|
|
 |
| |
Your care home story was scaremongering
• THE New Journal has covered Camden Council’s consultation on the future of care homes in a highly emotive way in recent weeks. So I want to highlight a rather more responsible debate on this subject at the Council’s Sheltered Housing Forum.
The forum brings together representatives from sheltered schemes across the borough. It is an excellent example of how the council can involve residents in the decisions that affect them.
At the meeting last week the issues were explained clearly and sensitively by the officers. People are living longer so the demand for care services will increase.
However, Camden’s care homes do not meet the standards that we might expect – some residents have to share toilets for example.
New approaches such as ‘extra care’ sheltered schemes could better meet the needs of our elderly residents. Some buildings may eventually be closed and sold, but only after replacement homes that are fit for purpose are opened.
Different views were expressed about the appropriate level of private and voluntary sector involvement.
It is important that these concerns are taken on board and many other consultation events have been arranged.
It would help if newspapers and, some Labour councillors, stopped the scaremongering and started to engage in a very important debate.
CLLR JAMES KING
Town Hall
Judd Street
WC1
• IN 2001 the government set National Minimum Standards for Care Homes and local authorities have to apply them where needed. People resident in care homes are there for life, so their care, comfort, accommodation and privacy matter.
I am sure many readers were dismayed when the New Journal splashed its front page with alleged ‘top secret plans’ to sell off old people’s homes (The Winter sale – your care home February 1).
This pre-empted the release by Camden Council of a 30-page consultative document on the future of its residential care home.
The document is not top secret, and its details proposals to improve accommodation and services, which if approved after consultation, could mean some sites would be sold off to fund new buildings. We are assured that the new homes would be in place before any site was sold.
The council asks anyone with opinions or views on the proposals to offer them before May 4 when the consultation period ends.
Many trust what they read in your paper and the distorted reporting caused alarm and worry to a vulnerable section of our community. The matter could have appeared the following week when the document would have been available to all interested. This of course is an editorial matter for the paper, however accuracy is important if people are to trust what appears in print. Otherwise, why bother? No more ‘red top’ distortion please.
The important issue is good standards of residential accommodation for those older citizens who need it and any who want to can have an input into the design and location should new buildings be proposed.
SKIP MURPHY
Prince of Wales Road
NW1
Editor’s note: The document was kept secret until the CNJ revealed its existence. While the consultation was due to begin the following week, we felt it important that readers knew it had already been extensively discussed behind closed doors.
|
 |
|
|
|
