Winterbourne view free essay sample

Winterbourne view was private, residential hospital with 24 beds, for people with autism and learning disabilities. Some of whom display challenging behaviours. 73% had been admitted to the hospital under Mental Health Act powers. The hospital was essentially government funded with the average charge being ? 3500 per week per client. Forty-eight patients had been referred to Winterbourne View by 14 different English NHS commissioners, meaning that there was no one commissioner with a lead or strong relationship with the hospital. In addition to this out of 49 patients, over half were not from the local area, some as far as 140 miles away. The average length of stay at Winterbourne View was around 19 months but some patients had been there more than three years. There is little evidence of urgency in considering discharge and move-on plans for Winterbourne View patients. Culture: One of the most striking issues is the very high number of recorded physical interventions at Winterbourne View. We will write a custom essay sample on Winterbourne view or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The Serious Case Review notes that Castlebeck Care Ltd recorded a total of 558 physical interventions between 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, an average of over 1. 2 physical interventions per day. Winterbourne View patients attended NHS Accident and Emergency services on 78 occasions. Between January 2008 and May 2011 police were involved in 29 incidents concerning Winterbourne View patients. Between January 2008 and May 2011, 40 safeguarding alerts were made to South Gloucestershire Council but these were treated as separate incidents. 27 were allegations of staff to patient assaults. The Serious Case Review provides evidence of poor quality healthcare, with routine healthcare needs not being attended to – for instance there were widespread dental problems and most patients were plagued by constipation. Many patients were being given anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs without a consistent prescribing policy. Families and other visitors were not allowed access to the wards or individual patients’ bedrooms. This meant there was very little opportunity for outsiders to observe daily living in the hospital and enabled a closed and punitive culture to develop on the top floor of the hospital. Patients had limited access to advocacy and complaints were not dealt with. Staff failings For much of the period in which Winterbourne View operated, there was no Registered Manager. Approaches to staff recruitment and training did not demonstrate a strong focus on quality. There is little evidence of staff training in anything other than in restraint practices. Although structurally a learning disability nurse-led organisation, it is clear that Winterbourne View had, by the time of filming by Panorama, become dominated to all intents and purposes by support workers rather than nurses. There was very high staff turnover and sickness absence among the staff employed at the hospital. Despite the high cost of places at Winterbourne View commissioners do not seem to have focused much on quality, or on monitoring how the hospital was providing services in line with its registered purpose – ie. Assessing the needs of individuals and promoting their rehabilitation back home. The lack of any substantial evidence that people had meaningful activity to do in the day, the way in which access by outsiders to wards was restricted, reports of safeguarding alerts should have been followed up rigorously, but were not. BBC’s Panorama programme finally called an end to the abuse at Winterbourne View, with an expose on the care home after a reporter gained access posing as a support worker. The programme set up undercover filming after it was approached by former nurse Terry Bryan, who had followed the whistle blowing procedure whilst working at the hospital, but was ignored by management. Eleven care workers were sentenced after admitting 38 charges of neglect and abuse. Six were jailed for between two years and six months, while the others received suspended sentences.

Societys Restraint To Social Reform Essays - Welfare Reform

Societys Restraint to Social Reform Of the many chatted words in the social reform vocabulary of Canadians today, the term workfare seems to stimulate much debate and emotion. Along with the notions of self-sufficiency, employability enhancement, and work disincentives, it is the concept of workfare that causes the most tension between it's government and business supporters and it's anti-poverty and social justice critics. In actuality, workfare is a contraction of the concept of "working for welfare" which basically refers to the requirement that recipients perform unpaid work as a condition of receiving social assistance. Recent debates on the subject of welfare are far from unique. They are all simply contemporary attempts to decide if we live in a just society or not. This debate has been a major concern throughout history. Similarly, the provision of financial assistance to the able-bodied working-age poor has always been controversial. On one side are those who articulate the feelings and views of the poor, namely, the Permissive Position, who see them as victims of our society and deserving of community support. The problems of the poor range from personal (abandonment or death of the family income earner) to the social (racial prejudice in the job market) and economic (collapse in the market demand for their often limited skills due to an economic recession or shift in technology). The Permissive View reveals that all participants in society are deserving of the unconditional legal right to social security without any relation to the individual's behaviour. It is believed that any society which can afford to supply the basic needs of life to every individual of that society but does not, can be accused of imposing life-long deprivation or death to those needy individuals. The reason for the needy individual being in that situation, whether they are willing to work, or their actions while receiving support have almost no weight in their ability to acquire this welfare support. This view is presently not withheld in society, for if it was, the stereotype of the 'Typical Welfare Recipient' would be unheard of. On the other side, the Individualists believe that generous aid to the poor is a poisoned chalice that encourages the poor to pursue a life of poverty opposing their own long-term interests as well of those of society in general. Here, high values are placed on personal choice. Each participant in society is a responsible individual who is able to make his own decisions in order to manipulate the progression of his own life. In conjunction with this opinion, if you are given the freedom to make these decisions, then surely you must accept the consequences of those decisions. An individual must also work part of his time for others (by means of government taxing on earned income). Those in society who support potential welfare recipients do not give out of charity, but contrastingly are forced to do it when told by the Government. Each person in society contains ownership of their own body and labour. Therefore anything earned by this body and labour in our Free Market System is deserved entirely by that individual. Any means of deducting from these earnings to support others is equivalent to criminal activity. Potential welfare recipients should only be supported by voluntary funding. For this side, welfare ultimately endangers society by weakening two of it's moral foundations: that able-bodied adults should be engaged in some combination of working, learning and child rearing; and secondly, that both parents should assume all applicable responsibilities of raising their children.(5) In combination of the two previous views, the Puritan View basically involves the idea that within a society which has the ability to sufficiently support all of it's individuals, all participants in the society should have the legal right to Government supplied welfare benefits. However, the individual's initiative to work is held strongly to this right. Potential welfare recipients are classified as a responsibility of the Government. The resources required to support the needy are taken by means of taxation from the earnings of the working public. This generates an obligation to work. Hence, if an individual does not make the sacrifice of his time and energy to contribute their earnings to this fund, they