2015 Notice

2015 Notice

Get every D4Dementia blog post delivered into your email inbox - Sign up here:

Monday, 19 September 2016

Life story work – The gift that keeps on giving

One of the loveliest aspects of becoming a parent has been taking our daughter on various trips to meet her extended family. On one such trip we were given a gift, not of a teddy or a baby outfit, but a book with memories of her granddad.

Regular readers of D4Dementia will know that the joy of having our daughter last year was tinged with the sadness that my dad will never meet her. He would have loved being a granddad, and I can only picture in my mind the huge smile and tears of joy and emotion that he would have had as he cuddled her for the first time.

The memory book we were given was something last discussed at my dad's funeral. My cousin promised to look out some photos, and write down memories he knew of from my dad's early life, and I was so touched to find that promise was still remembered over 4 years since we laid my dad to rest.

The book comprises old letters and photographs, alongside my cousin's account of memories from my dad’s childhood and early adulthood. Some details I already knew, but it’s fascinating to read about the places my dad visited, and some of the things he did with his parents and siblings. Dad’s regular routines in his young life, which probably seemed very mundane back then, provide a captivating insight and conjure up pictures in my mind of dad on his motorbike, singing songs around the fire and visiting favourite pubs.

I've written before about the value we had from life story work while my dad was alive, specifically the memory box we made for him. The creation of that box was a wonderful process, displaying it made us very proud, and the discussions sparked by the contents gave joy and pleasure over and over again. It truly was the gift that just kept on giving, and still does to this day, positioned next to my work desk.

For me, that last sentence really gets to the heart of the ‘point’ of life story work. Its value when the person is alive is well documented, but it remains just as valuable, perhaps more so, when the person is no longer with us. Keeping a relative's memory alive, and being able to remember them in happy times, having fun and living their life, gives a very comforting perspective on the loss you feel of your loved one.

The links between life story work and good dementia care are well established. Of particular note is the fact that life story work is hugely important no matter how well you know a person, hence its value for families and professional care staff alike.

If you know a person well, it can help to guide your mutual reminiscence and pride in your loved one’s life and achievements, as well as triggering conversations about favourite sports, music and films etc. If you are a professional who doesn’t know the person so well, life story work is like a window into their world, helping to guide and inform you as you provide care and support for them.

If the person has limited communication skills it enables you to gently prompt conversation. You may also find it beneficial when trying to soothe someone feeling anxious or upset, to lift their mood if they are feeling down, or to bring out the best in the person when they are having a good day and just need a few little prompts to spark off memories they can enjoy.

Life story work is as diverse as the society we live in, and we can all participate - no matter who you are, you have a life story. You might not think it's very exciting, but everyone has something worth sharing and something they can feel proud of. Indeed, one of the best ways to get staff involved in life story work for the people they are supporting is to begin by showcasing their own life stories.

Purely co-incidentally, in my consultancy work with care providers I have various clients who are either embarking upon, or trying to strengthen, life story work within their services at the moment. Different approaches are being utilised, which is precisely what I am encouraging - as in all aspects of dementia care, one-size-fits-all doesn't work.

Templates, guidance and resources are abundant on the internet for anyone looking to begin life story work, but in truth it's not about the format or model you access to help guide yours or someone else's life story work. The most important drivers for creating, maintaining and evolving a life story resource are enthusiasm, inspiration and commitment.

You have to see and believe in the value of life story work or it will simply become a nice 'project' that's started and possibly ended (or abandoned). In reality, life story work is a continuum. The best examples of it are never completed, much like that book we were given about my dad. He is no longer with us to benefit from it himself, but current and future generations can enjoy it and continue to add to it – there are still many blank pages to fill.

Given that this year’s World Alzheimer’s Month - or World Dementia Month as I feel it should be called - is themed around ‘Remember Me’, there seems no more fitting call to action for us all with World Alzheimer’s Day approaching on 21 September than to reflect on the place life story work has in our own world and that of our loves ones. Documenting memories and turning them into vibrant resources that tell their own unique story has a magical quality about it that I can’t put into words – you really just have to try it.

