Posted: September 18th, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Monday, September 18, 2006 – Orginal Source
D&G Council Press release 5th Sept 2006
Notes for editors This is what was read out as the Chief Executive Philip Jones’ proposal and signed by all concerned last night.
Those present included Council, Jeff Ace, Deputy Chief Executive with NHS D&G, Council Convener Tommy Sloan; Chair of Education and Community Services, Willie Scobie; Councillor, and Chair of Adult Services Sub Committee, Jim Dempster; Councillor for Castle Douglas Urr, Andrew Campbell; MSP Alex Fergusson, MP Alasdair Morgan and MP Russell Brown.
DUNMUIR PARK – THE WAY FORWARD – 4 SEPTEMBER 2006
The Council and NHS Dumfries and Galloway in conjunction with the residents and the Friends of Dunmuir Park will commission a mutually agreed independent expert with the remit to undertake a review of previous decisions regarding Dunmuir Park, and to establish the best and most appropriate complete model of care, in the most appropriate setting, to meet the needs of current and potential future residents of Dunmuir Park and to report back to the Council and NHS Dumfries and Galloway incorporating the views of the residents and friends of Dunmuir Park.
In the meantime it will be recommended to the Council that previous decisions regarding the future of Dunmuir Park be rescinded pending the outcome of the review.
Issued by: Communications Unit on 01387 260331 or fax 01387 260334
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: September 5th, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Tuesday, September 05, 2006 – Orginal Source
The families of all the present and future service users of the highly successful model of care in the Castle Douglas community known as ‘Dunmuir Park’ are pleased to report on the very positive meeting held last night in the Town Hall. Chaired by the Council Chief Executive Phil Jones and supported by the Deputy Chief Executive of NHS Dumfries and Galloway Jeff Ace, the meeting agreed a way forward that secures the best interests of those that matter, the service users themselves, several being at the meeting.
No one underestimates the huge task now facing us all to take forward and develop over the next 26 years all that pioneering and innovative work of the highly committed Dunmuir Park care staff and the local Castle Douglas community since 1980. But agreement to end the highly damaging uncertainty by rescinding the closure decision is welcomed. As is the full review and study that will then be carried out by a wholly independent and leading expert in the learning disability field who will work together with all concerned, including the families and service users but without any pressure. This will result in an agreed report that elected Members will be able to consider in the future. It was said at the meeting that this represented a tremendous opportunity for Dumfries & Galloway to continue to offer to others a lead in this crucial area of care in the community, which is a big challenge for our society.
The families also wish to thank and pay tribute to the other officers and elected Members at the meeting, together with our local MP and MSPs, all of whom contributed very helpfully and positively to the meeting and its outcome in a wholly non partisan and non political way. This clearly demonstrated the concern of all present that it was the welfare, well being and wishes of the most vulnerable among us that is paramount and that we must get that right for their sake. We all now look forward to taking matters forward and realising the future they deserve.
This is a statement by the DPPG but we believe it will be shared by all present.
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: August 14th, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News | Tags: Background notes, Benyelleray, determinants, dishonest, DPPG, Dr Canpbell, Dunmuir Park, false briefings, Formal complaint, highly negative, individual tenancy, Judith Proctor, Kirsty Macpherson, outcomes, Prof Chris Hatton, Prof David Felce, Prof Eric Emerson, residential, shared living, Wilful abuse of research
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
On Friday 28th July 2006 the following formal complaint was submitted to both D&G Council and NHS D&G. It was also copied and submitted to the Health Minister Mr Andy Kerr MSP on 31/7 /06 for the Scottish Executive.
This was all repeated a week ago when a reply was then chased. Still nothing has been received. Not even the elementary courtesy of an acknowledgement, as required by the ‘transparent’ complaints process.
So we are sending a third copy and chasing yet again for the second time more than 2+ weeks later, because we can only conclude that we are being ignored and that presumably this is deliberate? Are the three public organisations concerned at all about the way in which such misleading and false research ‘findings’ have been published and used to inform policy for vulnerable adults and used in briefings to justify such policies to the BBC and other media?
To date and outwith the ‘5 day’ stated period for acknowledgement there has been no reply and no indication this complaint is being taken seriously and actioned in any way whatsoever. Please could this be explained and action taken immediately according to the written complaints policies with a proper and full independent investigation. Can we look forward to any form of reply please confirming the action now being taken and why we have not to date received any form of response? DDPG
The following complaint was submitted Friday 28th July 2006:
This is a formal complaint: to: D&G Council; NHS D&G and The Scottish Executive about what seems to be either the negligently incompetent or the wilful abuse of academic research ‘evidence’ or both, in a very important public policy area directly affecting vulnerable adults. Whatever the reason or cause the (un)intended effect is to mislead elected MSPs, MPs, Council Members, other managers, the media and the concerned families about comparisons between models of residential care for the learning disabled. It would appear this is highly likely to wrongly influence Scottish Executive and Council policy decisions in general and in particular a fallacious attempt to justify local action regarding the D&G Council + NHS D&G determination to close Dunmuir Park.
When raising questions about Dunmuir Park during 2004 – 2006 at LDMG meetings and in written responses, including to the media and no doubt in other various ‘briefings’ for Members and other managers not yet disclosed to us, it is evident that all of us are/were either being incompetently mislead by those not qualified to understand or interpret or report upon complex academic research, therefore exceeding their professional capabilities, or those concerned have been selectively and wrongly misquoting particular ‘research evidence’ in order to support decisions taken for other reasons; all whilst holding out to be experts in this area. Either way the ‘expert professionals’ have apparently not provided a properly balanced and suitably qualified representation of the available ‘evidence’. What they have stated and reported is highly biased, partial and plainly wrong. Yet we amateurs can apparently easily and quickly obtain the true facts in a few hours! Why are the Officers concerned not achieving in a proper, timely and efficient manner that which they are employed and paid to do?
Given that elected D&G Council Members repeatedly state that they place great trust and reliance upon what ‘the professionals’ say and advise, do you agree this is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs and will this be fully and independently investigated please? At the very least it would appear that very complex research, requiring a proper understanding of multivariate research methodology and demanding statistical techniques, is being falsely quoted and cited in a very simplistic way by those wholly unqualified to do so. This whilst both in post at D&G Council and also now at the Scottish Executive. Do you agree that this should cease forthwith and corrections be issued together with public apologies to those academics who have been totally misquoted and their research misrepresented by the Scottish Executive, D&G Council and NHS D&G employees.
