood there, I became aware of a man some ten yards away, standing by and holding on to the guard rails (on the road side) that straddle the entire street - bar a pedestrian crossing - which lies between two bus stations. This road also includes a taxi rank of which there are two points of access. It is a busy road.
The man appeared to be talking to passers by who just ignored him. As I neared him on my approach to the taxi rank, I became aware that he was saying "Excuse me. Can you help me?"
He was a strapping fellow, over six feet tall; solid, but appropriate for his height. Dress wise, he was ill-equipped for the presenting weather; wearing uppermost, just a T shirt on that cold, wet and windy night. His right shoe was off, so on that side he stood barefoot on the ground. He had also been incontinent and his jogging bottoms were wet and saggy. He had a walking stick and he was old. I am not skilled at judging ages, but would say, early to mid seventies.
Only when I was very close to him, did it became obvious that there was alcohol on his breath, but the folk who were ignoring his pleas would not be aware of this. However, he was neither inebriated nor tipsy; he was fully coherent; he was old, cold, wet and vulnerable and was politely asking for help.
I asked him what was wrong and he told me that he just wanted to go home as he felt he might die, stuck where he was. He told me that no taxi would entertain him as he had been incontinent.
Mindful now that I needed to set off to work - or be late, I told him I would ask the taxi driver to phone the police who could come and help him. The taxi driver told me that the old man had already been 'thrown out' of one taxi for peeing on the seat and that he wouldn't contact the police. I informed the driver that I was not prepared to abandon the old man and got out of the taxi and went back to him.
I offered to assist him to walk to one of the many empty seats in the bus station and I then would go into a shop and ask them to phone the police. He attempted to walk, but cold and tired, he couldn't get himself moving. I told him I would have to leave him for a while, while I attempted to find help.
I entered a major national department store and told the security guard of the problem and requested he phone the police. He informed that it was not in his remit, so he couldn't do it (phone) as the problem was outside of the store. After much badgering, he agreed to come out and see the old man.
The old mans wet jogging bottoms had by this time, fallen down, leaving him fully exposed. Not a soul had offered assistance and the good people of the world were jeering at him, shouting "Pull your trousers up, you dirty old git!"
I attempted to pull the old mans trousers up - but to no avail as they had partially slipped under his feet, which he couldn't lift. I asked the guard to help, but was met by the response of "I'm not touching him!" The reason, I presume, to be the pee.
I implored him to contact the police. He contacted his 'control' requesting that they send a private hire cab and stated that if the driver refused to take him, he would then call the police.
The cab arrive some ten minutes later and in that ten minute period, not one good citizen would help me pull the old fella's trousers up. They had time however, to stand round in unconcerned little groups, uttering variations on the "Pull your trousers up!" theme.
The taxi driver agreed to take him, and after I had pleaded with him, he assisted me to walk the old fella to the cab as I could not manage alone. So the old man - with his trousers still down - was finally going home. I then took a taxi to work.
In today's Elf'n'Safety world, I should have carried out a mental risk assessment of every action I took - but I am pleased I didn't, or I would have thought of me first.
It appears to me, that in this risk assessment/risk aversion society that we now live in, we are losing our compassion, and becoming selfish and indifferent to the needs of others; we are beginning to lose our humanity.
What concerns me more is that, for that brief moment when I first sat in a taxi, I was more concerned about me and me being late for work, and thus was prepared to abandon that old man and attempt to pass the responsibility onto someone else. That does really worry me.
Are we slowing becoming an uncaring, selfish society - or are we nearly there already? What do you think?
Ann :o[
Yesterday, I worked a night shift. As per usual, I boarded a bus for the forty minute journey from the town in which I live, to the city in which I work. The next part of my journey involves a ten minute taxi ride to my place of employment.
Prior to this second part, I usually enjoy my last fix of nicotine - and I make no apologies for being a smoker - as I stand (like a leper) in the street.
As I stood there, I became aware of a man some ten yards away, standing by and holding on to the guard rails (on the road side) that straddle the entire street - bar a pedestrian crossing - which lies between two bus stations. This road also includes a taxi rank of which there are two points of access. It is a busy road.
The man appeared to be talking to passers by who just ignored him. As I neared him on my approach to the taxi rank, I became aware that he was saying "Excuse me. Can you help me?"
He was a strapping fellow, over six feet tall; solid, but appropriate for his height. Dress wise, he was ill-equipped for the presenting weather; wearing uppermost, just a T shirt on that cold, wet and windy night. His right shoe was off, so on that side he stood barefoot on the ground. He had also been incontinent and his jogging bottoms were wet and saggy. He had a walking stick and he was old. I am not skilled at judging ages, but would say, early to mid seventies.
Only when I was very close to him, did it became obvious that there was alcohol on his breath, but the folk who were ignoring his pleas would not be aware of this. However, he was neither inebriated nor tipsy; he was fully coherent; he was old, cold, wet and vulnerable and was politely asking for help.
I asked him what was wrong and he told me that he just wanted to go home as he felt he might die, stuck where he was. He told me that no taxi would entertain him as he had been incontinent.
Mindful now that I needed to set off to work - or be late, I told him I would ask the taxi driver to phone the police who could come and help him. The taxi driver told me that the old man had already been 'thrown out' of one taxi for peeing on the seat and that he wouldn't contact the police. I informed the driver that I was not prepared to abandon the old man and got out of the taxi and went back to him.
I offered to assist him to walk to one of the many empty seats in the bus station and I then would go into a shop and ask them to phone the police. He attempted to walk, but cold and tired, he couldn't get himself moving. I told him I would have to leave him for a while, while I attempted to find help.
I entered a major national department store and told the security guard of the problem and requested he phone the police. He informed that it was not in his remit, so he couldn't do it (phone) as the problem was outside of the store. After much badgering, he agreed to come out and see the old man.
The old mans wet jogging bottoms had by this time, fallen down, leaving him fully exposed. Not a soul had offered assistance and the good people of the world were jeering at him, shouting "Pull your trousers up, you dirty old git!"
I attempted to pull the old mans trousers up - but to no avail as they had partially slipped under his feet, which he couldn't lift. I asked the guard to help, but was met by the response of "I'm not touching him!" The reason, I presume, to be the pee.
I implored him to contact the police. He contacted his 'control' requesting that they send a private hire cab and stated that if the driver refused to take him, he would then call the police.
The cab arrive some ten minutes later and in that ten minute period, not one good citizen would help me pull the old fella's trousers up. They had time however, to stand round in unconcerned little groups, uttering variations on the "Pull your trousers up!" theme.
The taxi driver agreed to take him, and after I had pleaded with him, he assisted me to walk the old fella to the cab as I could not manage alone. So the old man - with his trousers still down - was finally going home. I then took a taxi to work.
In today's Elf'n'Safety world, I should have carried out a mental risk assessment of every action I took - but I am pleased I didn't, or I would have thought of me first.
It appears to me, that in this risk assessment/risk aversion society that we now live in, we are losing our compassion, and becoming selfish and indifferent to the needs of others; we are beginning to lose our humanity.
What concerns me more is that, for that brief moment when I first sat in a taxi, I was more concerned about me and me being late for work, and thus was prepared to abandon that old man and attempt to pass the responsibility onto someone else. That does really worry me.
Are we slowing becoming an uncaring, selfish society - or are we nearly there already? What do you think?
Ann :o[
Thursday, 11 November 2010
I am Dementia (Part Two).
Look at You!
Look at you!
I used to love you!
You loved and guided me
Through my childhood.
Ooh! That warm embrace,
The hug of hugs
That made wrong things right!
