Adult care criticised in report

Published in Gloucester Citizen Newspaper on Thu 5th Feb 2009

People with learning disabilities who may have been victims of hate crime have not been given enough help by social services, according to a report.

But Gloucestershire County Council has hit out at the findings saying the inspection was flawed.

The Commission for Social Care Inspection's (CSCI) report called Independence, Wellbeing and Choice, assesses safeguarding adults and learning disability services. It follows CSCI's move to cut the council's two star rating to one for adult care last autumn.

Social services chief Margaret Sheather is making a formal complaint against the CSCI over the report released yesterday. She insists the people it cares for are safe.

But the CSCI report highlights many of what it perceives to be failings in the way adults with learning disabilities and the elderly are cared for. A key criticism was that vulnerable people and their carers needed more help in tackling abuse.

"We heard about a number of examples of bullying and hate crime that people with learning disabilities had put up with," it stated.

"Through the learning disability partnership board, people had recently asked for opportunities to talk about the harassment they encountered.

"A recent successful conference gave some people the opportunity to talk about their bad experiences. Not everyone had opportunities to tell people about bullying or get support."

The report found 'an inconsistent awareness about identifying where adults who are at risk may be abused'.

It also found new or temporary managers were not trained in managing investigations and only a limited number of placements were reviewed routinely. In one case, a 101-year-old dementia sufferer's placement had not been reviewed since 2003.

The CSCI inspectors also criticised the way social services handled transition from childhood to adulthood.

"We want to learn from inspections but we consider this report to be inaccurate and its judgements largely unhelpful," said Mrs Sheather. "This makes learning very difficult to do. Often, the report only uses one or two examples to draw conclusions about our services. Many of the criticisms are not backed up by sufficient evidence, and many of the recommendations made are already being acted upon - something that CSCI fails to acknowledge."

Mrs Sheather added that the council had worked with people with learning disabilities to produce a guide aimed at helping vulnerable people to recognise abuse and feel confident enough to report it.

An action plan to address specific recommendations in the report has been drawn up by the county council.

Coun Tony Hicks, lead cabinet member for community and adult care, said: "This report bears no relation to the reality in Gloucestershire. It doesn't recognise the dedication and professionalism of our staff. Vulnerable people are safe - and that is what matters to me, not ticking bureaucratic boxes."

Labour group leader, Coun Maureen Rutter disagreed. "For the administration to try to dismiss this report shows an arrogance which is frightening, when a growing population of elderly people are not getting the help they need," she said.

Liberal Democrat group leader, Coun Jeremy Hilton, said: "Social services in this county are failing and this report has revealed the truth about their poor performance. The report makes clear that people with learning disabilities are suffering abuse and bullying."

Imelda Richardson, CSCI regional director for the South West, said: "CSCI detailed its serious concerns about the governance and operation of Gloucestershire's adult safeguarding systems. The report confirms the council's rating around its operation of safeguarding procedures and its high use of poor, unsafe care homes has dropped from 'good' to 'adequate'. This judgement is based on a rigorous and detailed evidential process.

"The Commission believes its judgements are sound, and represent a true and accurate picture of adult social care. The Commission does not make these judgements lightly. It has carefully considered a wide range of evidence including interviews and surveys with people using services, staff and local agencies.

She said the CSCI was not given any opportunity to present its findings or to answer questions at a council meeting.