As one example we have responses to the questions raised by the BBC prepared by Judith Proctor and submitted to BBC Radio Scotland in late May 2006. In part of the answer to the question: What are the benefits of putting service users in to single tenancies? Ms Proctor wrote: There are numerous, robust academic studies that show that people with a learning disability who move from residential and institutional settings have a better quality of life when they move to their own tenancy. Details of the “numerous robust studies” were requested but never supplied or properly referenced. However, what we now have released under FoI is a “Dunmuir park – Background Note for Rosemary Flexney” dated 6th April 2006 written by Ms Kirsty MacPherson, now we understand working for the Scottish Executive. This is a 4pp briefing, presumably written at the request of the D&G Council Head of Adult Services to inform D&G Council actions in this area? We presume that Ms Proctor drew upon this ‘Background Note’ or similar advice in her reply to the BBC? But if not then perhaps full details of all the ‘numerous studies’ shall be provided immediately by return, along with the formal qualifications of all those officers concerned to evidence their expertise, experience and competence to interpret such complex research?
As part of this formal complaint we also wish to report there are a number of other material and misleading inaccuracies in this ‘Background Note’. Also to ask why someone working at the Scottish Executive for more than a year is still involved in advising or briefing on this matter at all, without this being fully open, transparent and disclosed to all involved? What other possibly misleading ‘Background Notes’ or other briefings are in existence?
What Ms Macpherson states about “Extensive research …” is fully reproduced in Prof Emerson’s reply below, received within 1 hour of our email to the four cited academics. That’s the priority he attached to our enquiry. Within 2 hours Prof Felce replied in detail as well, whilst Dr Campbell a short while later agreed with what Profs Emmerson, Felce & Hatton had already said. All repudiate and heavily qualify what Ms Macpherson advised with such authority.
Moreover the Felce & Perry draft chapter now following is very helpful indeed and all should read their conclusions reproduced here with acknowledgement. We now invite all those who were not prepared to listen to the families and FDP to reflect on how this actually bears out and supports all that we have been saying and repeating since 2001 about DP, and why it may not automatically be compared to Benyellary or indeed anywhere else. But consider also how the highly successful ‘operational culture’ of DP is now being seriously undermined and damaged by the ongoing ill advised, ill informed and wrong headed management actions of this year, seemingly yet another part of the determination to destroy that which has worked so well for so long.
If the available research had been properly read and considered, as it should have been, if there had been the requested consultation before the ASSC closure decision, as there should have been and if subsequently there had been some humility and recognition that just perhaps mistakes had been made, then none of the highly negative consequences for all concerned would have happened. All because Officers and many Members simply would not listen or find out the facts. Here is what one of the cited researchers actually says in summary:
Conclusions (Felce & Perry draft chapter per email 27/7/06 at 14:38)
The environmental determinants of outcome are incompletely understood. There is little evidence in relation to some areas (e.g., health, safety, income, skill development, and emotional or civic wellbeing) and, even where evidence does exist, it is not consistent. Moreover, even though the studies selected have merit in relation to isolating links between environmental arrangements and outcome, they are not without their methodological limitations. One general criticism would be that the selection of independent variables considered as potentially influencing outcome varies between studies. Those considered by any one study cannot be regarded as comprehensive, given this variability. This gives rise to the problem in comparative studies of different service models that setting differences described may be confounded with those that have not been described (actually confounding of variables exists to some extent even among those for which information is available, such as between service model and size of setting in both Howe et al., 1998 and Stancliffe & Keane, 2000).
In multivariate research, whether a variable remains in a predictive model depends on which other variables have been considered. For example, in one of our own studies of the influences on staff activity in community group homes (Felce, Lowe & Jones, 2002b), the final regression model for predicting resident receipt of attention changed after the data were reanalyzed following a referee’s suggestion that range in resident adaptive behavior should be included as an independent variable. Some of the variability in findings across studies documented above inevitably arises from the fact that investigators have considered different sets of potential environmental influences.
In this regard, it is, therefore, important that more attention is given to reaching an international consensus about the important variables to be described when doing research on residential support arrangements, so that relationships between environmental characteristics and outcome can be identified with greater confidence. It is understandable that evaluation in such a policy-related area as this should have highlighted administrative distinctions or variables commonly thought to be important. However, research in the post-deinstitutionalization era needs to become more sophisticated. The issue of the integrity of the independent variable is as important to this research endeavor as it is to intervention or treatment research. A more consistent approach to analyzing setting characteristics is required for further progress to be made.
Before summarizing existing knowledge, it is important to emphasize that the concern here was to address the determinants of outcome within community residential support arrangements, and not revisit the institution-community divide. The range of certain environmental variables is constrained by this focus. For example, in a particular study, the sizes of settings investigated might only vary between one and five. The fact that variation within this range might not be found to have a significant influence on outcome should not be interpreted as suggesting that greater size differences would be equally insignificant. So with due caution in mind, one can make the following broad conclusions from the existing literature about the features of community residential support arrangements important to outcome:
- While some studies found that certain outcomes were associated with setting size, its absence of influence in others suggests that it is not such a strong influence on quality of life as it is commonly regarded to be. Its strongest link appears to be with home-likeness and choice.
- Home-likeness and physical integration are desirable properties. Achieving these is likely to constrain setting size to groupings which can be accommodated within architecturally typical normatively located homes.
- Little is known about the characteristics of community neighborhoods, if any, which influence community acceptance and integration.
- Resource inputs (e.g., staff-to-resident ratios), while considered as potentially influential variables in many of the studies, were rarely found to be significant. The fact that improved outcome in a minority of studies was linked to both greater and less intensive staffing reinforces the conclusion that staff presence needs to be closely matched to the support needs of residents, and not seen as necessarily linked to quality of life. Those studies which considered the extent to which staff possessed formal qualifications as an influence on outcome either found no effect or a negative effect.
- The ‘operational culture’ of the setting has a significant influence on outcome, whether this is reflected in the orientation embraced by ‘supported living’, staff attitudes towards inclusion, social climate or individualization of approach, the focus and degree of organization of planning and other working methods, or the level of staff-resident interaction. Further research is required to identify desirable social and operational processes more precisely. A greater emphasis probably needs to be given by service providers to these aspects of support arrangements.