A hug:
A mothers elastoplast on
The wounds of life.
What skills you had!
A child cherished,
Wrapped in the comfort of
Unconditional love!
You gave me
All of you -
I took, but hope to God
I gave back.
I think I did.
I hope I did!
The pinny!
The cooking lessons!
Dusty flour on
My face (my nose!) and scuffed on
Everywhere imaginable!
That was life then
And girls were girls!
But life moves on
And things change.
You have changed
And no longer
Offer me hugs.
You are an empty shell!
I do not know you!
Who are you?
You have taken up residence
In my mothers body
But I don't know who
You are!
I hate you
For taking her away from me!
I hate you
For saying
"Look!, this is who she was
But I own her now!"
As you thrust
That empty shell
Of (who was) my mother
In my face!
Look at you!
You were my mother.
I idolised you!
But not now!
I no longer love you
And wish you would go
Away!
It is
So difficult
To gaze on someone
You loved so unconditionally
Who still lives
But no longer
Exists.
Anna
Look at you!
I used to love you!
You loved and guided me
Through my childhood.
Ooh! That warm embrace,
The hug of hugs
That made wrong things right!
A hug:
A mothers elastoplast on
The wounds of life.
What skills you had!
A child cherished,
Wrapped in the comfort of
Unconditional love!
You gave me
All of you -
I took, but hope to God
I gave back.
I think I did.
I hope I did!
The pinny!
The cooking lessons!
Dusty flour on
My face (my nose!) and scuffed on
Everywhere imaginable!
That was life then
And girls were girls!
But life moves on
And things change.
You have changed
And no longer
Offer me hugs.
You are an empty shell!
I do not know you!
Who are you?
You have taken up residence
In my mothers body
But I don't know who
You are!
I hate you
For taking her away from me!
I hate you
For saying
"Look!, this is who she was
But I own her now!"
As you thrust
That empty shell
Of (who was) my mother
In my face!
Look at you!
You were my mother.
I idolised you!
But not now!
I no longer love you
And wish you would go
Away!
It is
So difficult
To gaze on someone
You loved so unconditionally
Who still lives
But no longer
Exists.
Anna
Thursday, 4 November 2010
I am Dementia!
I am Dementia.
I am not selective
When choosing my victims:
Doctors and nurses,
Politicians and plumbers,
The good and the bad,
The majestic or mediocre
Of intellect;
I welcome all to my world.
I slip quietly into your mind
(While you are not looking)
And slowly wreak havoc there.
My hallmarks of amyloid plaques and
Neurofibrillary tangles;
Multiple vascular lesions
Or abnormal proteinaceous
Cytoplasmic inclusions
Is all evidence of me!
Initially, you will not know I am there!
Then an odd thing forgotten
That should be remembered
Is dismissed as part of natural aging;
It happens again and again
And doubts are sown in your mind
That perhaps all is not well;
Or maybe you forget that you have
Forgotten
And unknowingly
Begin to walk down the path of
My journey
That I have gifted to you.
The form of dementia
I have gifted to you
Decides what happens
Next!
Failure of higher cognitive
Functioning:
Memory decline and
Difficulties in judgement;
Problems in spatial awareness:
Funny little thing that you are -
You even get lost in conversation;
You are losing everything that
Defines you as you
And you give all of your self to me!
Depressed or agitated,
Apathetic or aggressive,
Or just plain psychotic;
We shall see - for it is my decision!
Disinhibited (you take all your clothes off!)
As you wander aimlessly
In that private, terrifying world
You inhabit
That really belongs to me!
As you progress on your journey
Towards total loss of identity,
My ownership of you
Now extends to your family as
They are caught in the terror
Of my destruction of you.
You are strangers to each other
And they mourn their loss
While you still live and breathe.
You become a burden on society
And you are hidden away.
Friends have long ceased to visit
And your family feel guilty as
They can no longer cope with
This unbidden stranger.
You are not you!
I love the smug indifference of some
Who think they are immune to my grip.
To all -
Including some in the medical
And nursing professions,
Who presume that they are
Somehow excluded from my touch
And view my victims
With disdain -
I ask you to consider
That in time
I may select
YOU!
Anna
I am not selective
When choosing my victims:
Doctors and nurses,
Politicians and plumbers,
The good and the bad,
The majestic or mediocre
Of intellect;
I welcome all to my world.
I slip quietly into your mind
(While you are not looking)
And slowly wreak havoc there.
My hallmarks of amyloid plaques and
Neurofibrillary tangles;
Multiple vascular lesions
Or abnormal proteinaceous
Cytoplasmic inclusions
Is all evidence of me!
Initially, you will not know I am there!
Then an odd thing forgotten
That should be remembered
Is dismissed as part of natural aging;
It happens again and again
And doubts are sown in your mind
That perhaps all is not well;
Or maybe you forget that you have
Forgotten
And unknowingly
Begin to walk down the path of
My journey
That I have gifted to you.
The form of dementia
I have gifted to you
Decides what happens
Next!
Failure of higher cognitive
Functioning:
Memory decline and
Difficulties in judgement;
Problems in spatial awareness:
Funny little thing that you are -
You even get lost in conversation;
You are losing everything that
Defines you as you
And you give all of your self to me!
Depressed or agitated,
Apathetic or aggressive,
Or just plain psychotic;
We shall see - for it is my decision!
Disinhibited (you take all your clothes off!)
As you wander aimlessly
In that private, terrifying world
You inhabit
That really belongs to me!
As you progress on your journey
Towards total loss of identity,
My ownership of you
Now extends to your family as
They are caught in the terror
Of my destruction of you.
You are strangers to each other
And they mourn their loss
While you still live and breathe.
You become a burden on society
And you are hidden away.
Friends have long ceased to visit
And your family feel guilty as
They can no longer cope with
This unbidden stranger.
You are not you!
I love the smug indifference of some
Who think they are immune to my grip.
To all -
Including some in the medical
And nursing professions,
Who presume that they are
Somehow excluded from my touch
And view my victims
With disdain -
I ask you to consider
That in time
I may select
YOU!
Anna
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Bringing up Baby

I just love the honesty in that "Mother's NERVES can ruin a child" in this advert from Wincarnis. How true! :o]
Toothache could be fun.....
....but teething was better! Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup for "children teething" contained 65mg of morphine per fluid ounce!
Coca had been removed from coca cola and mum ensured junior drunk as much as possible from an early age, as the soda content ensured a well rounded, socially acceptable child.
Lard ensured the happiness of the entire family - yummy I love lard! Not really!
And dear doc endorsed "Luckies" as they were less irritating!
Haven' t times changed?
Anna :o]
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!
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.
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?

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[ ???
Thursday, 28 October 2010
29/10/10 is 'Wear it Pink Today!'
October is Breast Awareness Month.
One of the tiny little problems of being a nurse is that some folk think you have the knowledge base of a doctor - which of course you don't!
They will show you lumps and bumps and ask your opinion - or ask you this and that and expect an answer. I can't give them one and suggest they see their doctor. I have often been asked about mammograms and until earlier this year - would always suggest it made good sense to go ahead.
I have had one myself which proves I am ancient! Of late, I have been swayed by medical opinion that it is perhaps not a good idea. Or is it?
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Astra Zenaca, who manufacture Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the Awareness Month in 1995, its aim being to promote mammograms as the most effective weapon in detecting breast cancer.
Is this Big Pharma serving their best interests, directing medical care or just a nice thing to do; maybe the latter?
