Abbotswood Covid19

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Southfork said:

Yes I read the comment but he says at the end - thats the situation in the UK I don’t know whether it’s the same in the IOM. But it seems very strange to most people that you employ staff but claim to have no responsibility at all for providing them with safe equipment to work with in a deadly global pandemic. 

The practicalities would be the same - which is the important thing.  You'd hope the procurement over here used our autonomy to  be nimbler and quicker getting stuff, rather than just hanging on the end of NHS England's supply chain, but the structure will be the same.  The legality must be very similar as well or no one would operate a home here.

[Southfork]

Just now, Roger Mexico said:

The practicalities would be the same - which is the important thing.  You'd hope the procurement over here used our autonomy to  be nimbler and quicker getting stuff, rather than just hanging on the end of NHS England's supply chain, but the structure will be the same.  The legality must be very similar as well or no one would operate a home here.

But the owners knew of the pandemic from February at least. There was plenty of time to take action. What seems to happen was that a fire went off and then they tried to order a hose that was on 7 day delivery. 

[DrunkenMonkey]

17 minutes ago, Rog said:

In the UK, even Norfolk (!) it is the responsibility of the owner of the accommodation to provide everything needed to ensure a safe and comfortable environment for residents and staff.  The UK Care Quality Commission regularly audit all aspects of geriatric and other sheltered accommodation but it is the responsibility of the facility provider to deliver.  https://www.cqc.org.uk/ 

I think the set up now is that the DHSC will buy it in and places can buy it at cost. Not sure how it was before though.

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Southfork said:

But the owners knew of the pandemic from February at least. There was plenty of time to take action. What seems to happen was that a fire went off and then they tried to order a hose that was on 7 day delivery. 

But it's not for them to order it - they can't.  What if they had done so and the government decided to specify  a different sort of protection?  The most they could do was to stock up on basic stuff, but the higher level of protection needs to come from government (irrespective of who pays for it) - it's the only practical way of operating.

[Southfork]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But it's not for them to order it - they can't.  What if they had done so and the government decided to specify  a different sort of protection?  The most they could do was to stock up on basic stuff, but the higher level of protection needs to come from government (irrespective of who pays for it) - it's the only practical way of operating.

I still don’t buy it but I accept your view. 

[Flossie]

2 hours ago, starcat said:

OK, Time to redress the balance and give some truth.

Firstly I am not one of the directors or management as the Government has issued a gagging order on them. Not me though :). PPE was always available at Abbotswood. The Government was tardy in the first place as when approached via 111 by some staff, they did not test and for some it was nearly 2 weeks before they got a test. Action by Government sooner would perhaps have saved lives. One of the directors appealed on Manx media for help due to low staffing as public health had sent most of the staff home to self isolate. DHSC then suspended Abbotswood's licence under the pretext of not being able to use DHSC staff unless they did so. DHSC then provided staff who did not know how to look after the type of residents Abbotswood gave a home to and mistakes were made by these staff which, as yet not come to light, but I have no doubt will. DHSC agreed that those Abbotswood staff who could, would go back to work and together they would be deep cleaning the home with a view to the residents returning. From the moment that DHSC took over (not helped) no management of Abotswood was kept informed  of anything.No mention has been made by the press that the inside of Abbotswood's building has been ransacked and destroyed by the Governments employees. At no time did Abbotswood's employees go without pay, they were fully paid even though they might not be in work. Today in DHSC's wisdom, without consultation with Abbotswood's directors, the DHSC has stated that all remaining residents at Abbotswood will be moved out to Nobles and other homes (good to transfer any possible cases to other homes, yes?). Yes, the well-being of the remaining residents is paramount  but It seems clear that the Government are pursuing an unknown agenda against Abbotswood as a business which will in the future put at risk numerous jobs and decrease the amount of beds available for elderly people. News releases continue to be given on unilateral decisions by DHSC. Updates will be given on this ongoing unfortunate situation

Speechless...... Ransacked and destroyed?? 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Flossie

[Manximus Aururaneus]

1 hour ago, Rog said:

In the UK, even Norfolk (!) it is the responsibility of the owner of the accommodation to provide everything needed to ensure a safe and comfortable environment for residents and staff.  The UK Care Quality Commission regularly audit all aspects of geriatric and other sheltered accommodation but it is the responsibility of the facility provider to deliver.  https://www.cqc.org.uk/ 

Firstly a couple of caveats;

a) I know absolutely nothing about the situation at Abbotswood and would never comment on it in any case. b) I have no detailed knowledge of IOM CH procedures as the homes that we own are all in UK. c) For those with more detailed knowledge - yes I have simplified for the sake of clarity, don't bite my head off!