Support arrangements can have mixed beneficial and adverse effects. For example in the Emerson and Robertson set of studies, living in a supported living scheme (holding a tenancy) predicted greater choice and having a poorer diet. It is important to recognize that outcomes associated with a particular service model may not be universally superior to those associated with an alternative. Two implications follow. One is that providers may need to make particular efforts to set an organizational culture which compensates for a tendency towards poor outcome. In relation to the example above, effective encouragement of healthy living may need to be developed in situation where people have greater personal control. Second, consumer choice is important to match preferred lifestyle to the outcomes which alternative residential arrangements support. People differ in the quality of life that they want. Better information on the outcomes associated with particular support arrangements will help individuals to make more informed choices based on how they want to live.
On reading this from highly qualified research academics, note how very very misleadingly the research studies are quoted below by Ms Macpherson, perhaps all those Officers and Members concerned with decisions about Dunmuir Park might care to reflect with some degree of belated humility on what all the families and the friends of Dunmuir Park have been consistently saying and writing for the past six or more years?
From: Emerson, Eric [mailto:eric.emerson@lancaster.ac.uk]
Sent: 27 July 2006 13:37
To: chris@greensnet.freeserve.co.uk; Hatton, Chris; mc1@st-andrews.ac.uk; Prof David Felce
Cc: Isabel Millar; Liz Craigmyle; Heather & Willie Bell; Prof C Cullen@keele.ac.uk; Clare Corrigan; Heather McKie; Ann Wilson; Scobie, William; Thomas Sloan; Mary Smith; Alasdair.Morgan.msp@scottish.parliament.uk; Alex Fergusson MSP; russell@brownmp.new.labour.org.uk
Subject: RE: Possible (ab)use of research findings when a Council seeks to justify and implement local policies
Dear Mr/Mrs Green
Thank you for your enquiry. It is, indeed, always interesting to see the ways in which evidence is ‘used’ in the context of health and social care policy.
To briefly respond to some of the points you raise.
- We share your concern regarding the unequivocal nature of the conclusions drawn from the research that has been undertaken in this area. We never have, and never would, make such sweeping and absolute statements based on our research or the research undertaken by others.
- The ‘research’ the authors of this note appear to be referring to is not a single study, but an extensive body of research undertaken by a range of research groups over a period of decades. We have recently summarised the international research in this area for the National Disability Authority in Ireland (http://www.nda.ie/) who will be publishing our report later this year. We are not at liberty to provide you with an advance a copy of this work as it is the property of the NDA. We would, however, encourage you to contact them to clarify when it will be publicly available. This report addresses many of your questions regarding design and measurement. You may also wish to look at a review available at http://www.bris.ac.uk/depts/NorahFry/Strategy/papers.htm
- We are not aware of any research that has systematically evaluated the comparative costs and benefits of single versus shared tenancies.
We hope this brief response will be of help.
Yours sincerely
Eric Emerson & Chris Hatton
From: chris@greensnet.freeserve.co.uk [mailto:chris@greensnet.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 27 July 2006 12:37
To: Hatton, Chris; Emerson, Eric; mc1@st-andrews.ac.uk; Prof David Felce
Cc: Isabel Millar; Liz Craigmyle; Heather & Willie Bell; Prof C Cullen@keele.ac.uk; Clare Corrigan; Heather McKie; Ann Wilson; Scobie, William; Thomas Sloan; Mary Smith; Alasdair.Morgan.msp@scottish.parliament.uk; Alex Fergusson MSP; russell@brownmp.new.labour.org.uk
Subject: Possible (ab)use of research findings when a Council seeks to justify and implement local policies
Dear Dr Campbell; Prof Emerson; Prof Felce and Prof Hatton
This message is from: Chris & Janet Green and other families.
In Dumfries and Galloway a number of families with relatives with a wide range of ‘learning disabilities’ are trying to make sense of a local policy that is leading and encouraging both Officers and elected Members into a seemingly implacable determination to impose or force all individuals with learning disabilities into individual single tenancies, irrespective of their wishes or particular needs. That is to be placed into small basic flats, even in situations where 24 hour care is required sometimes needing 2 carers at a time. In order to justify this policy we now find your research is specifically cited and being used as a justification in internal briefing notes for a ‘one size fits all’ policy. For example, released under FoI we have a ‘background’ or guidance note written and issued 6/4/2006 to D&G Council Officers by someone previously employed by D&G / NHS D&G, but now working for the Scottish Executive. This note, which we copy directly, unequivocally states that:
Extensive research undertaken by Professor Eric Emerson and Chris Hatton (Lancaster University), David Felce (University of Wales) and by Martin Campbell (St Andrews University) has provided an evidence base that:
1. Conclusively shows that there are no instances where it is better for someone with a learning disability to be cared for in a long-stay residential or hospital setting – no matter how profoundly disabled that person is or how challenging their behaviour (even if in the community setting they do not appear to be very included in the local community).
2. Outcomes are most positive where people with a learning disability are housed in a single tenancy (our emphasis). Even shared tenancies do not produce such strong outcomes
3. Having more staff on duty bears no relation to the quality of care or interaction with the individuals (the opposite tends to be true as staff will relate to each other, rather than the tenants, if there is more than one on duty).
4. The key factor in ensuring social inclusion is choice – and choice comes through money. Having access to benefits is actually what allows people to be socially included. Residents in care homes cannot access anything like the full range of benefits, tenants can. 6 April 2006
Unfortunately and rather unprofessionally your research is not cited with any proper references, so we are not able to source it. Yet you are all quoted directly and without any qualification. However, our experience of such social science research methodology causes us great concern and to question whether, and if so how, such all embracing firm unequivocal conclusions can be stated as true in all cases, with no caveats? We have looked at other recent meta studies as published on the www but cannot find such absolute conclusions anywhere else. However, the families do not profess to be academic experts, many simply living and caring 24/7, year in and year out.
Nor do we understand what the “outcomes” are and how these have been objectively measured? What is the sample size of your research? What are the control samples? How is the apparent generalisation to all those with ‘learning disabilities’ justified, or is this a case of the research not being properly understood, interpreted and quoted by those who are not actually fully qualified to do so? Is the research referred to above a single collective and collaborative work or is it an amalgam of various studies and if so from what date and what populations? In Castle Douglas we are not considering a large hospital setting, yet often this is confusingly implied. Is your research in fact based upon large hospitals and their closure, rather than small homely shared settings, which are highly integrated within a small local and rural community and have been for more than 25 years? Has your research examined the outcomes in such locations and if so where? We really do need your assistance in clarifying all these points and no doubt many others that will occur to you as research experts.