Although hearing similar stories last year, the seeds of doubt were sown in my mind in January, when I read reports such as this in The Telegraph. It suggested that, despite a reported 1,400 lives saved per year - there is no evidence that the breast screening programme has saved lives and in fact, women have wrongly been told that they have breast cancer and undergo unnecessary surgery on tumours that would not progress to being harmful.
This article was based on this at the Nordic Cochrane Centre and was swiftly refuted by NHS choices who claimed that the research was a narrative review critiquing the 2008 Annual Review of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP), which reported on twenty years of mammogram screening in the UK. See here for further details.
In March this year this article appeared in The Telegraph stating that two lives are saved 'for every woman unnecessarily treated'. It is interesting reading. It is admitted here that leaflets supplied did not inform of potential risks of screening.
Adverse effects of mammographic breast screening include:
Psychological and physical morbidity - mainly associated with false-positives.
False negatives - approximately 5% of cancers in women over the age of fifty are mammographically invisible.
A diagnosis of cancer that would not have become symptomatic during a woman's lifetime.
Radiation risk - an estimate that one extra breast cancer develops every year in women over fifty, after a latent period of up to ten years, for each million women screened.
There is undoubtedly harm related to breast screening - but there must be some good!? A detection rate of 6.2 cancers - although some would be of the 'no harm' kind (?) - per 1000 women screened; of these, invasive cancers accounted for 1.4 per 1000. This reported 1.4 - to me - suggests the risk is worthwhile? However, if you visit NNT it seems that breast screening is a harmful waste of time.
Furthermore, regular self-examination is a waste of time too! See here!
There is so much conflicting information, I am left a little confused! I think I shall probably attend my next, unless something more robust convinces me otherwise. I will still recommend that other women do too. But should I? Should I say - "Look at the evidence and make your own decision"?
What are your thoughts?
Anna :o]
PS We must (as girlies) take some responsibility for our health! Poor diet, obesity and binge drinking may lead to breast cancer!
One of the tiny little problems of being a nurse is that some folk think you have the knowledge base of a doctor - which of course you don't!
They will show you lumps and bumps and ask your opinion - or ask you this and that and expect an answer. I can't give them one and suggest they see their doctor. I have often been asked about mammograms and until earlier this year - would always suggest it made good sense to go ahead.
I have had one myself which proves I am ancient! Of late, I have been swayed by medical opinion that it is perhaps not a good idea. Or is it?
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Astra Zenaca, who manufacture Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the Awareness Month in 1995, its aim being to promote mammograms as the most effective weapon in detecting breast cancer.
Is this Big Pharma serving their best interests, directing medical care or just a nice thing to do; maybe the latter?
Although hearing similar stories last year, the seeds of doubt were sown in my mind in January, when I read reports such as this in The Telegraph. It suggested that, despite a reported 1,400 lives saved per year - there is no evidence that the breast screening programme has saved lives and in fact, women have wrongly been told that they have breast cancer and undergo unnecessary surgery on tumours that would not progress to being harmful.
This article was based on this at the Nordic Cochrane Centre and was swiftly refuted by NHS choices who claimed that the research was a narrative review critiquing the 2008 Annual Review of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP), which reported on twenty years of mammogram screening in the UK. See here for further details.
In March this year this article appeared in The Telegraph stating that two lives are saved 'for every woman unnecessarily treated'. It is interesting reading. It is admitted here that leaflets supplied did not inform of potential risks of screening.
Adverse effects of mammographic breast screening include:
Psychological and physical morbidity - mainly associated with false-positives.
False negatives - approximately 5% of cancers in women over the age of fifty are mammographically invisible.
A diagnosis of cancer that would not have become symptomatic during a woman's lifetime.
Radiation risk - an estimate that one extra breast cancer develops every year in women over fifty, after a latent period of up to ten years, for each million women screened.
There is undoubtedly harm related to breast screening - but there must be some good!? A detection rate of 6.2 cancers - although some would be of the 'no harm' kind (?) - per 1000 women screened; of these, invasive cancers accounted for 1.4 per 1000. This reported 1.4 - to me - suggests the risk is worthwhile? However, if you visit NNT it seems that breast screening is a harmful waste of time.
Furthermore, regular self-examination is a waste of time too! See here!
There is so much conflicting information, I am left a little confused! I think I shall probably attend my next, unless something more robust convinces me otherwise. I will still recommend that other women do too. But should I? Should I say - "Look at the evidence and make your own decision"?
What are your thoughts?
Anna :o]
PS We must (as girlies) take some responsibility for our health! Poor diet, obesity and binge drinking may lead to breast cancer!
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Good Old Copperfield!
"Life Is Not A Bed Of Roses" or
"Living With Dementia".
Good Old Copperfield! I love this blog in Pulse! These two GPs always offer a wonderful insight into the joys and woes of their world.
Take a look at this weeks article "What, if not antipsychotics?" It is pure truth and I love them for it!
The majority of people I am proud to care for have some form of dementia. We are strange in our home for we regard the residents as our employers - we work for them!
Living with dementia is not a bed of roses; it is not two sweet little old ladies enjoying tea and scones and a confused chat - although it can be for a lucky few. Some residents are lucky in that they are totally apathetic and appear to suffer no emotional harm. But perhaps they do in the quiet strange place in which they dwell - I don't know.
Living with dementia is about existing in a frightening, alien world where even you closest family will eventually become strangers. For some - it must be akin to being in a permanent drunken stupor where you touch, feel and attempt to understand and make sense of all that is around you - but you can't.
It is about Annie, who, when waking in the morning finds herself in a strange room and she is frightened! Strangers enter her room and talk to her - but she doesn't understand what they are saying. They continue talking as they help her from her bed and begin to undress her and prepare her for her day. But she screams "Police! Police!" and kicks and bites and punches, for she fears she is being raped.
It is about Jim - who despite family fears that it would be harmful - has been told that he has dementia by his psychogeriatrician, for he believes that Jim has a right to know and it is in Jim's best interests. What about Jim's right not to know? Jim is angry, agitated, anxious and so very afraid. He is tormented and his family can no longer cope with the stress that caring for Jim brings.
He has entered nursing care much earlier than would perhaps have been required if he had not known. He is resentful and insulted by required, personal interventions and reacts with extreme violence. He sleeps little and wanders the home, entering others bedrooms as he searches for his wife. He requires 1-1 observations through the night as he is a danger to himself and others.
After other meds have been tried and have not alleviated his distress - he is prescribed antipsychotics and after a while he is calmer, but still a little troubled. He now eats and joins in activities and sleeps. His life has regained a certain quality.
It is about Betty who is a long term resident. She has in her time, worked as a barmaid and a carer. When she first arrived she would attempt (as if driven by routine) to tidy the home - clearing away plates and cups before residents had finished their meals. These residents reacted in anger and sometimes physical conflict ensued - for social inhibitions often fly away when you have dementia. She attempted to 'go home' with staff - thinking she had finished her shift - and when she couldn't, would erupt into violent behaviour. She was prescribed antipsychotics and calmed and regained a certain quality to her life.
They were taken away from her earlier this year, following the DOHs insistence that side effects outweighed benefits with regards to the elderly. She is now again that poor, mad, tormented and very distressed soul; she wanders the home, interfering with others and invading their space. They slap her and she slaps back.
We fill in Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults forms for all involved and send them off to the powers that be and all is tickety-boo! But who is the vulnerable adult here? Betty who is now permanently tormented to meet DOH directives or the poor souls whose space she persistently invades?
Given the choice - I would rather live five years of a drug-induced calm - where my life had a level of quality than seven years existing in a permanent, living hell on earth.
I agree with Copperfield in that it is socially unacceptable to allow the elderly to suffer in torment. Why do we allow it?
Anna.
"Living With Dementia".