Until next time...
Beth x







You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

Monday, 5 September 2016

Is it World Alzheimer's Month, or World Dementia Month?

I should begin this blog by saying I am fully supportive of awareness-raising initiatives aimed at educating, informing and supporting people who are living with any type of dementia, their families, health and care professionals, communities and societies.

The biggest of these, purely for its global scale, is World Alzheimer's Month, organised and promoted by Alzheimer's Disease International. It is more than just semantics, however, to question the history behind the naming of this month of awareness-raising, and the signals our words send out.

Globally, Alzheimer's is a term used in many countries to describe any and every type of dementia. The problem is that technically this is wrong. Dementia is the umbrella term, and Alzheimer's Disease is a type dementia, one of over 100. Granted Alzheimer's Disease is statistically the most prevalent type of dementia, but there are still millions of people living with other types of dementia.

In the first ever dementia-related conference I attended after my dad passed away in 2012, one of the questions to the panel was why the UK Alzheimer's Society wasn't called the Dementia Society? Apart from the fact that such a change of name would be extremely similar to Dementia UK (another UK charity), the main reason given was the complexity of such a renaming exercise in terms of branding and public awareness.

I understand both the reasoning of the questioner at that conference and the logic of the person answering them. And I suspect a similar answer would fit to the question about why World Alzheimer's Month is so named, and Alzheimer's Disease International, and potentially every other Alzheimer's organisation around the world that carries the world Alzheimer’s in its title rather than dementia.

It can, however, seem very confusing for people who are new to the 'dementia world’, and very isolating for anyone who is diagnosed with a different type of dementia. Moreover, whilst it might be challenging for organisations to rebrand, there really isn't any excuse for commentators, media professionals and others who use Alzheimer's as a blanket term instead of dementia.

One of the biggest problems with Alzheimerisation (a term that I'm using in this context to describe how the word 'Alzheimer’s' replaces 'dementia') is how it alters people's perceptions of what is, and isn't, possible for people who are living with other types of dementia. For example, I vividly remember the following conversation with a lady who was struggling to understand what vascular dementia was:

Ms X: "But there are treatments for Alzheimer's, why wasn't your dad given some pills."
Me: "My dad had vascular dementia - Alzheimer's medications aren't licensed for people with vascular dementia."
Ms X: "But vascular dementia is just another type of Alzheimer's isn't it?"
Me: "No it isn't. Vascular dementia and Alzheimer's Disease are just two types of over 100 different types of dementia."
Ms X: "So what is dementia then, isn't it just another name for Alzheimer's?"
Me: "No. Dementia is the umbrella term of all of the different types of dementia, of which Alzheimer's Disease is just one."

To be fair to Ms X she wanted to learn, but rather than finding my explanation illuminating you could clearly see that she was mentally unpicking everything she'd previously believed to be accurate, and was wondering why on earth we talk so much about Alzheimer's Disease when it is just one type of dementia.

I first touched on how the word 'Alzheimer’s' replaces 'dementia' in my 2012 blog ‘So how much do you know about dementia’ – A post where I went on to bust lots of myths about dementia. Some of those myths have received some fairly high-profile coverage since, not least through the Dementia Friends initiative, but the Alzheimerisation of dementia remains very prevalent, and I suspect it always will be.

I would be the first to admit that such an outcome isn’t the worst news in the world if messages that developing a type of dementia isn’t a normal part of ageing, that it isn’t just older people who develop the different types of dementia, and that there is so much more to the person than their diagnosis of a type of dementia become imprinted into the public consciousness and drive real and lasting change that is positive and enabling for people who have a type of dementia.

But I still think we can do more, go further, and make sure that the messages we put out don’t just appear to be confined to people who are affected by Alzheimer’s Disease. I have been an outspoken advocate of changing the words we use around dementia, and will continue to be, but for Alzheimerisation to be reduced everyone needs to play their part.

