Dear Andrea
I think this letter is excellent. This abuse has to stop. Could you also call on
the support of organisations of disabled people?
good luck
Dan Goodley
Quoting Andrea Hollomotz <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have discovered a 21st century institution right at my doorstep and am
> since then steaming with anger and driven into action. The residential home
> concerned houses twenty-something individuals with learning difficulties in
> England and continues to dehumanise its residents. Thanks goodness I happen
> to have a very supportive manager and he told me to get in touch with the
> Commission for Social Care Inspectorate and he will also support me further,
> but I should not broadcast any more details. I am currently collecting
> further evidence of “bad practice” from other individuals and professionals
> within my council and I am very hopeful (I may be naïve?) that change is
> possible. I would like to share my thoughts with you and am therefore sending
> the initial letter I have written to the Commission for Social Care
> Inspectorate below. Please note that although I changed all dates and names,
> I left it in social work jargon. I am conscious of words like “learning
> disability”, “service user” and “good practice” and “empowerment”, but
> unfortunately one has to use them in order to be understood by other
> professionals.
> Please let me know if any of the points I raised could be backed up better
> with current UK or international Human Rights legislation or any kind of
> policy or practice guideline, as this would assist me to support my claims.
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
>
> Dear CSCI,
>
> I would like to inform you of some considerable concerns that I have
> regarding the provision of care at [residential home]. My concerns are mainly
> about the institutional values which appear to inform care practice at this
> establishment and these concerns are largely informed by my commitment to
> anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory social work practice, which in itself
> is informed by guidelines outlines by Valuing People (DoH.2001), the
> Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Human Rights Act 1948 as well as
> the European Convention of Human Rights 1950.
>
> I visited [residential home] on the […] to speak to the staff about some
> concerns about “attention to detail” aspects of care of my service user Ms.X,
> which had been raised by her advocate. A meeting was held between staff 1, a
> senior member of staff, staff 2, Ms.X’s key worker and me. I will list my
> concerns which arouse from this meeting below:
>
>
> • Lack of creativity in planning positive support
>
> Example: Ms.X is very conscious about her looks. She wears a wig, which looks
> worn out. Staff 2 said that the NHS will only pay for a wig every two years,
> that this wig is made of artificial hair and that such wigs start looking
> ‘messy’ after a few months. I asked why Ms.X did not get a real hair wig,
> which would look good for longer. Staff 2 said they are expensive and that
> the NHS only contributes £250. I suggested that Ms.X could pay towards her
> wig with money from her trust fund. Staff 2 had never thought of that. This
> is a realistic option. As Ms.X requires assistance in advocating for such
> things, I feel it is the key worker’s responsibility to think of creative
> solutions to such vital issues (wearing a wig that looks messy and
> artificial) in a women’s life.
>
> Example: Both my service users who reside at [residential home], Ms.X and
> Mr.Y, are not enabled by [residential home] staffs to participate in
> community based activities, such as College courses for adults, clubs of
> interest, bowling, shopping etc. The activities they attend are institutional
> (namely the local Adult Training Centre and one evening at … Club, where a
> large group of people with learning disabilities meet) or if they are
> supported in the community (e.g. on holidays) this happens in large groups of
> disabled people, which is clearly not in line with Valuing People. Luckily
> both individuals receive family support, but this is used by [residential
> home] staffs as an excuse for inaction: e.g. “Ms.X is so busy on the weekends
> with her [family], we do not need to provide her with alternative evening
> activities during the week.”
>
> • No involvement of person with learning disabilities in decision-making
>
> Example: Staff 2 buys Ms.X’s clothes for her. Ms.X tends not to be present.
> Ms.X loves shopping and keeps asking [her advocate] and me to take her
> shopping. I find it unacceptable that her clothes are bought for her.
>
> • Little quality time is spend with service users
>
> Example: I challenged staff 2 about not taking Ms.X shopping. I was explained
> that there are not enough members of staff to spend such 1:1 time. This makes
> little sense, as staff 2, when shopping, is away from [residential home] and
> her usual responsibilities. Why not take Ms.X with her?
>
> Example: Ms.X is very affectionate and wants to have a lot of 1:1 attention.
> I asked why she hardly gets any. Staff 1 and staff 2 explained to me that,
> once Ms.X gets attention, she wants more attention and when others see her
> having attention, they will want attention too. It would become an
> “uncontrollable problem”.
>
> • Dehumanization
>
> Example: How can an individual asking for attention become a “problem”?
> Attention and affection are basic human needs. I suspect that individuals
> residing at [residential home] are so used of being deprived of attention
> from [residential home] staff that they would not even acknowledge they have
> this need. If seeing someone else receiving such affection reminds
> [residential home] residents of their own needs, this is not a “problem”, but
> an opportunity.
>
> Example: Staff 1 and staff 2 kept using the concepts “us” and “them” when
> differentiating themselves from their service users. Disabled people are not
> aliens! I find this very offensive!
> The denial of disabled people’s personhood is a form of social exclusion and
> it is disgusting that [residential home] residents experience such treatment
> in their own home.
>
> • Lack of support to enable individuals to make informed choices
>
> Example: Ms.X’s advocate had observed that Ms.X wears the same pair of shoes
> on most days. I asked staff 2 why that is. She replied that Ms.X possesses
> more than one pair of shoes, but chooses to wear the same pair most days.
> ([Duty worker] at CSCI cynically suggested that this might be the only pair
> that fits since Ms.X does not go shopping for her own clothes.) Staff 1 and
> staff 2 stipulated that CSCI had told [residential home] that “THEY” (meaning
> people with learning disabilities) should be left to their own decisions.
>
> I am sure that this was never said in this way. First of all: How ironic that
> the word “choice” pops up when referring to Ms.X’s wardrobe, which is full of
> clothes which she has not chosen. But most importantly: Good practice means
> to enable individuals with learning disabilities to make informed choices. So
> if Ms.X picks her black shoes again, fine, her choice, but a member of staff
> could now suggest: “These are starting to look worn out. Why don’t you put on
> the brown ones?” Ms.X would now either say: “Because they don’t fit.” And at
> this point it could be decided to buy some new shoes that do fit. Or Ms.X
> would agree that the black shoes look worn and change or she could say that
> she really likes this pair and does not want to wear another one. In either
> way, Ms.X would have made an informed decision, but this requires sensitive
> staff involvement, which does not seem to be available at times.
>
> • Not taking the individual serious
>
> Example: Ms.X has been talking about wanting to leave [residential home] for
> years. This is explained to me as “just the way Ms.X is”, the implicit
> message being that she does not know what she is talking about.
>
> […]
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> ________________End of message______________________
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
> administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
> Archives and tools are located at:
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
--
Dr Dan Goodley
Reader in Disability Studies
Co-director of Centre of Applied Disability Studies
University of Sheffield
School of Education
388 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2JA
Tel: +44 (0)114 222 8125
Fax: +44 (0)114 279 6236
http://www.shef.ac.uk/applieddisabilitystudies/
Research project links:
Parents, Professionals and Disabled Babies: Identifying
Enabling Care
http://www.shef.ac.uk/inclusive-education/disabledbabies/
Jobs not Charity
http://www.shef.ac.uk/jobsnotcharity
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|