Good Old Copperfield! I love this blog in Pulse! These two GPs always offer a wonderful insight into the joys and woes of their world.
Take a look at this weeks article "What, if not antipsychotics?" It is pure truth and I love them for it!
The majority of people I am proud to care for have some form of dementia. We are strange in our home for we regard the residents as our employers - we work for them!
Living with dementia is not a bed of roses; it is not two sweet little old ladies enjoying tea and scones and a confused chat - although it can be for a lucky few. Some residents are lucky in that they are totally apathetic and appear to suffer no emotional harm. But perhaps they do in the quiet strange place in which they dwell - I don't know.
Living with dementia is about existing in a frightening, alien world where even you closest family will eventually become strangers. For some - it must be akin to being in a permanent drunken stupor where you touch, feel and attempt to understand and make sense of all that is around you - but you can't.
It is about Annie, who, when waking in the morning finds herself in a strange room and she is frightened! Strangers enter her room and talk to her - but she doesn't understand what they are saying. They continue talking as they help her from her bed and begin to undress her and prepare her for her day. But she screams "Police! Police!" and kicks and bites and punches, for she fears she is being raped.
It is about Jim - who despite family fears that it would be harmful - has been told that he has dementia by his psychogeriatrician, for he believes that Jim has a right to know and it is in Jim's best interests. What about Jim's right not to know? Jim is angry, agitated, anxious and so very afraid. He is tormented and his family can no longer cope with the stress that caring for Jim brings.
He has entered nursing care much earlier than would perhaps have been required if he had not known. He is resentful and insulted by required, personal interventions and reacts with extreme violence. He sleeps little and wanders the home, entering others bedrooms as he searches for his wife. He requires 1-1 observations through the night as he is a danger to himself and others.
After other meds have been tried and have not alleviated his distress - he is prescribed antipsychotics and after a while he is calmer, but still a little troubled. He now eats and joins in activities and sleeps. His life has regained a certain quality.
It is about Betty who is a long term resident. She has in her time, worked as a barmaid and a carer. When she first arrived she would attempt (as if driven by routine) to tidy the home - clearing away plates and cups before residents had finished their meals. These residents reacted in anger and sometimes physical conflict ensued - for social inhibitions often fly away when you have dementia. She attempted to 'go home' with staff - thinking she had finished her shift - and when she couldn't, would erupt into violent behaviour. She was prescribed antipsychotics and calmed and regained a certain quality to her life.
They were taken away from her earlier this year, following the DOHs insistence that side effects outweighed benefits with regards to the elderly. She is now again that poor, mad, tormented and very distressed soul; she wanders the home, interfering with others and invading their space. They slap her and she slaps back.
We fill in Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults forms for all involved and send them off to the powers that be and all is tickety-boo! But who is the vulnerable adult here? Betty who is now permanently tormented to meet DOH directives or the poor souls whose space she persistently invades?
Given the choice - I would rather live five years of a drug-induced calm - where my life had a level of quality than seven years existing in a permanent, living hell on earth.
I agree with Copperfield in that it is socially unacceptable to allow the elderly to suffer in torment. Why do we allow it?
Anna.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Isn't Technology Wonderful?
![]() |
Microsoft's SenseCam |
Also when there, click onto Claire's story.
As no doubt you realise - I love Time magazine! I love the little snippets of information it gives as well as a wider view of all that is happening in the world around us and often above us.
I love the way it plops through my letterbox on a Saturday morning as if in an invitation to share its knowledge within.
Anna :o]
Saturday, 9 October 2010
A 1,000 Registered Managers are Missing From Care Homes!
I have just read this in Nursing Times.net.
It states that registered managers are missing from 1,000 care homes. I can understand this as you must be a masochist to take on this momentous task.
No longer are care managers able to operate hands on care - for they are bogged now with mandatory paperwork! Duplication is the name of the game! Local authorities now demand the same paperwork (if not more) than the CQC and do their own inspections.
This must be in place and that must be in place for innumerable agencies! Risk assessments are there for everything, including possible toxic vapours from photocopiers!
Local authorities now demand their own induction for new starters! Managers must now sign off over a hundred and twenty questions relating to the care that new carers and nurses provide. Nurses must now state on Mar Charts why they administer analgesia, anti-emetics, meds for constipation and creams! I don't know - why do we?
There are so many mandatory training requirements - that you need to employ more staff than the home needs - purely to cover staff that are attending training. Staff are so dazed with all these training requirements that they cease to listen - they are tired of it! I am! I truly believe that repetitive training videos are a sure fire cure for insomnia - as I certainly fight sleep! Doctors - pick up on this!
Employment laws now mean that carers or nurses who don't care, can no longer have their employment terminated - unless gross misconduct is involved. Their rights are paramount and stuff the residents! I would think that a caring attitude is essential in these roles - but not so!
It is well recognised that some of those newly pregnant seek out roles in care. They declare their pregnancy not long after starting and the law entitles them to 'soft options' and their fellow carers have to take the brunt of this. There is also a knock-on effect to the level of caring offered to the residents.
On top of this, there is the antagonistic approach of some GPs - but after reading an article in Pulse - I understand this a bit more and will write about it later. GPs - talk to us as we do not realise that care homes put pressure on your practice!
If care homes are breaking the law by not having registered managers in the home, what are the CQC going to do about it? Provide saints or people teetering on the edge of insanity to fill the posts? At present - you have to be one or the other!
Care of residents will suffer. It is inevitable. Managers cannot manage a home if they are swamped in paperwork!
Anna :o[
It states that registered managers are missing from 1,000 care homes. I can understand this as you must be a masochist to take on this momentous task.
No longer are care managers able to operate hands on care - for they are bogged now with mandatory paperwork! Duplication is the name of the game! Local authorities now demand the same paperwork (if not more) than the CQC and do their own inspections.
This must be in place and that must be in place for innumerable agencies! Risk assessments are there for everything, including possible toxic vapours from photocopiers!
Local authorities now demand their own induction for new starters! Managers must now sign off over a hundred and twenty questions relating to the care that new carers and nurses provide. Nurses must now state on Mar Charts why they administer analgesia, anti-emetics, meds for constipation and creams! I don't know - why do we?
There are so many mandatory training requirements - that you need to employ more staff than the home needs - purely to cover staff that are attending training. Staff are so dazed with all these training requirements that they cease to listen - they are tired of it! I am! I truly believe that repetitive training videos are a sure fire cure for insomnia - as I certainly fight sleep! Doctors - pick up on this!
Employment laws now mean that carers or nurses who don't care, can no longer have their employment terminated - unless gross misconduct is involved. Their rights are paramount and stuff the residents! I would think that a caring attitude is essential in these roles - but not so!
It is well recognised that some of those newly pregnant seek out roles in care. They declare their pregnancy not long after starting and the law entitles them to 'soft options' and their fellow carers have to take the brunt of this. There is also a knock-on effect to the level of caring offered to the residents.
On top of this, there is the antagonistic approach of some GPs - but after reading an article in Pulse - I understand this a bit more and will write about it later. GPs - talk to us as we do not realise that care homes put pressure on your practice!
If care homes are breaking the law by not having registered managers in the home, what are the CQC going to do about it? Provide saints or people teetering on the edge of insanity to fill the posts? At present - you have to be one or the other!
Care of residents will suffer. It is inevitable. Managers cannot manage a home if they are swamped in paperwork!
Anna :o[
Friday, 8 October 2010
"For the Beauty of the Earth"
Time magazine photo gallery.
Please visit Time magazines photo gallery of newly discovered species in Papua, New Guinea. Truly beautiful!
