Thank you to everyone who contacted us with your thoughts and experiences during our Care in the UK series. Here is a summary of the responses we received.
Funding and eligibility
Many people believed that they (or someone they knew) were receiving less care than they needed due to the financial constraints facing local authorities. A number of people were unhappy that social services often provided care only for those people with the most substantial and critical needs. There were also many comments from people saying that there was a 鈥減ost code lottery鈥 with inconsistencies between councils in how they applied the eligibility criteria.
鈥淚 manage a charity for older people. We offer a range of practical and social support to hundreds of local older people and have done for 13 years. Yes, certainly we have seen our members (older people) struggle to get the care that they need鈥. local councils are rationing care for older people, so that only those with critical needs can get a service鈥. It is a scandal in the 21st century that we leave our older people without the proper care that they need and deserve.鈥
鈥淢y social worker let slip that although I was assessed to need night care, she was under orders from her manager never to agree any night care need, lest it be expensive for the social service budget.鈥
Some listeners called for the savings threshold to be raised so that older people who are expected to pay for their care are able to keep more of their savings. Others said it was upsetting when an older person requiring residential care had to sell their house.
鈥淢y mother has dementia. She has been cared for at home for eight years by her family and in a nursing home for nearly four years. She worked all her life as well as bringing up five children. Her house was sold to fund her care and out of 拢220.000 she will be allowed to keep 拢12,500 before she stops contributing. However, she will still have to give up her pension and attendance allowance. Can this be fair?鈥
A number of people complained that they had been assessed as requiring means-tested care from social services when they thought they should be entitled to free NHS continuing care.
鈥淢y mother is totally incapacitated. She is immobile, needs assistance with eating and drinking, doubly incontinent and cognitive ability is very poor. Apparently when assessed she is not considered severe enough to be eligible for Continuing Care.鈥
Quality of care
While some people were very happy with their experience of care, others were concerned that they or their relatives had received poor quality care. There were complaints about frequent changes in care staff, communication difficulties between staff and clients and inadequate delivery of care.
鈥淢y friend鈥檚 husband has Parkinson鈥檚 disease in the final stage. In the first care home, he had no shower in a week of respite despite the fact he is double incontinent. Her husband was placed by social services into a second care home for respite. The home failed to ensure he received drink. He caught MRSA in there.鈥
鈥淲hy does an elderly, disabled woman (and her family) have to put up with less than satisfactory home care arrangements? The company currently providing my mother with personal care in her own home, under contract to her local social services department, have let her down on many occasions. The care workers have failed to treat her with dignity, have forgotten to make scheduled calls, have been late on many occasions and failed to alert anyone that she appeared unwell one night. (It was only by chance that my sister discovered that she had later collapsed - because of an infection - and she was taken to hospital. As a result of this, her physical condition deteriorated and she is now hardly able to walk).鈥
We received a number of responses from people who felt that the pay of care workers was too low to reflect the importance of the work they carried out. Some of the care workers thought that their clients suffered from a shortage of staff and were concerned that they were not able to give clients enough individual attention.
鈥淚 work as a community nurse and frequently come into contact with care workers in patient's homes. There is a huge problem with recruitment of carers. Frequently these agencies are very short staffed and poorly paid, so there is high turnover and high levels of job dissatisfaction. Patients are all too often stuck in hospital or respite because they are waiting for care to become available. These problems won't be resolved unless there is proper career progression and pay is increased to reflect the level of skills required to look after someone in their own home. The agencies do not pay the carers for their travelling time between clients. If a quarter of their shift is spent in travelling time without pay they will never improve recruitment.鈥
Carers
A number of listeners praised the vital role played by unpaid relatives and friends in providing social care. There were many calls for the government to give informal carers greater recognition and to acknowledge the pressures carers can face. Many listeners wanted increased support for family carers including more respite care, higher benefits, better advice, improved access to flexible working, and for carers allowance to be continued after a carer has started claiming their pension.
鈥淐arers have no rights - we have to fight for everything including respite. This cannot be justified. The compensation of 拢48.20 we receive weekly is a sad reflection of the value past and present governments have put on this special commitment to another human being. For this compensation, most carers work 24/7/365 - much longer than any politician, doctor, social care worker or in fact any other job on the planet. When we reach retirement age after a lifetime of care, we get a state pension and nothing else. There are no long-service awards for us. The 拢48.20 compensation is stopped, even though many of us are still carers at retirement age.鈥
Individual budgets
Many listeners welcomed the introduction of 鈥渋ndividual budgets鈥 where the disabled or elderly person decides how the money allocated to their care should be spent. People can choose to spend it in whatever way they think best meets their needs whether this means buying care services, equipment or adaptations to the home. Listeners hoped this development would give disabled people more choice and control over their care. However, some people pointed out potential drawbacks and argued that disabled people would need support to take advantage of individual budgets. It was also said that the new system would need to be properly funded for it to achieve its aims.
鈥淚ndividual budgets for people with disabilities often work very well but there is insufficient flexibility for people to choose the services they consider they need. The older people who are deemed eligible for services now are so frail and so confused that they are quite incapable of undertaking the purchasing of their own care.鈥
鈥淚ndividual budgets are a good idea for young physically disabled people who can identify and manage their own care requirements. But under individual budgets there will be no regulation of any sort for care provided through informal arrangements. Who will cover any sickness or holidays or general absenteeism? Who will protect the service user from abuse or poor standards of care delivery or even exposure to criminals?鈥
Do you have any thoughts about the topics covered in the programmes?听 Do you, a friend or a member of your family have any experiences of the care system you'd like to share? Is the current system working - how do you think the care system should be funded in this country?听 Get in touch with the team in the means listed below.
The message boards are now closed but you can still read the comments that were left and catch up on the debates on the Care in the UK message board
Email your comments to youandyours@bbc.co.uk. Please put "Care in the UK" in the subject box
Write to Care in the UK, You and Yours,听Rm 5045, 大象传媒 Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London W1A 1AA听
For more information on all the topics covered or to have your say, telephone our Action Line on 0800 044 044
