Care homes crisis: Judith Martin responds
Why do patients have to be moved, with the upheaval and distress caused by Ill-planned or casually implemented closures and relocations which are stressful and linked to adverse outcomes in terms of symptoms, health and survival?
A 2006 article refers to one of many reports on involuntary relocation: Prof David Jolley, a consultant psychiatrist specialising in old age, said that it was “an inescapable truism that relocation is a stressful event [for frail elderly people] and can precipitate problems of mental health, physical health and even bring forward death”. Another psychiatrist, Dr Peter Jeffreys, rates it as “only marginally less significant than the death of a spouse”.
Local authorities could take ownership and take on the running of the establishment. The Bristol building is not beautiful but Bristol is an expensive city. The home could be wound down under the local authority, not taking any extra patients but keeping staff members, then eventually the site could be sold for redevelopment to recoup costs.
The local authority could commission decent design for the follow-on homes (“think of the Maggie’s cancer centres conceived by the late Charles Jencks”), which would be run without the burden of debt or expectation of profit.
As Gill Plimmer notes, many more local authority-run homes are rated good or outstanding – according to a LaingBuisson analysis of regulatory reports last August – than those owned by hedge funds or other for-profit bodies.
Based on Judith Martin’s letter in the Financial Times.