That said, many of the comments on here whist sounding plausible are in fact incorrect. They are mostly based on certain phrases that are often banded about in general conversation without the user being aware that the phrases themselves often have definitions attached to them (sometimes legal definitions) - the meaning of these phrases has to be understood if one wants a better understanding of how things work. I do not blame either forumites here or Joe Public for getting this wrong - for decades the phraseology has changed with the wind, sometimes legally defined, often not. It was, and is a minefield that even professionals find confusing.

To keep the post length reasonable I'll make some short points.

1. Rog - CQC do not inspect 'sheltered accommodation' - It is not a 'Regulated Activity'. If the same 'Person' (Individual, Corporate or Charity) provides both accommodation and care in the same setting then it would indeed become regulated and hence registrable and inspectable but on its own it is not. Different providers for accommodation and care = Not registrable. Support and Accommodation but not Care - Not registrable. 'Prompting' (a supported living warden reminding Mrs Jones to take tablet (but not actually issuing it!) - Not registrable.

2. 'Geriatric' is not a term that I have heard in Social Care use since 1990 ish - way before CQC was formed in 2009 and before its predecessor CSCI formed 2004 (somewhat strangely I think that it is still in use here on the Island???). Nothing 'Geriatric' CQC Registerable.

3. It is most certainly not the responsibility of the Registered Provider to 'provide everything'! To be silly for the point of illustration, If one of our residents had toothache I would not be expected to build a dental practice, if they developed a kidney problem I would not have to gear up for dialysis, and in the case of Ebola I would not be expected to provide 'spacesuits'.

What I would and would not be expected to provide is contained in two important documents 1) The home's 'Statement of Purpose' which is written out by the home itself to describe what the Home Is and Is not. The 'SOP' is unique to every home. CQC describe the SOP as 'The Home's Shop Widow' - it states what you will / will not provide within the fees you charge.

If somebody likes what they see in your 'Shop Window' - they may choose to buy it - in which case 2) A legal contract will come into force between the Service Provider on the one hand and the Service User on the other. The home will then of course be legally responsible for providing what it promised to provide. Best way to imagine it is a small Cottage Hospital with a sign outside 'No A&E Services' - they cannot all be all things to all men - neither can care homes.

Workplace responsibilities to staff are a totally separate issue. PPE has to be provided - end of. (More later).

Last point for now;

Support (as in supported living) is not Care (as in Care Home) and neither is Nursing (as in 'Care Home with Nursing').

Supported Living = Support

Care Home = Support + Care

Care Home with Nursing (Used to be called Nursing Home)  = Support + Care + Nursing

They are each separate services, with separate definitions, separate funding rules, and separate liabilities as to who should pay for the service. (Individual /Social Services / NHS).

Sorry to drone on. Ask away if you're that desperate!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[Scotty]

3 hours ago, starcat said:

OK, Time to redress the balance and give some truth.

Firstly I am not one of the directors or management as the Government has issued a gagging order on them. Not me though :). PPE was always available at Abbotswood. The Government was tardy in the first place as when approached via 111 by some staff, they did not test and for some it was nearly 2 weeks before they got a test. Action by Government sooner would perhaps have saved lives. One of the directors appealed on Manx media for help due to low staffing as public health had sent most of the staff home to self isolate. DHSC then suspended Abbotswood's licence under the pretext of not being able to use DHSC staff unless they did so. DHSC then provided staff who did not know how to look after the type of residents Abbotswood gave a home to and mistakes were made by these staff which, as yet not come to light, but I have no doubt will. DHSC agreed that those Abbotswood staff who could, would go back to work and together they would be deep cleaning the home with a view to the residents returning. From the moment that DHSC took over (not helped) no management of Abotswood was kept informed  of anything.No mention has been made by the press that the inside of Abbotswood's building has been ransacked and destroyed by the Governments employees. At no time did Abbotswood's employees go without pay, they were fully paid even though they might not be in work. Today in DHSC's wisdom, without consultation with Abbotswood's directors, the DHSC has stated that all remaining residents at Abbotswood will be moved out to Nobles and other homes (good to transfer any possible cases to other homes, yes?). Yes, the well-being of the remaining residents is paramount  but It seems clear that the Government are pursuing an unknown agenda against Abbotswood as a business which will in the future put at risk numerous jobs and decrease the amount of beds available for elderly people. News releases continue to be given on unilateral decisions by DHSC. Updates will be given on this ongoing unfortunate situation

Rubbish. Who are you trying to kid ?