As an aside, the title of the post "For the Beauty of the Earth" is a hymn written by Folliot S. Pierpoint (1835-1917). Wiki reports that he wrote the hymn while "mesmerised by the beauty of the countryside that surrounded him". I know the feeling! And No, I am not trying to sell religion as I am an atheist!
One day, while still at junior school, a worrying rumour spread like wildfire round the school, in that, the following day (at noon) would be the end of the world! The earth would be enveloped in catastrophic tidal waves and life would cease to exist! Worried kids sought comfort and explanations from teachers and parents - but did not believe what we were told.
The Armageddon morning, in assembly, we sang "For the Beauty of the Earth" for the first time; the hymn being hauntingly beautiful and the tune a little melancholy - which was certain proof (to us) that indeed, the end of the world was nigh!
I lived by the South Coast then, and the school dining room had one very large wall which was made entirely of glass. We kids on first sitting cringed in fear as we stared at the panoramic window, waiting for the tidal wave to envelop us all. Never happened of course and I can't remember whether the dinner was good that day!
But I have always remembered the hymn and therefore the memory of that day. Have you any interesting Armageddon stories?
Possibly interesting: "Dear God! Man!" is an anagram of Armageddon.
Anna :o]
Please visit Time magazines photo gallery of newly discovered species in Papua, New Guinea. Truly beautiful!
As an aside, the title of the post "For the Beauty of the Earth" is a hymn written by Folliot S. Pierpoint (1835-1917). Wiki reports that he wrote the hymn while "mesmerised by the beauty of the countryside that surrounded him". I know the feeling! And No, I am not trying to sell religion as I am an atheist!
One day, while still at junior school, a worrying rumour spread like wildfire round the school, in that, the following day (at noon) would be the end of the world! The earth would be enveloped in catastrophic tidal waves and life would cease to exist! Worried kids sought comfort and explanations from teachers and parents - but did not believe what we were told.
The Armageddon morning, in assembly, we sang "For the Beauty of the Earth" for the first time; the hymn being hauntingly beautiful and the tune a little melancholy - which was certain proof (to us) that indeed, the end of the world was nigh!
I lived by the South Coast then, and the school dining room had one very large wall which was made entirely of glass. We kids on first sitting cringed in fear as we stared at the panoramic window, waiting for the tidal wave to envelop us all. Never happened of course and I can't remember whether the dinner was good that day!
But I have always remembered the hymn and therefore the memory of that day. Have you any interesting Armageddon stories?
Possibly interesting: "Dear God! Man!" is an anagram of Armageddon.
Anna :o]
Thursday, 7 October 2010
A Nice U-turn by NICE.
Will our elderly and vulnerable be respected and given the drug treatment they deserve?
Thousands of patients with early stage Alzheimer's could now benefit from drug treatment following a U-turn by The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Presently, doctors are unable to prescribe donepezil, rivastigimine and galantamine to early stage patients to enable them to retain their mental faculties longer.
In 2005, NICE ruled that no Alzheimer sufferer should receive these drugs on the NHS (based on efficacy of treatment and value for money), and they then conceded in 2007 that only patients with moderate disease should receive them.
However, the decision was contested by drug companies and the Alzheimer's Society who queried the 'secret formula' used by NICE to calculate value for money. The case went to the House of Lords and the secret formula was amended after NICE conceded technical inaccuracies. This did not lead to a change in outcome.
Further campaigning by doctors, patients, families and the Alzheimer's Society has led to the new guidelines and recommendations.
NICE has also ruled that a fourth drug Ebixa should be made available for those with severe forms of Alzheimer's and for some with moderate disease.
It does appear to be good news! In fact, brilliant news!
Anna G :o]
PS For those of you who doubt the integrity of drug companies - you might find this interesting which I stumbled across while researching.
Thousands of patients with early stage Alzheimer's could now benefit from drug treatment following a U-turn by The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Presently, doctors are unable to prescribe donepezil, rivastigimine and galantamine to early stage patients to enable them to retain their mental faculties longer.
In 2005, NICE ruled that no Alzheimer sufferer should receive these drugs on the NHS (based on efficacy of treatment and value for money), and they then conceded in 2007 that only patients with moderate disease should receive them.
However, the decision was contested by drug companies and the Alzheimer's Society who queried the 'secret formula' used by NICE to calculate value for money. The case went to the House of Lords and the secret formula was amended after NICE conceded technical inaccuracies. This did not lead to a change in outcome.
Further campaigning by doctors, patients, families and the Alzheimer's Society has led to the new guidelines and recommendations.
NICE has also ruled that a fourth drug Ebixa should be made available for those with severe forms of Alzheimer's and for some with moderate disease.
It does appear to be good news! In fact, brilliant news!
Anna G :o]
PS For those of you who doubt the integrity of drug companies - you might find this interesting which I stumbled across while researching.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Are your personal emails being scanned?
Fridays edition of the Metro which I hadn't read, so proceeded to do so. The headline was "Online snoops put Britain in the dock" which caught my interest.
It reports that Britain has been flouting European rules on internet privacy re online snooping for eighteen months and is been taken to court.
BT began testing Phorm software in 2006 to monitor internet activity to identify customers surfing habits and then place targeted advertisements on websites visited. If you visit Phorm's website it does not mention scanning personal emails.
The majority of my incoming mail is from nursing/medical sites and sure enough all adverts relate to same. Really I don't have a problem with this.
Oddly enough, on Saturday, when reading an incoming email from a friend, I noticed that the adverts related to the two main themes of my received, personal, private email. I had never noticed this before as I pay little or no attention to the adverts. I mentioned this find to my son who remarked that it was "Sinister".
After reading said article in the Metro I decided to browse through all my personal, saved emails. In approximately 95% of cases - sure enough, the adverts related to themes in the letter. Sheep were mentioned in one and all adverts related to sheep. A friend mentioned that a close relative was near death in another and adverts in the sidebar related to palliative care, medical treatments, emergency surgery, etc - now I find this sick!
I do have a serious problem with my personal received and sent emails being scanned for the purpose of advertising. It is not right and it is sinister!
Check your personal emails!
I am pleased that Britain is being hauled before the European Court of Justice!
Anna
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Palaeopathology and Political Correctness?
Bonkers or brave?
A recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics discusses issues relating to biomedical research on the mummified remains of ancient human bodies.
It proposes that in an effort to gain further understanding of disease - we may be violating the rights and best interests of our ancient ancestors as they were unable to give informed consent.
Do you agree with this or do you think it is political correctness gone mad?
Alibaster.
A recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics discusses issues relating to biomedical research on the mummified remains of ancient human bodies.
It proposes that in an effort to gain further understanding of disease - we may be violating the rights and best interests of our ancient ancestors as they were unable to give informed consent.
Do you agree with this or do you think it is political correctness gone mad?
Alibaster.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
The Air That We Breathe
What have we become? How cold and indifferent to the suffering of others can we be?
When did cost override the need for care? How would the NHS cope without these hidden, ignored carers who exist quietly and proudly (but unrewarded for the effort that they do) in our society?
Why should NED have to plead his case for his sons oxygen?
It is a disgrace!
Anna G
When did cost override the need for care? How would the NHS cope without these hidden, ignored carers who exist quietly and proudly (but unrewarded for the effort that they do) in our society?
Why should NED have to plead his case for his sons oxygen?
It is a disgrace!
Anna G
Monday, 20 September 2010
The Liverpool Care Pathway.......

.......and all is not perfect.
Please read this article today's Telegraph by James LeFanu. in
Where was the dignity in this death? Where was the care as in Care Pathway?