So, as you take up this World Alzheimer’s Month theme of ‘Remember Me’, it’s a timely reminder to remember that Alzheimer’s Disease is just one type of dementia.

Until next time...
Beth x







You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

Monday, 22 August 2016

Driving, dementia, and doing the right thing

Whenever dementia diagnosis is discussed, one of the major barriers that explains why people delay seeking a diagnosis is the fear of giving up driving.

It is understandable and something I can relate to. I live in a very rural part of England - not having a car and being able to drive would be severely isolating for me, but driving is about more than just freedom and the ability to shop, socialise and pursue hobbies and activities that you enjoy. It is also about a way of life.

For most people, passing their driving test is one of those significant life moments, a signal for a young person that they've gone from being a dependent child to an independent adult. Most people cherish this status, and if you've had your license for the majority of your life, being faced with losing it can be a bitter pill to swallow. Not only that, but it can make you feel very 'child' like again at a time when other changes in your life are leaving you with the sensation of being stripped of your adulthood.

There are a lot of misconceptions about driving and dementia. A diagnosis, in itself, doesn't necessary mean that you instantly stop driving. There are a myriad of medical complexities, everything from the type of dementia a person has and how it is affecting them (everyone is affected differently, even two people who have the same type of dementia may experience different symptoms), to how early the person has been diagnosed (they may have very mild symptoms, or their symptoms may be significantly advanced, or indeed anywhere in-between).

With the suggestion that medical science may be able to predict much earlier presentations of different types of dementia in the future, the chances are that changes in the brain that indicate very early forms of certain types of dementia could mean more people are diagnosed in the years to come at a time when they are still medically fit to drive.

And that is the key to the issue about driving. To my mind, it is a simple question about a person's fitness to drive. There are many different medical conditions that can make you unfit to drive, as well as different medications. The interactions between different conditions and medications are also important to understand. Dementia alone may not stop you driving immediately, particularly if you have been diagnosed quite early. It really depends on your individual circumstances.

As every UK driver knows, they have to inform DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) of any medical conditions that may affect their ability to drive, and also inform their insurance company. If the person doesn't want to voluntarily surrender their license, there has to be a medical report compiled by their doctor to help the DVLA make their decision about that person's fitness to drive. The outcome will be that either the license will be revoked (you need to be retested in order to get a license again) or renewed for a fixed duration before another review.

At every stage, the compliance of the driver is preferable to make the process as seamless as possible, but what happens when the driver doesn't feel that there is any medical reason to contact the DVLA? They may be symptomatic but not diagnosed with dementia, or indeed may have received a diagnosis but be struggling to accept it.

This is a conundrum that many families face. Sometimes family members recognise the problems the person is having with their driving before the person does themselves. Even if the person is noticing issues like getting lost in otherwise familiar places, being unsure of how to operate a previously familiar car, or having 'near-misses' whilst on the road, they may just dismiss it, or try to hide their problems out of embarrassment or fear.

Families often find themselves in the position of arbiters on their loved one's ability to drive, caught between not wanting to report their loved one's declining driving skills but at the same time being worried for their relative's safety and the safety of others. If the person who is experiencing symptoms that are affecting their driving is also the main driver in a partnership, and either their partner only drives infrequently or not at all, losing their license could have significant implications for their partner/carer/family too.

It is, by any stretch of the imagination, an unpleasant situation to find yourself in. It can cause huge arguments in relationships and the wider family, can result in family members going behind their loved one's back to take steps to revoke their license or take their car away, and can cast a very long shadow that makes a person hostile towards seeking help if they have undiagnosed dementia symptoms.

Of course everyone is different - some people pragmatically face up to difficulties with driving and voluntarily give up their license before they might be formally required to do so. But even talking to people in memory clinics who've been diagnosed with a type of dementia, the topic of driving still brings up strong opinions.

In my dad's case, during the 10 years he lived with dementia prior to his diagnosis, he became an unsafe driver. He didn't recognise his shortcomings, however, and wanted to continue to drive. Everything came to a head when he demonstrated his intention to continue to drive by sending his car to the garage for some very expensive repairs that were needed to make the car roadworthy.