One particular contradiction and question is, given what is claimed above, why did Enable Scotland find it necessary to establish EnableLink a few years ago, stating that their research had identified loneliness and social isolation & exclusion amongst those with learning disabilities living alone. Hence their perceived need to set up ‘befriending arrangements’ to promote ‘inclusion’. Not only does this support what families see and experience first hand ‘on the ground’, but is in line with the preferences to share and live with friends in small groups, which are freely expressed by individuals with learning disabilities. Yet their voice is being ignored, because it seems of the power of your quoted research and the ideological perspectives it is being used to support. Do you agree this is an appropriate and a proper use of your research, which seems to be saying that small care homes and supported shared small group living arrangements in a homely setting should all be closed down forthwith in favour of being, “housed in a single tenancy”?
We note that the Scottish statistics (SCLD) suggest that c25% of those with learning disabilities presently live alone, implying that ~75% do not. If the research conclusion cited above is actually correct and is applied to the 75% then, as a matter of public policy, where will we find the necessary number of carers, given that we have problems of recruiting and retaining enough today?
We are very concerned because such positive and assertive statements from “the professionals” strongly influence lay persons, like elected councillors, into agreeing and ‘rubber stamping’ policy and operational recommendations from Officers, who may have quite another agenda. Councillors have said to us on many occasions, “we have to guided by the professionals” when asked to justify their decision. Also we are concerned at the ideological and economic perspectives that might underlie policies determined by such officers, who perhaps may not really understand your research but are more than content to cite it in such a positive way to stand up what they say. Indeed you will perhaps agree that it is very difficult for even research or work in the social science area to be completely ‘objective’ and not informed, however subtly by any number of prior influences. Certainly it appears that your research is being cited by those who appear to hold a very particular ideological perspective that is seemingly closed to the possibility there might just be some equally valid alternatives.
We appreciate that you are very busy, but this is a matter of public policy, which you are influencing by your work, and it is directly and adversely affecting the lives of very vulnerable people. Hence we would very much welcome your individual comments on all of the above as soon as it is convenient for you to let us have a reply. Many thanks for your time.
CJ & J Green and for other involved families.
Note that Prof David Felse replied within 2 hours at 14:38 saying:
Dear Mr and Mrs Green
You are correct to think that the study of complex service arrangements, such as supported accommodation, will produce complex results. It is probably only in the area of comparing between traditional institutional provision and community-based provision where the evidence allows firm conclusion. I have numbered my comments 1-4 – to match the numbered list in your message.
- There are a considerable number of studies from the UK and other developed countries which have compared service models (e.g., traditional institutions and community group homes; village communities and community group homes, supported living and group homes). There are also a growing number of studies which have explored the possible determinants of outcomes within community services. Comparison studies compare outcomes for groups, testing for difference between means or medians. Therefore, these studies do not show that there are no instances where outcomes for an individual in long-stay residential or hospital setting was better than in supported community housing. Rather they provide strong evidence that a range of quality concerns (processes and outcomes) are generally better in community housing than traditional institutional settings. Based on a utilitarian argument of the greatest good for the greatest number, I do not think that the continued provision of traditional long-stay residential provision (e.g., hospital care) is justified by the balance of evidence. Further than that is difficult to go. We need to find out much more about the factors which affect quality in different community-based service models (I have attached a copy of a draft chapter a colleague and I have prepared for a US book which you might find at least illustrates the complexity of the research agenda and how much more needs to be done).
- The emphasis on a single tenancy is overstated. There is evidence to support the proposition that the number of people who are accommodated together has a negative impact on quality when ‘small’ settings are compared to ‘large’ (i.e., traditional residential provision and community group homes), but that simply repeats the conclusions of the comparative studies summarized in point 1 above. There is less strong evidence that group size has a strong, unequivocally positive, impact on process and outcome within the range spanned by typical community housing provision (e.g., 1-4). Within this range, group size has been found to be associated with outcomes in some studies and not in others. The strongest claim for a link is in relation to how like an ordinary home the setting is (homeliness), the breadth of people’s social networks and the degree of choice people exercise. However, I know of no study which has systematically compared living in a single tenancy to living in small groups (e.g., 2 or 3).
- There are now a considerable number of studies which have not found a direct link between resource input and quality of outcomes. However, the interpretation of this in point 3 in your message is cavalier. In fact, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that increased staff-to-resident ratios may be associated with residents receiving more attention from staff (although this has not always been found). However, higher staff-to-resident ratios apparently do not predict a range of quality of life outcomes and may even inhibit some (e.g., exercise of choice, independent activity, participation in household tasks). (The reasons for this are likely to involve an interplay of factors – I could amplify. I would not subscribe to the view that the reason is that staff relate more to each other if more than one is on duty, although one of our studies does show that the most productive staff-to-resident contact and resident activity outcomes are associated with times when a single member of staff is working separately from other staff with an individual or small group of residents – but this could be in different rooms, it does not necessarily imply only having one staff on duty. Overall, one would expect staff input to be related to the degree of disability or support needs of residents. In practice, there is considerable variation in this.)
- There is very little evidence about how to achieve social inclusion. Most studies emphasize the continuing relative social isolation of people with learning disabilities. Although the frequency with which people undertake community activities has been shown to be influenced by the nature of supported accommodation provided, this is not the case for breadth of social network or range and frequency of social engagements. I would not say that the key to social inclusion is choice or that choice only comes through money (there is some evidence that having more money available for discretionary spending is associated with exercising greater personal control). Holding a tenancy may influence access to benefits and thereby to disposable income. I am not a benefits expert and have not conducted research in this area.
This is another formal complaint that requires not only investigation but prompt action to correct the myths and misinformation promulgated by the experts. Also the other issues and questions we raise should be investigated and answered. Will this complaint be processed and dealt with according to the stated procedures, including action by the Scottish Executive from where apparently the misinformation emanates.
We all look forward to hearing shortly. CJ & Green – DPPG
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: July 18th, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
THIS EMAIL LETTER FROM ‘THE FRIENDS OF DUNMUIR PARK’ IS BEING SENT FOR THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND ACTION OF: MR J BURNS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NHS DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY and MR P JONES CHIEF EXECUTIVE DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY COUNCIL It follows the formal complaint of 30th June 2006
Because of the failure to act promptly, please will the Convener’s Office copy this second complaint letter to all 47 Members to identify to all Councillors of all parties the failure of the Council’s complaints procedure, which is not the publicly claimed “transparent check and balance” at all. Complaints are ignored and delayed until any response becomes meaningless and useless, thus denying any proper accountability or redress for wrong actions. We believe it is a disgrace and abuse of due process. Please confirm this has been actioned. Also we request that the Convener responds to the Friends to advise on behalf of all Members what he and all other Members across all parties intend to do about this and other examples of the failure of the complaints process in order to bring the Officers properly and promptly to account with redress. Or is it acceptable to all Members that proper and legitimate complaints are just ignored?
