The Government is drawing up plans that will force care homes to allow visitors for residents. This measure is being proposed because, even though Covid visiting restrictions in England’s care homes ended on 7th July 2022, some care homes are still not allowing visitors, according to the campaign group, Rights for Residents.
The darkest days of the pandemic are thankfully behind us but the frustration, anxiety and grief felt by family members unable to visit a terminally ill loved one cannot be underestimated. To think this is still going on is outrageous and surely CQC should have a role to play here. The Care Quality Commission can take regulatory action where there are concerns that safe and proportionate visiting is not being facilitated. So, why have regulators not taken more decisive action on this matter over the past three years?
Visiting is an integral part of care home life. It is vitally important for maintaining the health, wellbeing, and quality of life of residents. Visiting is also crucial for family and friends to maintain contact and life-long relationships with their loved ones, and to contribute to their support and care.
I would go further and suggest it is a fundamental human right to pursue a good life and be loved. A zoom call offers little love for a person with dementia but the warm embrace of a loved one is uplifting and positively impacts the individual’s well-being. Restrictive practice without justifiable cause breaches the rights of people.
Of course, the next of kin could take decisive action themselves by simply moving their loved one to a provider who has less restrictive practices, however, the answer is often more complicated. Are there any places within local care homes? Can those care homes meet the needs of the individual? Is the price comparable and affordable and does the home have a good or outstanding rating backed up by an excellent reputation? People may also believe that the situation at the current home could change so they tolerate the current visitation restrictions.
The Care minister, Helen Whateley said: “Care homes will be forced to allow visitors under plans being drawn up by the government.”
But do we really need to legislate and would it be enforceable during future pandemics? It’s a bit like legislating for 24-hour visiting, which is obviously impractical but at least that could be accomplished, safely. What if a new virus, more deadly than ever before, spread rapidly, would we be obliged to allow visitors? Of course, we wouldn’t, the guidance from the Department of Health would surely be to lockdown tighter than ever before. During such a pandemic, the provider may be deemed negligent if they do not implement measures that are highlighted in their risk assessments and fail to protect people from harm. We have a duty of care for all those within our care, visitors, and employees. Restrictions and lockdown would probably be the only solution, so any legislation would be superseded by the duty of care.
It is always a fine balance between protecting people and supporting people to live a full life free of restrictions. Hale Place breezed through the issue of restrictive visitation by ensuring all stakeholders were consulted, informed and included. Together, we agreed what measures we should implement to safeguard everyone, whilst at the same time ensuring vital connections with family and friends were maintained as safely as possible.
Nadra Ahmed, chair of the National Care Association stated on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
“We’re trying to do the very, very best that we can and to be vilified in this way when we’re trying our very best. The government needs to be concentrating … on funding the sector properly so that we can do everything we possibly can’.
“I would always start from the point that the wellbeing of every individual in our care service that we support is enhanced by a visit, and pre-Covid, that is what happened. We had open visiting. It is a consequence of Covid that we have to go with the guidance that we do.”
Nadra misses the point that some care providers remain closed, even though restrictions were lifted months ago and that the DHSC guidance clearly states that residents in care homes should be able to have at least one visitor in all situations. Furthermore, all providers should already have had their own policies and procedures in place before the pandemic, which ought to have included the possibility of visiting restrictions. Hale Place Care Solutions did, we implemented our own strategies and were well prepared long before government issued guidance to our sector. As a consequence, we never ran out of PPE or any other supplies, we planned for alternative safe visiting pods/rooms, consulted and communicated over 10 times with relatives, agreed infection control measures and remained open to visitors for the majority of the pandemic.
Good providers need timely, accurate information concerning any new virus so we can implement our own control measures to safeguard people and regulators should take decisive action against providers who are overzealous and supress the rights of individuals, unnecessarily.