[Scotty]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

The practicalities would be the same - which is the important thing.  You'd hope the procurement over here used our autonomy to  be nimbler and quicker getting stuff, rather than just hanging on the end of NHS England's supply chain, but the structure will be the same.  The legality must be very similar as well or no one would operate a home here.

The well run homes like Elder Grange didn't seen to have any problem getting PPE, so not sure why the home in question didn't have a good supply.

[Scotty]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

2 hours ago, Southfork said:

Surely the PPE is for the safety of the staff? It’s like a garage employing a welder but saying that it’s fine if he doesn’t wear goggles and go blind as they have no obligation to stop him going blind. I find it hard to believe that charging £1000 a week for care means that they can’t afford to buy people the right equipment to protect themselves whether they are obligated to or not. 

Mainly it's for the safety of he residents though - wearing PPE is not just about protecting yourself, but about protecting other people from you.  The problem isn't so much about paying for stuff but being able to get hold of enough and the right sort of stuff. The comment I linked to from @Manximus Aururaneus (who owns a care home in the UK) was quite informative on this.

PPE is personal protective equipment. The clue is in the first word. Southfork is correct.

[hissingsid]

It is the care home’s responsibility to provide PPE not the governments that is fact.It is also the care home’s responsibility to have a plan of action to follow if any infectious diseases are discovered in the home such as influenza or any vomiting disease that could be contagious as in segregation, isolation, deep cleaning etc. The home was ill prepared and the fees are a lot more than £1000 per week.   Blaming the government for not supplying them with PPE was bad and the government has tried to be tactful in it’s reporting of the matter throughout.   The management panicked and were not up to the challenge.   I feel for every soul who perished as a result of this horrible virus and their relatives.  It is a terrible situation for everyone but making allegations and trying to shift blame is totally out of order.

[Southfork]

2 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

It is a terrible situation for everyone but making allegations and trying to shift blame is totally out of order.

I think the strangely public “incident” with the owner last week seems to be perpetuating some sort of belief in a persecution complex that supporters seem to be buying in to. I agree with you though. 

[hissingsid]

It begs the question do these people who own care or nursing homes have to have any kind of experience or qualifications?    From the money they charge it seems to be a very lucrative business.

 

[prism10]

3 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

It begs the question do these people who own care or nursing homes have to have any kind of experience or qualifications?    From the money they charge it seems to be a very lucrative business.

 

It is or certainly was in the UK until the government started to enforce higher standards of care and building regulations.

[NoTailT]

12 hours ago, Scotty said:

Rubbish. Who are you trying to kid ?

I can confirm, it is not rubbish. Knowing the truth and seeing the complete tripe I see on social media is doing my tits in. The Gov did indeed make the owners sign a gag order, they are NOT allowed to talk to the press or anyone.

Firstly, early on in this staff were misinformed by 111 and DHSC on processes and advice and as I understand, the working hypothesis that ‘Ashy’ has hinted at but not actually specified is still on mail delivery from the southern delivery office bringing it in to the home.

DHSC have stripped out lots of Abbotswood furnishings and taken them to Newlands.

DHSC has also skipped thousands upon thousands of pounds of furniture, curtains and floorings from the home that was in need of deep clean due to them being in rooms of infected residents. But DHSC claim ‘pine furniture cant be deep cleaned’.

The owners kept up their almost 200 grand per month salary bill to keep all staff fully paid, despite DHSC taking over any fee incomes from the home.

DHSC wanted to turn Abbotswood in to an overspill for the hospital and asked the owners to spend almost half a million quid making alterations to facilitate this and dangled the ‘it will help favourably with your licence’ carrot if they obliged.

DHSC, Fire & Health/Safety gave Abbotswood a better than clean bill of health in a review back in January. But now all of a sudden, they think there’s some problems with things they signed off back in January.

This weeks positive case from Thie Meanagh in Farmhill was taken to Newlands and put on the same ward as healthy non-COVID Abbotswood patients.

DHSC’s decision today to pull residents out of Abbotswood is because the owners were informed that it was illegal for their staff to operate 1) without a licence or 2) under DHSC management. DHSC doesn’t have enough staff of their own, so they decided to relocate them. No fault of the home, entirely DHSC’s fault.

The owners aren’t exactly some conglomerate. They’re a retired couple, one of which dedicated many years to service in the NHS. The manager who complained publicly about PPE - rightly or wrongly - has spent some days this past week in Liverpool after suffering a heart attack following reading the degree of comments lodged against her. There really was nothing more that they could have done. Once it hits a home, it hits it hard. Just look all around the world.

I’m not involved with Abbotswood in any way, but I do know the truth of what’s going on.

Edited May 10, 2020 by NoTailT