Will the NHS please copy to all Members of the Board to identify the failure of the NHS and Joint Futures to manage complaints properly and fairly. Please confirm this has been actioned.
From: The Chair Mr W Bell Friends of Dunmuir Park c/o ‘Sarona’ 6 The Terrace Gelston DG7 1SN Tel: 01556 502829
Attention of: : MR J BURNS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NHS DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY MR P JONES CHIEF EXECUTIVE DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY COUNCIL and the relevant responsible officers & managers
Date: 18th July 2006
Dear Sirs
IMMEDIATE RECALL AND SHREDDING OF LEARNING DISABILITY NEWSLETTER JULY 2006 PUBLISHED BY NHS D&G and D&G COUNCIL
FORMAL COMPLAINT
I write once again in my official capacity as Chair of The Friends of Dunmuir Park (FDP), being a Registered Charity for the past 26 years during which time more than £50,000 (Fifty Thousand pounds) has been raised by the local Castle Douglas community to directly benefit all residents of the highly successful and very highly regarded Dunmuir Park Care Home for vulnerable adults with learning disabilities.
I wrote to you with a formal complaint in my letter of 30th June, which has only been acknowledged, but not properly dealt with in any way. I requested certain immediate and urgent action about this joint D&G & NHS ‘newsletter’ published in June. Yet more than 2½ weeks later nothing has been done and clearly both organisations appear not prepared to do anything at all. This is an unreasonable breach of proper process and an abuse of power, given that both organisations deliberately published this document in their joint names. Moreover, we have now seen evidence under FoI of the extensive and multiple drafts of this document over many weeks clearly evidencing that it was not rushed and that proper prior consultation with us could and should have taken place at any time with us. Put simply there is no possible excuse, especially since we note that earlier proposed drafts, written without consultation, were even more outrageous in the misuse of our name and position in this matter. These ‘drafts’ were clearly later rejected but never advised to or discussed with us. Please will you confirm what on earth is going on during your ‘internal’ meetings, which when later seen under FoI have an air of complete unreality.
On behalf of the friends I write to record our extreme disappointment and anger that D&G Council and the NHS D&G should unilaterally decide not to carry out any of that requested action and have simply ignored what was said in my complaint. Given the urgent nature of my complaint and the Council’s improper use of the good name of the Friends in a very misleading way in this ‘newsletter’, without consulting us in any way beforehand, we consider this to be wholly unreasonable and unacceptable.
Despite our complaint, The Friends have received no formal apology or any form of explanation whatsoever. Given the sensitivity and context of this situation this makes a mockery of D&G Council’s and the NHS D&G formal complaints processes and procedures.
We look forward to hearing that you are publishing by way of an advertisement as well as any press release a full and detailed apology in both the Galloway News and Dumfries Standard this week adding further apologies for the delay and lack of any proper action to date. We also request that this matter be fully and independently investigated by those not involved and that you take appropriate disciplinary action and issue a substantive report with the next 7 days, including an explanation of the various drafts now released under FoI that include extensive and inappropriate references to FDP.
We also wish to point out that in our formal complaint letter we warned Officers about the possible ASSC situation saying, “Yet we understand in a recent internal “progress report” prepared for the ASSC there are further similar and significant misrepresentations that are likely to further mislead the Members concerned. Perhaps you should now circulate a draft and invite additions and corrections and so avoid a repeat of a further complaint like this?” Given the events of last week, perhaps Officers would consider how accurate and timely this comment and advice was; yet just like our complaint you have ignored it. Please will you comment and reply to this specific point in your substantive report. For if complaints were properly read and promptly actioned by Officers then other problems could be avoided, instead of matters being compounded by multiple failures. We do not believe Officers are taking complaints seriously at all and look forward to hearing urgently.
Yours faithfully. W Bell Chair Friends of Dunmuir Park
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: July 5th, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News | Tags: Alasdair Morgan MSP, Alex Fergusson MSP, BBC News, BBC Radio Interview, Black hole, consultation, false, hypocrisy, inhuman, Judith Proctor, lies, morally corrupt, participation, Willie Johnston
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
No action or even response to formal complaints from A Haswell, the responsible Officer. It’s just a black hole, nothing is ever done despite claims yeterday of a “transparent due process”. Email to Willie Johnston BBC to report latest failures
From: Chris Green [mailto:chris@greensnet.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 05 July 2006 08:00
To: Willie (dumfries@bbc.co.uk)
Cc: Isabel Millar (asmillar@lineone.net); Heather & Willie Bell (hbellrscds@aol.com); Alasdair.Morgan.msp@scottish.parliament.uk; Alex Fergusson MSP (alex.fergusson.msp@scottish.parliament.uk); lwatson@s-un.co.uk; russell@brownmp.new.labour.org.uk
Subject: Dunmuir Park The supposed ‘consultation meeting’ yesterday With at lest six people in tears we were treated with contempt once again
Dear Willie
You wanted feedback after this ‘meeting’ or ‘drop in’, which was the first time since the decision on Feb 2nd the senior managers concerned with driving through the decision were meeting the families to discuss the future of Dunmuir Park. No other round table family meeting is planned. So what Cllr Dempster told you last week and all of us on GMS was complete misinformation. Yesterday under FoI we got some more papers and attached is a copy of an email dated 05 June. You will see that that the two Committee Chairs Cllrs Scobie and Dempster “have no intention at the moment of revoking any previous decision with regard to closure”. Despite their denials and rewriting history this is not what they said to the public meeting, when “Options”, the new diversionary tactic, were not mentioned. It is now a political game but with our minds and loved ones as the casualties. We don’t have the “briefing paper” sent with the email and we don’t know why, so we have asked for it.
There were three tables in each corner of a large room. Rosemary Flexney, Judith Proctor & Phillip McAnn sat at each completely apart. There was only to be individual unrecorded ‘private’ discussion, nothing to be discussed in a group, so all could hear what was said. However individual matters relating to any particular person or service user were not allowed, so why the apparent ‘privacy’. It was so there could be no record. It was a black farce and a waste of time, which just added to the emotion, distrust, anger and upset. You can verify this with anyone who was there till 3pm or so, when we had to leave because the upset level and emotion was by then so high.
