The examples of poor care revealed by care home inspections in November are genuinely disturbing.
This is an issue that touches us all, or will. No-one would be willing to trust the care of an elderly relative to a home where there was no intervention when residents suffer from bedsores (as happened in one Girvan establishment) or choose it for themselves.
Similarly it is unthinkable staff would simply accept a situation where a resident sleeps through many meal times and, as a result, suffers rapid weight loss, as happened in the same home. Other complaints upheld show homes tolerating undernourisment or dehydration or simply lacking the staff trained to deliver adequate care.
All of this is shocking, but it needs to be balanced against a recognition that the care in many homes, whether run in public, private or charity settings, is very good. Owners and managers of responsibly run care homes despair of the way poor care damages perceptions of the whole sector.
But, for that reason, the rise in complaints over the care of vulnerable and older people is in some ways welcome. This seems counter-intuitive but the increase in complaints can be seen as evidence more people are demanding higher standards and taking an interest in the levels of care provided to relatives.
It might also reflect a greater confidence on the part of the public that, if complaints are made, something will be done.
The Care Inspectorate and its predecessor bodies have historically been guilty of leaning too far in the direction of encouraging poor homes to improve and not placing enough emphasis on enforcement to deliver that improvement.
There are signs that the watchdog is changing its approach. Where possible, all of its visits are unannounced, allowing homes to be assessed "warts and all" - very much in response to public demand.
Meanwhile, the enforcement action being taken against homes in Jedburgh and Girvan follows similar robust treatment of failing homes in Edinburgh. Watchdogs need teeth and the inspectorate does appear to be baring them.
As The Herald recently reported, such action can lead to problems, with concerns over the quality of care leading to hundreds of beds being unable to be allocated in Edinburgh.
Yet that is surely preferable to the alternative of placing vulnerable people in settings known to be unsafe or unsatisfactory.
A greater willingness to publicise critical reports, to name and shame, is beneficial, helping persuade the public that it is worth complaining and helping drive up standards in the industry.
So, while condemning the poor standards exposed, we should give a cautious welcome to the fact that more complaints are being lodged with the inspectorate.
However, the under-funding of care is also an issue. Good care costs, and councils that often commission such services, must also take heed of these complaints. They, like the homes themselves, must respond and address the issues raised.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article