Worrying stuff!
Anna
Please click on label: The Liverpool Care Pathway for previous post.
13.3.11 Please visit Liverpool Care Pathway - Good, Bad or Ugly?
See Blog List Opposite.
Please click on label: The Liverpool Care Pathway for previous post.
13.3.11 Please visit Liverpool Care Pathway - Good, Bad or Ugly?
See Blog List Opposite.
Saturday, 18 September 2010
A Different Aspect of Alcohol

When abused, alcohol reeks devastating effects...
...but at microscopic levels, it innocently portrays a strange artistic beauty!
See here at Time magazine.
Anna G.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
The Harm That We Do.

Peter's early childhood had been a little less than ordinary although it might have been considered ordinary at that time. Born in 1951, the second eldest son and the middle child of a brother and sister. Peter was an intelligent, reflective and a shy child, having just one good friend. He did not appear unhappy. He did well at school and at end of year exams was anywhere between first and third in a given subject. He was described by his teachers as intelligent, but it was noted he did not achieve his full potential. It was also noted that he did not appear to have many friends.
At puberty he showed the angst of many a teenager; hostile and argumentative; prone to episodes of self-doubt and anger brimming over to tearfulness and resentful of his parents. His parents were quite unprepared for this as, due to his calmness, inquisitiveness and apparent happiness, they had assumed he would sail through puberty unscathed.
As his teenage years progressed, he became increasingly troubled; his hostility towards his parents increased and any attempts (by them) to communicate with him were tantamount to entering into battle; he isolated himself in his bedroom and from his one true friend (who was becoming increasingly fearful of him); he was absent from school often; his siblings regarded him as 'odd' and due to the selfishness that often appears in teenage years - they excluded him from their lives; at times, but rarely, he would seek out his mother (for comfort) and cry for hours and voice fears that there 'was something wrong with him.'
He left school after failing all his GCEs. He did not attempt to find work and continued to exist almost entirely in his bedroom. He was now friendless. He began to accuse his parents of poisoning his food as he knew they were disappointed in him and that he would never live up to their expectations of him. He quickly began to lose weight and his parents could hear him crying and shouting in his locked room. It was at this time that his parents finally admitted to themselves that something was indeed wrong and they requested their GP to visit.
He was sectioned and hospitalised. His involuntary incarceration deepened his belief that his parents wanted rid of him. His fellow patients frightened him. Across time he began to trust his psychiatrist and opened up, telling of intrusive thoughts and voices and of a feeling of low self-worth. He stated that he was frightened of the demons that he felt lived within him.
He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and with careful titration of meds over several months - he eventually rediscovered some of the calmness of his early years. He was discharged and returned home. He remained (self) isolated and became an avid reader of all things religious.
As time passed by, he realised that He was the second coming of Christ. The proof (to him) was irrefutable; the attempts to demonise his mind by those who lived inside his head and taunted him; the fact that he felt no love or connection to his parents; the final proof was the clues he now saw all around him (ideas of reference) and that now he was receiving messages directly from God via his radio.
Careful and intelligent as he was, he kept this knowledge to himself. He knew that to save himself from a second crucifixion, he would have to resolve this matter alone. He also knew that he was being deliberately kept docile by the medication he received - and ceased to take it, as it was now obvious to him that the psychiatrist in whom he had held in complete trust was part of the conspiracy to silence him.
He gathered Jewish sounding names from the telephone directory and when alone in the house, would phone and taunt these unknown victims of his delusions, mouthing obscenities and telling that they would not crucify him again. He attempted to burn down a synagogue and was arrested and sectioned and spent many years in hospital.
He was never to return home again as his parents could not deal with the stress of attempting to cope with him. His siblings were embarrassed by him and angry at him for the anguish he caused their parents and disowned him.
He became a revolving door patient, existing either in hospital or rented accommodation, sometimes doss houses. He required high dose maintenance to control his symptoms. He became totally reliant on doctors, holding their opinions in high esteem. He was intelligent enough to have thoroughly acquainted himself with an in-depth knowledge of his schizophrenia and at times, utilised this knowledge when feeling depressed to gain (false) entry to hospital to fulfil his need to talk to doctors.
During his last hospitalisation he was rediagnosed with schizo-affective disorder due to his mood disorder and intermittent depression. It was felt that it would be wise for Peter to be discharged into a care home setting where he could be monitored and hopefully feel safe. Peter agreed to this.
Peter was forty-nine when he entered the care home. Although he would talk at times to fellow residents - he was unable to gain their friendship. He was well liked by staff who availed themselves whenever he wished to discuss any topic - but when experiencing delusional thoughts, he would not enter into conversation as they were not doctors. He regularly saw his psychiatrist who was happy with Peters placement and noted some improvement in his condition.
Sometimes he expressed his anger at being in a care home as he regarded it as a prison and staff would talk through his need to be there. Accompanied by staff, Peter would attend football matches, the theatre and restaurants and occasionally an aunt who maintained limited contact.
He still believed that he was a reincarnation of Christ and would at times refuse his medication, viewing it as an attempt to poison his mind and that they (the staff) wanted him dead. His symptoms would intensify and it required a GP visit to put this to right. His TV and radio would be removed, whenever requested, when he felt the 'demons' were trying to infiltrate his mind. Staff knew him and accommodated him.
During his five years at the home he had never required hospitalisation.
The End Of Life Care Strategy.
Dr Nice was indeed a very nice man and a very good doctor. He was favoured by many patients on his practice list and it was a rare occasion for there to be a gap in his daily appointments. At times he would have welcomed the occasional break - but his patients came first.
He, like all GPs in his area, had been contacted by his PCT and invited to take part in its End Of Life Care Strategy aimed at local care homes. He offered himself forward as a Link GP who would be assigned to a particular care home after study days and a meeting of all concerned.
The meeting was attended by GPs, organisations and nurses involved in palliative care, representatives from care homes and other interested individuals. Overall it was a good meeting and most homes readily agreed to take part in the project. A few hummed and hared, voicing fears that discussing Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment (ADRT) with their particular client group would be detrimental to the clients well-being; or it would break the trust they enjoyed with their residents; or they questioned the need for it. Dr Nice was a little alarmed about the hostility shown towards those who expressed concerns.
Dr Nice had been assigned one of these homes as a Link GP. Two months had passed and he had not received any completed ADRTs, so he phoned the home and arranged a meeting with the manager.
Mrs. I Know My Residents (the manager) had a long discussion with Dr Nice re ADRTs and the sudden need for them. She expressed concerns that with an ADRT in place, hospitalised residents - particularly if they were elderly - might not receive life sustaining treatment . She also expressed concerns that discussing end of life care with particular residents might impact on their well-being and she mentioned Peter.
Dr Nice nodded thoughtfully; after due consideration, he concluded that residents would receive more patient centred care with an ADRT in place; he also concluded that Peter had the same rights as everyone else to determine his end of life care. Mrs. IKMR acknowledged in her thoughts that Dr Nice was a very nice man - but wondered what planet he was living on.
Mrs. IKMRs declared that she accepted Dr Nice's opinion, but that she did not want her staff to conduct these interviews, as they enjoyed trusting and therapeutic relationships with the resident group. Dr Nice took this on board and requested that appointments could be made with three residents (including Peter) the following Monday and he would begin discussions re ADRTs. Mrs. IKMR reluctantly agreed (fearing that non-compliance would be viewed negatively with the CQC, GPs, hospitals and the local authority and referrals might dry up).
Peter was informed that Dr Nice would visit him on Monday to discuss any thoughts he might have about his care if he became seriously ill. Peter was thrilled as this was an unrequested visit and he felt that at long last he was being taken seriously.