We believe and understand from what they said and told us that our MSPs Alex Fergusson & Alasdair Morgan formed the same opinion before they left after having a word with Ms Flexney. They could see and said it was a waste of time, but are they very concerned and will be meeting with all the families on 1st August. We will also be inviting Russell Brown and hope he can come too. This ‘meeting’ was worse than just pointless because, as Cllr Kathleen Davidson can tell you, for she was present till the families were forced to leave, she saw with great concern the family members break down in tears of frustration and anger and at least two having to leave before then because of the way we are being treated with such contempt they couldn’t take any more!
So, with at least six people in tears and two driven completely away, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Feb 2nd decision, after 5+months (coming on top of 5 years of uncertainty) it is a complete failure of any proper process when the considered actions of the most senior managers of a “caring” service can have this result, when purporting to ‘consult’ and conciliate after the event. It now seems as though it’s deliberately what they want to happen. For once again Ms Flexney completely ignored the effect she was having and carried on talking as though nothing was happening whilst people broke down. They just do not care what they are doing and the effect it is having, especially on 24 hr home carers who already have to cope with so much.
It’s not unfair to say this is inhuman and so unfeeling given the subject matter that it is a complete lack of regard for any decency and courtesy to a fellow human being. When talking later families feel they are being treated with contempt for daring to challenge and question the social work dept who clearly know best and intend to do what they want and keep doing the same thing. They have ignored all our formal complaints. Yesterday Ms Proctor told two respite users a completely different story about future respite that Ms Flexney, who contradicted her only 10 mins later, but at a different table. They can’t even tell us the truth. They act with hypocrisy, pretending to be concerned about our feelings, yet behave in such a way that can only cause major upset. They openly lie and deny things, like about the Newsletter (which they said they will not withdraw despite our complaints) until challenged with the facts and then they dissemble. Howe can they object when we say they are lying by their own admission. It seems they are incapable of telling the truth or admitting the truth or a mistake about simple things, yet then they pretend to wonder why we can’t trust them and pretend to be concerned about feelings. It is manifest hypocrisy, which just adds to the upset.
You, us and the nation were totally misled and our hopes cruelly raised by the comments of Cllr Dempster as broadcast Weds on GMS 28 June. This was no families conciliation meeting, it has just driven us further into depression. Someone will breakdown over this after the length of time it’s been going on. And we now assume that’s what they want. To wear us down and make us go away. We then go to Dunmuir Park to see Donald, and get a different story from the care workers who are being told a different version of what is happening at staff meetings. Who can we believe?
Please call: Isabel Millar; Jackie Mckie, Margaret Dodds; Willie Bell; John Love as well.
Where do we go. They still ignore and have not replied to formal complaints. What do we do? Chris & Janet Green DPPG;
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: July 3rd, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News | Tags: Alex Fergusson MSP, BBC reporter says "lying and maladministration", Good Morning Scotland
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Dear Alex You have seen the recent correspondence and that the SPSO has been contacted requesting a full investigation of all these D&G + NHS actions.
As you know there is a D&G + NHS meeting in the Community Centre Cotton Street Castle Douglas starting at 1pm tomorrow Tuesday 4th July. Alasdair Morgan intends to be there along with Cllr Kathleen Davidson, so far the only D&G Cllr to show any real concern for the vulnerable adults and their families. Russell Brown wanted to attend but is in London.
Please can you be there as well tomorrow?
Also, you may well ask as we do why there are no other Cllrs from across the D&G region showing any interest. We heard the national BBC Radio GMS coverage at 07:40 with a BBC reporter using words like “lying and maladministration” about the Council & NHS. This is because the BBC has the copious written evidence to stand this up, as soon will the SPSO. So why are no other Cllrs and group leaders not wanting to find out what’s going and why both the whole Council and NHS are being brought into disrepute?
This is now a major scandal of moral corruption and abuse of power. As of last night we have yet another document containing further lies and this is part of an interim briefing for ASSC Members. The next ASSC meeting scheduled for 13th July was cancelled, according to the D&G www diary. But it seems it is apparently now on again, with an interim report due based in good measure we understand on the misleading document we obtained yesterday. If you can come tomorrow we can give you a copy so you can see what it says. It was written by Heather Harscoet and signed by Judith Barry.
Look forward to hearing from you and seeing you.
DPPG (CJGreen as sec)
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: July 2nd, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
PUBLIC STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD:
WE APOLOGISE FOR THE ERROR AND MISSING WORD IN OUR EMAIL SENT YESTERDAY SAT 1/7/06 AT 16:30 WHICH COULD CAUSE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE SAID. IT’S NO EXCUSE BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE A FEW AMATEUR FAMILY CARERS FORCED TO USE WHAT SPARE TIME WE HAVE LEFT IN THE DAY TO TRY TO PROTECT OUR VULNERABLE RELATIVES BUT FACING THE CONCERTED FORCES OF POWERFUL PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATIONS WITH MASSIVE RESOURCES FUNDED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WHO ARE CLEARLY DETERMINED TO ACHIEVE BY WHATEVER MEANS THE CLOSURE OF DUNMUIR PARK, WHILST PUBLICLY SAYING TO THE CONTRARY.
IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE FDP LETTER DATED 30TH JUNE AND REPEATED BELOW THE WORD “PARK” IN THE TITLE AND NAME OF “THE FRIENDS OF DUNMUIR PARK”, AS USED WITHOUT PERMISSION AND AUTHORISATION IN THE 4pp NHS & D&G COUNCIL GLOSSY BROCHURE, WAS INADVERTENTLY MISSED OUT. WE WISH TO CORRECT THIS AS SHOWN BELOW. TAKE NOTE THAT SINCE THEN OTHER INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE COMPLAINTS ARE BEING MADE. THESE ARE ADDITIONAL TO THE REFERENCE ON FRIDAY 30TH JUNE TO THE SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN WITH A REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MORALLY CORRUPT SCANDAL THAT HAS BROUGHT BOTH NHS DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY & D&G COUNCIL INTO DISREPUTE.
