Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4
So, Wednesday night (Nov. 24th) we all went out to Franny's to discuss topics of conversation for the meeting the next day, the majority of the questions came from the last meeting and the minutes we were sent from it.
The topics were as follows:
- 1. Why were we told two weeks, then six weeks and why did it end up being eight weeks -- something that wasn't noted in the minutes, which only said six weeks.
- 2. We were told that she would only be released if carers were put in place, if we didn't agree to that then things would be made "official" - What does/did that mean?
- 3. Discrepancies between what was said at the meeting and what we know to be true. E.g., "Graham Cameron to organise carers - 2 in the mornings, to start Wednesday 27 October 2010." -- One carer started on the 3rd of November. and "Alison McPherson (Staff Nurse) reported there have been no problems with Jessie's skin folds or problems with her bowels." -- it was in the records for her stay that her skin had been red. Which may not have been any more than normal, but that's not what the record in the minutes implies.
- 4. Gaye Morrison. Why was she there and why wasn't she introduced (or at the very least, why weren't we made aware that she'd be there before the meeting).
Graham started the meeting by having us state who we were again. This time, Barbara was there, from Abbeyvale Day Centre and when we were done introducing ourselves, it was Barbara who kicked things off with a run down of how my Granny had been getting on at Abbeyvale.
She didn't say anything that hadn't already been said to us in private and seemed generally positive about how things are going. The one thing she brought up was maybe creating a document of some sort to allow them to apply some 'force', if and when they need to clean her. Understandably she resists it, and they're caught between doing what needs to be done and accepting what she's saying, no matter what state of mind she's in. Basically, they want something to say that they can do their job without us coming in and being all "Why did you not let her leave the bathroom when she tried to?" or whatever. They're covering themselves, which is fine. Graham said he'd contact the care commission to see how they'd word it, or if they could write something up for us to sign.
It's definitely something that'll have to be read over very carefully before we agree to anything on it though.
After Barbara had finished her piece, James piped up with the questions we'd set out the night before. It look a long time to get a straight answer out of anyone, the questions having to be repeated again and again, until they, or rather he, because the questions were mainly directed at Graham, stopped with his politician non-answer-answers.
1. Why were we told two weeks, then six, then eight?
Graham denies we were ever told two weeks, "these things take at least eight weeks, there are some people who've been in there for five years!" -- That's not an answer, and the example isn't at all reassuring. Barbara suggested that if we weren't happy, we should have asked questions before, but at the time when we agreed to two weeks, we knew no better. You don't question something if you've been led to believe it's true. If were to ever happen again (and we wouldn't let it, without a fight) of course we'd be questioning these timeframes, but the damage is done now.
And even if the two weeks wasn't actually said (it was), the fact still remains that my mum agreed to it on that basis. To take a dementia patient out of her environment for any length of time is wrong, to take her out for eight weeks is just awful. Obviously she's on a constant downhill slope in terms of her condition, she's not going to magically get better at any point, but being away for two months, made her a lot worse.
2. We were told that she would only be released if carers were put in place, if we didn't agree to that then things would be made "official" - What does/did that mean?
This is the one he/they had most difficulty answering. His response, at first, "you agreed to the carers and that's why you were able to get her home the day of the last meeting", that's true, but the only reason we agreed to having them is because we were told that if we didn't agree, we wouldn't be getting her home.
He then said something about "I have to offer you carers, if I don't and the care commission see that I haven't, you have the right to come back and complain that you never had them and were never offered them." and that's fair enough, but that's not how things went down.
"The carers in the house weren't working, so we pulled them and care has been resumed by Fiona" -- Care was never given up by Fiona, she still was showering her in the morning, she didn't want the carers there in the first place. You were told, multiple times that care wouldn't work in the home, we'd had care in the home before and it didn't work out -- She had carers coming in to Whinnybank and it didn't work out there. Yet you still insisted that they be put in, again, to the home. Where, shocker, it didn't work.
"I've got to be seen to be doing what I think will support Fiona" -- Think -- It's all about what he thinks, not what he's being told, he's doing what he wants to do and not giving a shit about what anyone's actually telling him, as far as I can tell.
While he didn't explicitly deny it, he didn't apologise for his wording when essentially using blackmail to get his way. He did say, however, that he should "work on his communication skills", which considering he's a social worker... Isn't that pretty much their entire job?
3. Discrepancies between what was said at the meeting and what we know to be true.
This was something he couldn't seem to wrap his head around, the only real response given was that Katrina comes from a medical background and so has a certain way of writing, that might seem more... I can't remember the word he used, essentially 'professional' or something though -- which is crap, because that doesn't excuse blatent mistakes in official minutes.
However, Katrina wasn't there to defend herself, so that wasn't taken any further.
4. Gaye Morrison. Why was she there and why wasn't she introduced.
First of all, apparently it is Gaye, not Gayle. He actually took blame for not introducing her at the meeting, but claimed "I didn't know she was coming." -- Yet, during the meeting, you said "I didn't know if you'd make it or not." -- Those are two very different things, you clearly knew who she was and that there was the possibilty of her coming, so surely, at the start of the meeting, you say "Gaye Morrison is meant to be coming today, she isn't here yet, but if she comes in late, you'll know who she is." or something along those lines. Especially when it shows up in the minutes as her being an Adult Protection Co-Ordinator.
It was said by both him and Barbara that Adult Protection Co-Ordinators are present at all discharge meetings, so it wasn't anything to do with our particular case, just a matter of protocol. Which, again, if true is fine, but it doesn't change how things came across.
Something that James pointed out several times. You look at this from the outside - We were lied to, told two weeks, she was away for eight. We were threatened, saying that unless we agreed to carers, things would be "made official"/we wouldn't get her home. We get minutes in a few weeks after the meeting and the mysterious woman who appeared mid-way happens to be someone with the power to essentially take her out of the home, if they so choose. -- Yeah, that all looks fine. No problems there.
None of the meeting today explains what changed his mind between the Monday phone call, where he was essentially shouting down the phone at my mum telling her that they couldn't possibly take the carers out unless we moved meetings forward -- we'd agreed to two months! What were we thinking?!, to the Tuesday phone call saying that the care was removed effective immediately.
Had he taken our advice and finally read the case notes? -- Because I honestly don't believe that he'd read them before that point.
He ended the meeting saying that he didn't see the need for another "official review meeting" for twelve calender months.
What are the actual chances we don't hear from them again until October/November next year?
No comments:
Post a Comment