That Monday, Peter was introduced to Dr Nice and a staff member was also present. Peter spoke quickly to Dr Nice, expressing his delusional thoughts at great length and Dr Nice responded appropriately.
After some time, and when he felt the time was right, Dr Nice began to (sensitively) discuss his own agenda. Peter was horrified, his implicit trust in the medical profession destroyed as he sought to make sense of what he had just heard; for it appeared to him that his doctors now wanted him dead too and were asking him to take part in the plan. He exploded into a wild rage and Dr Nice desperately attempted to rescue the situation. But the damage was done.
Peter, point blank - from that moment forth - refused all medication as he now knew it was poisoned. His mental health deteriorated rapidly and he was sectioned and hospitalised four days later. He has now been an in-patient for seven months.
But the box has been ticked!
"Thispolicy driven in the UK despite a weak evidence base." paper describes the protocol of a multidisciplinary study that will provide timely and essential insights into an area of end of life care, ACP, which has become
This quote can be found in the last paragraph of "Background" - not Abstract! The red highlights are mine
Anna G.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
The UK - Abusers of Alcohol? (Part One).
There has been much in the media of late regarding the minimum pricing of alcohol and Scotland, Wales and twelve councils in Greater Manchester are moving towards this. The Welsh Assembly Government would like to take charge of rules surrounding alcohol sales, this including licensing hours, advertising and minimum pricing and would involve devolving the Licensing Act 2003. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 came into effect on 1st September 2009 and minimum pricing is set to be introduced next year.
It would appear that David Cameron, who initially stated that (minimum pricing) would impact only on those on a low income and he would not give his support to it, has changed his mind and is bending to what he sees as a shift in public opinion, publicly backing Greater Manchester Councils plans to bring in minimum pricing."Healthy Nudges" (HN) as commissioned by the Facullty of Public Health only a week before. The same questions pertaining to minimum pricing received a different response, that is: For: 45% (HN) as opposed to 40%. Against: 44% (HN) as opposed to 47%. Don't know: 11% (HN) as opposed to 13%.
There are concerns however, regarding the legality of minimum pricing, as both the UK government and legal experts believe there is a possibility that it breaks European competition law.
Furthermore, the Home Office attempted to resurrect the consultation paper on the previous goverments' drug strategy for England, Wales and Scotland. This paper proposed that those addicted to drugs and alcohol could have their welfare benefits withdrawn if they refused treatment. The Labour government intended to carry out pilot schemes this year in an attempt to get those with drug and alcohol addictions back into work. However in May, the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an independent statutory body, said withdrawing benefits would lead to crime and prostitution. The coalition government scrapped the pilot scheme.
It is interesting to note that the media focused almost entirely on those addicted to drugs and it would appear that drug addiction is more socially acceptable than alcohol addiction. It is important to note that those who drink in a harmful or hazardous way - an estimated 24% of the adult population, far outnumber (both casual and addicted) drug users - an estimated 1 - 50.
It is my intention to focus on alcohol abuse.
YouGov published another one of its wonderful surveys entitled SixthSense which dealt with issues surrounding alcohol. It found that 47% or respondents were against a minimum price (50p) per alcohol unit and 40% were for it. It also found that 78% of UK adults admitted that a minimum price would have no effect on the amount of alcohol they drink and 45% of those who visit pubs on a regular basis, would buy alcohol at the supermarket and drink it at home, because of the cost. The total number of respondents was 2152 and a large majority drank alcohol.
It is interesting to compare this survey with that of
It is obvious that the bias of responders alters the outcome and therefore both surveys lack validity. Both had small sample sizes, yet YouGov and the Faculty of Public Health seem content to accept the findings as representative of the country as a whole. As YouGovs own survey contradicted the survey commmisssioned by the FPH - it is suprising that they published it!
There can be no doubt that the UK appears to have an 'alcohol problem' with an estimated 24% of adults drinking in a hazardous or harmful way. I do wonder why the government introduced the extended licensing hours in 2005. It was suggested that binge drinking was fuelled by the desire to drink as much as possible by 11pm closing time and with a more relaxed approach, it was hoped that we, the public, would develop a 'cafe culture' to alcohol consumption. Suprise, surprise, it hasn't happened!
Perhaps the real reasoning was to top up the treasury coffers?
Last week showed what appeared to be conflicting reports: The Beer and Pub Association stated that 2009 saw the sharpest decline in alcohol consumption across the board since 1948. This figure was based primarily on data supplied by HM Revenue and Customs, detailing the amount of alcohol sold by producers and importers into the UK market. The Institute of Alcohol Studies also show a decrease in alcohol consumption in recent years.
There were also reports of the increase in alcohol related deaths and hospital admissions. Professor Bellis, director of the North West Public Health Observatory, reporting "The English death toll from alcohol now exceeds 15,500 people every year. It is time to recognise that we are not a population of responsible drinkers with just a hand full of irresponsible individuals ruining it for others."
So it would appear that indeed, we do have a problem - but would a minimum price for alcohol units help on hinder the 'hidden victims' of alcohol dependence? For these hidden victims exist and most of us are totally unaware of them!
Part two will focus on the drinking habits of our nation and the increase in alcohol related (ill)health conditions and death and the financial cost involved.
I feel I must declare that while writing this post - I have been drinking alcohol. It is a fine thing when treated with respect. I am not saying I have never abused it!
Anna G.
It would appear that David Cameron, who initially stated that (minimum pricing) would impact only on those on a low income and he would not give his support to it, has changed his mind and is bending to what he sees as a shift in public opinion, publicly backing Greater Manchester Councils plans to bring in minimum pricing."Healthy Nudges" (HN) as commissioned by the Facullty of Public Health only a week before. The same questions pertaining to minimum pricing received a different response, that is: For: 45% (HN) as opposed to 40%. Against: 44% (HN) as opposed to 47%. Don't know: 11% (HN) as opposed to 13%.
There are concerns however, regarding the legality of minimum pricing, as both the UK government and legal experts believe there is a possibility that it breaks European competition law.
Furthermore, the Home Office attempted to resurrect the consultation paper on the previous goverments' drug strategy for England, Wales and Scotland. This paper proposed that those addicted to drugs and alcohol could have their welfare benefits withdrawn if they refused treatment. The Labour government intended to carry out pilot schemes this year in an attempt to get those with drug and alcohol addictions back into work. However in May, the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an independent statutory body, said withdrawing benefits would lead to crime and prostitution. The coalition government scrapped the pilot scheme.
It is interesting to note that the media focused almost entirely on those addicted to drugs and it would appear that drug addiction is more socially acceptable than alcohol addiction. It is important to note that those who drink in a harmful or hazardous way - an estimated 24% of the adult population, far outnumber (both casual and addicted) drug users - an estimated 1 - 50.
It is my intention to focus on alcohol abuse.
YouGov published another one of its wonderful surveys entitled SixthSense which dealt with issues surrounding alcohol. It found that 47% or respondents were against a minimum price (50p) per alcohol unit and 40% were for it. It also found that 78% of UK adults admitted that a minimum price would have no effect on the amount of alcohol they drink and 45% of those who visit pubs on a regular basis, would buy alcohol at the supermarket and drink it at home, because of the cost. The total number of respondents was 2152 and a large majority drank alcohol.
It is interesting to compare this survey with that of
It is obvious that the bias of responders alters the outcome and therefore both surveys lack validity. Both had small sample sizes, yet YouGov and the Faculty of Public Health seem content to accept the findings as representative of the country as a whole. As YouGovs own survey contradicted the survey commmisssioned by the FPH - it is suprising that they published it!