A FURTHER PUBLIC MEETING IN AUGUST IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOW NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRESENT TO THE COMMUNITY AND ALL CONCERNED JUST WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND NOT HAPPENED SINCE THE APRIL MEETING. THIS INCLUDES THE FAILURE OF MEMBERS TO GO BACK AND RECONSIDER THE FEBRUARY DECISION WITHIN COMMITTEE AS THEY THEN PROMISED AND UNDERTOOK TO DO. THIS IS NOT ONLY RECALLED BY ALL PRESENT BUT REPORTED IN THE PRESS AT THE TIME. YET NOW IT IS BEING DENIED THIS WAS SAID TO THE PUBLIC AND SO WE HAVE THE PRESENT DEEPLY UPSETTING AND HEALTH DAMAGING CHARADE OF PSEUDO CONSULTATION AND “OPTIONS” INSTEAD
IN ADDITION TO KNOWINGLY FALSE CLAIMS, REQUIRING RECALL & SHREDDING OF THIS “NEWSLETTER”, IT ALSO CLEARLY STATES THE DUNMUIR PARK & MERRICK ROAD CHANGES ARE “DECIDED”. IS THIS CONSULTATION?? IT TALKS AT LENGTH ON PAGE ONE ABOUT HOSPITAL WARD CLOSURES, AS THOUGH AND IMPLYING THESE ARE ONE AND THE SAME. IT ALSO WRONGLY SAYS DUNMUIR PARK IS A “HOSTEL” WHEN IN FACT IT IS A REGISTERED CARE HOME FULLY COMPLYING WITH ALL CARE COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING & PHYSICAL FACILITIES. THE COUNCIL & NHS ARE HOWEVER IN BREACH OF LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO SET OUT THE RESIDENT’S AND RESPITE USERS RIGHTS AND HAVE BEEN FOR 10 MONTHS SINCE THE INSPECTION ON 25 AUGUST 2005.
THE “NEWSLETTER” IS IN FACT A PROSPECTUS FOR DECIDED CHANGES MASQUERADING AS ‘CONSULTATION’. JUST COMPARE THIS “NEWSLETTER” FIRST RECEIVED ON FRIDAY 30 JUNE TO THE PUBLIC CLAIMS MADE NATIONALLY ON BBC RADIO SCOTLAND ON WEDS 28TH JUNE ABOUT A ROUND TABLE MEETING WITH THE FAMILIES “NEXT WEEK” FOR CONCILIATION. NEXT DAY ON THURSDAY THIS WAS DENIED TO THE GALLOWAY NEWS WITH A FURTHER STATEMENT BY THE SAME SPOKESPERSON SAYING “NO DATE IS FIXED”. FRIDAY THE “NEWSLETTER” AND OTHER LEAFLETS ARRIVE WHICH HAVE CAUSED GRAVE AND DEEP UPSET TO MANY FAMILIES WHO FEEL THE TWO ORGANISATIONS ARE DELIBERATELY PLAYING POLITICS AND MIND GAMES WITH THE FAMILIES AND THERE VULNERABLE LOVED ONES. YET AS MANY SAY WITH THE CORRUPTION OF TRUST OF NOW ALL INVOLVED WE HAVE NO ONE TO TURN TO WHEREAS THE RESPONSIBLE OPERATIONS MANAGER AND PRESUMABLY AUTHOR OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTS AND LETTERS PUT THEM IN THE POST LAST WEDS WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT SHE IS NOW ON HOLIDAY FOR THREE WEEKS UNTIL 17TH JULY. IT’S OK FOR SOME BUT NOT THOSE AFFECTED WHO TRY THEIR BEST TO LIVE WITH THIS DAY BY DAY WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.
CORRECTED LETTER REFER TO ABOVE.
THIS EMAIL LETTER FROM ‘THE FRIENDS OF DUNMUIR PARK’ IS BEING SENT FOR THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND ACTION AT THE OPENING OF BUSINESS ON MONDAY 3rd JULY 2006 OF: MR J BURNS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NHS DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY and MR P JONES CHIEF EXECUTIVE DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY COUNCIL
Please will the Convener’s Office immediately copy this email to Mr Jones as his email address appears to have changed and we have not yet been provided with the new one as requested.
From: The Chair Mr W Bell Friends of Dunmuir Park c/o ‘Sarona’ 6 The Terrace Gelston DG7 1SN Tel: 01556 502829
Attention of: : MR J BURNS CHIEF EXECUTIVE NHS DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY
MR P JONES CHIEF EXECUTIVE DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY COUNCIL and the relevant responsible officers & managers
Date: 30th June 2006
Dear Sirs
IMMEDIATE RECALL AND SHREDDING OF LEARNING DISABILITY NEWSLETTER JULY 2006 PUBLISHED BY NHS D&G and D&G COUNCIL
FORMAL COMPLAINT
I write in my official capacity as Chair of The Friends of Dunmuir Park (FDP). As you know this is a legal entity being a Registered Charity for the past 26 years.
It has been brought to our attention today that the two organisations you are responsible for managing on behalf of the public have jointly published and circulated by post to an unknown number of people a 4pp ‘glossy brochure’ entitled: “LEARNING DISABILITY NEWSLETTER JULY 2006”. It appears to have no other reference. It purports to be “about changes to the services currently provided at Dunmuir Park”, yet is demonstrably very highly selective in what it says and records.
Pages 2 & 3 say: “The next section tells you about each of the Groups.” We note with very great concern and considerable anger that on page 3 you presume to make unauthorised reference to our charitable organisation under the heading of “How else can I be involved in this?”. You refer under bullet point 4 to “The Friends of Dunmuir Park group”.
Take note this highly public reference to FDP is in clear breach of our rights being entirely without our permission – hence it must be immediately withdrawn from circulation and destroyed. It was made without any enquiry to us beforehand whatsoever. Moreover the way this wholly unauthorised entry is worded and positioned is clearly and deliberately calculated to mislead and misrepresent to the general public of our role in this matter. Also it is apparently an implied endorsement of what is said in the Newsletter about the present and past actions of your organisations in respect of Dunmuir Park, presumably since 2001. Nothing could be further from the truth as your managers responsible for this well know and fully understand.
In view of these breaches of our rights we demand that by the close of business today Monday 3rd July you ensure the following actions are carried out:
The immediate recall of all copies of this “Newsletter” by phone and prepaid post.
That they are shredded along with any other copies still ‘in stock’ for distribution.
That both organisations immediately place a prominent advert in both the Dumfries Standard and Galloway News next editions of Weds 5th and Thurs 6th respectively, which shall formally and unreservedly apologise to the Friends of Dunmuir Park for the unauthorised use of our name and any impression that we endorse your organisation’s actions and that the Friends of Dunmuir Park wish it to be publicly known they are wholly opposed to this misleading official campaign against Dunmuir park at public expense.
