Partial review of Orchard House, Underdown Lane, Herne Bay CT6 5UD
My 51 year old sister Julia Shires needs an advocate and the care home in which she is a resident needs investigating. She was hospitalised and referred to the place by Kent Adult Social Services. The sequence of events leading to this was initiated by her daughter who insisted Julia not be allowed to live on her own in her own home and now claims the house as her own property. Julia Shires is in a private care home in Herne Bay, having suffered from symptoms of Huntington's Chorea for 4 years but still being able to walk without a stick and to function as an independent householder, in her Canterbury home, which she bought in 2002. After 2 years of symptoms she was forcibly hospitalised on November 27th 2006, starved down from a weight of ~ 50 kg to 33 kg, tortured (there were burn marks on her lower leg and arm) when she insisted on going to the lavatory instead of tolerating the catheters that continually infected her and persuaded to go to a private care home, on February 21st 2007, instead of returning home. At that time Julia was content to remain in the home. On visiting her at the home, Orchard House, Herne Bay, on September 9th 2007 she told me that standards there were falling and asked why she could not return to her own home (as her previous care manager had told her she could). The staff present told her she was 'already at home' and the presumptuous Responsible Individual for the home, Linda Ironside, wrote to the CSCI (following a complaint from myself) stating that 'In order to make her feel safe, help her regain her orientation and enable her to adjust to the changes, the staff agreed response was "You are at home, Julia" or "This is your home now".
18 months before my sister was admitted to Orchard House a CSCI inspection found that the home's 'Statement of Purpose ...... asserts that the final decision (re residents falling outside the home's registration category) will lie with the Responsible Individual. This is a clear misinterpretation of the regulatory arrangement.' Clearly, the reforms that led to higher scores for the home in more recent CSCI inspections only reflect superficial, misleading changes in policy presentation. Miss Ironside's underlying attitude remains the same. Although, were I in any doubt about this, it would have been dispelled by her telling me, in May 2007, that it was her decision that Julia should remain at the home, regardless of any other consideration.
On February 20th 2009 I received the following anonymous letter: -
'I am sorry to hear your sister is a resident in Orchard House, a home in my opinion should be closed down. The last time I visited there, it was filthy. There was vomit and food spilt on the chairs, which had obviously been there for hours. The television is used as a tranquilliser and the residents are encouraged to sit in front of it for hour after hour after hour dis-encouraging them from using their brain cells. Huntington's Disease is a progressive illness, some of the brain cells deteriorate and die while other brain cells remain alive and should be constantly challenged to keep them active. There are no leisure pursuits in the home, no library, no games room, no occupational therapy, the residents are rarely taken out. A M/s Linda Ironside who according tax records is a single person who runs the home and yet her husband, Paul works at the sister home in Allenby Drive under a different surname. Obviously some tax evasion. The home charges over £ 1600 a week to residents and yet offers such a poor standard. I suggest you intervene for the good of your sister.'
The envelope typeface and wrong address (it was forwarded to me by my previous landlord) reveal the letter to originate with someone connected with the organisation of the local Huntington's Disease Support Group, main organiser Christine Oliver. I understand that the HDSG complained to the management about the running of the home and were met with a typically offensive response, so no longer meet there.
I feel that it adds insult to injury that, at the time of previous inspections of the home, on 23/9/05 and 24/1/06, the CSCI noted the presence of a resident who wished to leave it and, apparently did so, producing a question concerning whether they should ever have been there, but the same staff attitude is being applied to my sister now as was applied under the old management (the Responsible Individual then being one Linda Griffith). In particular, the inspector noted that '....one former resident had for some time been refusing personal and healthcare ....The home's management of this has been the subject of a conflict of professional and non-professional opinion, which culminated in an adult protection alert and is currently undergoing resolution. The home failed both inspections.
Steve Shires.