There can be no doubt that the UK appears to have an 'alcohol problem' with an estimated 24% of adults drinking in a hazardous or harmful way. I do wonder why the government introduced the extended licensing hours in 2005. It was suggested that binge drinking was fuelled by the desire to drink as much as possible by 11pm closing time and with a more relaxed approach, it was hoped that we, the public, would develop a 'cafe culture' to alcohol consumption. Suprise, surprise, it hasn't happened!
Perhaps the real reasoning was to top up the treasury coffers?
Last week showed what appeared to be conflicting reports: The Beer and Pub Association stated that 2009 saw the sharpest decline in alcohol consumption across the board since 1948. This figure was based primarily on data supplied by HM Revenue and Customs, detailing the amount of alcohol sold by producers and importers into the UK market. The Institute of Alcohol Studies also show a decrease in alcohol consumption in recent years.
There were also reports of the increase in alcohol related deaths and hospital admissions. Professor Bellis, director of the North West Public Health Observatory, reporting "The English death toll from alcohol now exceeds 15,500 people every year. It is time to recognise that we are not a population of responsible drinkers with just a hand full of irresponsible individuals ruining it for others."
So it would appear that indeed, we do have a problem - but would a minimum price for alcohol units help on hinder the 'hidden victims' of alcohol dependence? For these hidden victims exist and most of us are totally unaware of them!
Part two will focus on the drinking habits of our nation and the increase in alcohol related (ill)health conditions and death and the financial cost involved.
I feel I must declare that while writing this post - I have been drinking alcohol. It is a fine thing when treated with respect. I am not saying I have never abused it!
Anna G.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
8 OUT OF 10 CATS

The UK's Faculty of Public Health published the modified results of a survey yesterday entitled: Healthy Nudges - When the Public Wants Change and the Politicians Don't Know It. A summary can be found HERE and you can click onto the full survey at the bottom of the FPH page.
I have no problem with the content of the survey, but I do wonder about the make up of the participants. Yes, there appears to be a fair representation of social grades - but was there a fair representation of smokers and drinkers? If not, the outcome of the survey is skewed.
Furthermore, the classifications of social grades was devised decades ago and now fails to reflect how society has changed.
The sample size was 1,488 GB adults, yet this small sample of an estimated UK population of 61,792,000 in mid-2009 has been seen as large enough for FPH to declare that politicians don't know what the public wants.
If this survey had been a clinical trial it would stretch to four phases. Would it not have been fairer to perhaps conduct four surveys - ensuring a true representation of smokers and drinkers - and then done a meta-analysis on all?
As said, no problem with the outcomes of the survey, bar the opt-out system for organ donation - but I think it is rather bold of the FPH to suggest that the survey is a true representation of what the public thinks!
Cheers!
Thadeus.
Friday, 13 August 2010
BURGER, FRIES AND A STATIN PLEASE!

I didn't really! I came home and had a healthy meal of chicken and salad and I ate it after easing my fat, middle aged frame into the comfort of my easy chair!
I do not know why I am overweight - no, why I am fat! I am not obese - I am fat! I am as fat as Professor Steve "Fattie" Field as so eloquently described here by Dr. No, and Fattie is my friend! I do not know him - but admire him as he tells it like it is!
I am sure he will be delighted - or will he? - by today's glad tidings reported here, there and everywhere that UK researchers have suggested that fast food outlets should consider handing out a statin to combat the effects of burger and fries and presumably any other "naughty foods!" Perhaps they might suggest gastric banding too when customers purchases their hundredth meal?
I am certain Big Pharma will be orgasmic and rubbing their hands with glee! They could not have dreamed it up themselves! Money, money, money!
But hang on! Is there not some concern regarding adverse events with statins? Pulse reports here that GPs are urged to use the lowest possible statin doses! Over the counter (OTC) statins here at 10mg doses are available at chemists. Add on a few (10mg doses?) at your local burger bar and if we get into this mindset of dosing after junk food - we could top up at home! The skies the limit!
Eat whatever we like - have a statin and Bobs your Uncle! Fat but fit! Healthy heart, less cases of oesophageal cancer - but maybe we might experience liver dysfunction, renal failure, cataracts or myopathy! Nah!
Burger bar - here I come!
Thadeus the fatfull.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
THE LIVERPOOL CARE PATHWAY

The LCP Continuous Quality Improvement Programme incorporates the following aims:
- AIM To improve care of the dying in the last hours or days of life.
- KEY THEMES To improve the knowledge related to the process of dying. To improve the quality of care in the last hours or days of life.
- KEY SECTIONS Initial Assessment. Ongoing Assessment. Care after Death.
- KEY DOMAINS OF CARE Physical. Psychological. Social. Spiritual.
But with all good things, it is open to abuse. Disquiet is in the air. Adrian J. Treloar, physician expressed concerns' in the BMJ here in 2008 and Ronald J. Clearkin here in May of this year. Prof. Peter Millard, Dr. Peter Hargreaves et al wrote to The Telegraph here in September last year.
The LCP is a tick box document despite Marie Curie's insistence that it is not. The following criteria must be met before commencing the LCP: the patient must be bed-bound, semi-comatose, only accepts sips of fluid and is unable to take tablets. I have read over and over again while researching that diagnosing dying is not always easy.
Prof. Millard et al raised the following points in their letter:
"Forecasting death is an inexact science."
"If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death."
"... the diagnosis could be wrong."
"It is disturbing that in the year 2007-2008, 16.5 per cent of deaths came about after terminal sedation.
Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped "dying" patients get better."
Please note: The total number of people receiving continuous deep sedation is twice the rate of the Netherlands where there exist a culture of a casual approach to death and legalised euthanasia. At times, is the LCP euthanasia by the back door?
WHO IS PLACED ON THE LCP?
In 2009 a survey by the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool obtained details of almost 4000 treated on the scheme in 2008 and found:
The average age was 81 and they were typically on the pathway for 33 hours.
39% suffered from cancer, while others had conditions such as stroke, organ failure, pneumonia and dementia.
More than a third were given sedatives and four out of five did not need intravenous meds or fluids - or had them withdrawn,
28% of relatives were not informed that their loved one was on the pathway.
However, this survey found the implementation of the pathway encouraging, highlighting only that information - or the lack of it - given to relatives needs addressing.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE INEXACT SCIENCE OF FORCASTING DEATH
Please read the following two articles: one two . There are several more stories on timesonline but unfortunately they won't 'save.'
When our residents are admitted to hospital, it is mostly with a diagnosis of pneumonia. As said in my first post on Anticipatory Care Planning - forecasting who will placed on the LCP is almost an exact science in my work place! Will they end up on the LCP or won't they? It depends very much on the support system of relatives; if your relatives are strong and will fight for you - it is doubtful that you will end up on the pathway; if your relatives are compliant and open to suggestion or you have no NOK - the odds are you will be placed on the pathway; if you have behavioural/management problems - you will be sedated and thus will cease eating and drinking and will be placed on the pathway; if you can't feed yourself and have no strong support from relatives - you're screwed!
If any of the aforementioned applies and you are young - the odds are you won't be placed on the pathway. Being old definitely works against you.
Prof. Peter Millard has said: "The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time."
The problem with the LCP is that it focuses on the initial decision as to whether the patient is thought to be dying. If the answer is "Yes" then the entire process becomes automatic. "How can we make you comfortable?" has become "This is how we will treat you while you die." It is an ethical shift.
When used as it should be - and hopefully this is most of the time - the LCP is a fine, wonderful thing. But I fear it has become tainted.
Anna G
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)