That your organisations’ Press & PR Communications Depts also send out today an immediate announcement to all media repeating this full apology, confirming the FDP opposition to what you are doing and confirming the brochure is being withdrawn and destroyed and detailing the reasons why as set out in this message.
That you confirm to us by email that all this agreed action has been completed by the close of business Monday 3rd July.
We are not a “Group” and have nothing to do with the “Groups” you detail, yet the context and position implies otherwise. Moreover, FDP has not “been involved in discussions with managers from the learning disability services” in the way that you are officially and publicly holding out and implying in this context. You have no right whatsoever to breach our privacy and misquote this organisation’s good name and reputation in this way. But of course this is not the first time your Officers have done this.
For the avoidance of any doubt I refer you to the attached letter I sent to Ms Harscoet on 7th June on behalf of FDP, (untitled 10KB) copy attached. Therefore those Officers responsible for producing and distributing this Newsletter have no excuse whatsoever for including our name in this way. With all the other recent ‘mistakes’, this should now be a formal internal disciplinary matter given the mental anguish, upset, needless worry and stress your Officers’ official and public actions are causing to all the involved families. Given the sensitivity of the present situation and the level of such upset, which is being made much worse day by day because of these repeated ‘errors’, we assume these can no longer be excused as ‘unintentional mistakes’. Therefore these are unforgivable by supposedly “caring” organisations, especially as it is not the only such ‘mistake’ in this document. You should also note that Ms Harscoet has not yet replied to or actioned the request in the DPPG letter (copy attached) re the Future of Dunmuir Park, nor to that from the FDP. Yet we understand in a recent internal “progress report” prepared for the ASSC there are further similar and significant misrepresentations that are likely to further mislead the Members concerned. Perhaps you should now circulate a draft and invite additions and corrections and so avoid a repeat of a further complaint like this?
We look forward to hearing by Monday evening latest that the full recall, shredding, adverts and public retraction plus unreserved apology have all been duly actioned. Thank you.
Yours faithfully.
W Bell
Chair Friends of Dunmuir Park
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: June 23rd, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News, Press Clippings
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Friday, June 23, 2006 - Galloway News (Visit Web Site)
A DUMFRIES and Galloway MP has demanded that the council step-up their game on talks over Dunmuir Park saying that their recent effort “really isn’t good enough”.
Russell Brown, Labour MP for Dumfries and Galloway is demanding that Dumfries and Galloway Council consult local people, and particularly the friends and family of Dunmuir Park residents, more robustly over plans to close the building and relocate the residents.
The MP has made the call following complaints from the Dunmuir Park Protest Group that a recent council consultation exercise on learning disability services in Castle Douglas was poorly publicised and called at too short notice. Russell Brown has written to the Chair of the Education and Community Services Committee at the council emphasising the need for “full and frank” consultation.
Russell Brown said,
“There is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in relation to Dunmuir Park.
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: June 23rd, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News, Press Clippings
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Friday, June 23, 2006 - Galloway News (Visit Web Site)
A GENEROUS Castle Douglas woman who suffered a stroke as a baby has raised over £200 to help other stroke victims.
Moyra Dodds, aged 33, who suffered a stroke when she was just year old and has donated the money to Castle Douglas day hospital.
She raised the money as part of the Caledonian Award which helps give people with special needs opportunity to achieve their potential and increase their independence.
Having already completed the silver and bronze awards, Moyra, who is a respite user at Dunmuir Park, will soon set foot on an aeroplane for the first time as part of the scheme.
In order to raise the money, Moyra, with the help of her mother Margaret Dodds, carer Elaine Wilson and other friends and family, held two coffee evenings at her home where she sold beads and tablet and other goodies.
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Posted: June 21st, 2006 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: News
Comments: Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Wednesday, June 21, 2006 – Orginal Source
Breaking News Weds 21st June. On ITV Border News Russell Brown MP backs the DPPG efforts to reverse the Feb 2nd D&G Council closure decision. Reports of 15th June (see press clippings) reveal the attempted retrospective ‘consultation’ five months after the decision is indeed nothing but a sham. D&G Council and NHS D&G Board Chief Executives have yet to reply to DPPG families’ invitation to meet and discuss the total breakdown of all trust. Many formal and justified complaints to D&G Council & NHS about this matter and actions of those involved remain unacknowledged and unanswered, outwith the rules of procedure. Whilst very worryingly a Cllr has said that making such complaints “would not keep Dunmuir Park open”, seemingly trying to deny our right to properly complain about actions the families believe are ultra vires. In early May families offered and suggested mediation, but are still waiting for a reply. Another leading Cllr is trying to get all involved around the table and establish a common agenda. The 25 min BBC Radio Scotland ‘Action Scotland’ programme about the campaign to save the Dunmuir Park ‘model of care’ was broadcast on June 7th & 11th. Present Ofcom rules do not allow us to put this file on the DPPG site for download as a ‘podcast’, but a CD copy can be obtained from BBC Radio Scotland or DPPG. This programme has raised serious national issues and highlighted the apparently confused position of Enable Scotland, set up as a charity and dedicated to protect the rights of individuals. DPPG has asked Enable Scotland to not only clarify what we say appears to be a “two faced” position but also to retract and correct statements made live immediately after the broadcast on June 7th.
In particular DPPG requested on 8th June that Enable Scotland makes it unambiguously clear, as the Minister has done, that Dunmuir Park as a homely supported residential setting, (indeed it is a Care Commission Registered Care Home) is not to be compared with or regarded as the same as an “institution” or a “hospital closure” as the interviews did by uncorrected association, and also that Dunmuir Park is not required to be closed as a matter of Enable Scotland or any other ‘National’ policy or “policy steer”, so resulting in the loss of the complete Dunmuir Park ‘model of care’.
Also that it is emphatically NOT one of the two or three remaining “inappropriate hostels” in Scotland, which were needlessly mentioned in the interviews by an Enable Scotland Director with the implication left hanging unanswered.
Also specifically that Dunmuir Park is not required to be closed by the ‘Same as You’, as the Minister has done, and that Enable Scotland does not support such closure given the lack of prior consultation and being against the express wishes of all the many service users, future service users and their families. Also that retrospective “consultation” is not possible whist a flawed closure decision stands creating even more corrosive uncertainty and damaging health.
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