Not only could he not afford the repairs (but didn't realise he couldn't afford the repairs), had the car come home ready to drive he would have been a danger to himself and to other people on the roads. In the face of very dogmatic conversation (dad lost his reasoning skills very early on in his dementia), I had no choice but to have the car sent for scrap. Any other outcome was either going to result, at best, in debt, and at worst in an accident.

I didn't like having to take the action I did, nor did it make me particularly popular for a while, but I felt a strong responsibility not just to my dad but also to other road users. You could argue it was paternalistic of me, and I wouldn't disagree, but to this day I would defend the decision I took. My only regret is that dad didn't make the decision that had to be taken himself. It would have been infinitely preferable for all concerned if he had.

Sadly I will never know if the symptoms of dad's dementia prevented him making that decision, or if he would have always resisted any notion of giving up driving for any medical reason, not just vascular dementia. At the time it was another of those very confusing, isolating moments that you have as a family with a loved one who has undiagnosed dementia where you grapple with the dicey question of, 'What is the right thing to do?'

It's not a question I would wish on other families, and but for me, finding the answer was one that ultimately came down to the legalities of fitness to drive. It is illegal to drive a car when you are not medically fit to do so, and driving, whilst hugely important in the lives of so many people and something none of us necessarily 'want' to give up, isn't worth pursing if you cannot do it safely.

Until next time...
Beth x







You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

Monday, 8 August 2016

The dementia-friendly shopping experience

One of the most extraordinary comments I heard in the wake of Alzheimer's Society launching their guide to becoming a dementia-friendly retailer was from a shopkeeper who said: "Why on earth do I need to make my shop dementia-friendly? Dementia sufferers shouldn't be going shopping - they might forget to pay."

I won't print my response. And by way of clarification, the quote is reproduced as the person said it, and perhaps the lack of appropriate language is, in this instance, illustrative of a particularly backward attitude.

Apart from proving we still have a long way to go to tackle stigma, discrimination and negativity towards people with dementia, this comment also shows EXACTLY why we need to make shopping easier for people with dementia. Individuals living with dementia have as much right to get out and about in their communities as anyone else, and fellow citizens who suggest otherwise need to be challenged about their viewpoint.

It always strikes me as contradictory that there is a desire to close down a person's life as they age, and yet their earliest memories are likely to be of the world being opened up to them, and them being encouraged to explore, develop and learn. Instinct teaches us that this is the route to survival, and parents are actively encouraged to ensure their children take every opportunity to familiarise themselves with, and test, the world around them.

It therefore makes no sense for our society to try and strip away this survival instinct, and I wholeheartedly welcome any move that might make local communities more accessible and less intimidating for people with dementia. For many people, shopping is an activity that they associate with discovering new things, and the fun and happiness of finding what you are looking for – indeed, nearly 80% of people with dementia who were surveyed by Alzheimer’s Society listed shopping as their favourite activity (although 63% didn’t think shops were doing enough to help people with dementia) - so it's vital that we make the environments that deliver these experiences suitable for everyone.

For me, there is a really important argument here about dementia-friendly communities benefiting all of us. I have questioned the wisdom of dementia-friendly checkouts before, arguing the need for all checkouts to automatically be ‘dementia-friendly’, because the elements that go into making a dementia-friendly checkout are potentially something that many people could benefit from.

Maybe a better shopping experience might even tempt me back to the shops. I have developed a personal dislike of going shopping, probably because trying to accomplish this with a baby and a pram isn't easy. The difficulties I've encountered have certainly made me think about how a person with dementia might cope, particularly if they happen to be in a wheelchair. Signage and availability of lifts and toilets is often poor, and the lack of these can cut a shopping trip frustratingly short.

Then there is the classic example of staff who don't know the products in their store (something I fell victim to in a major garden centre chain recently), and as Ann Johnson points out in this film, the highly confusing example of shops moving their products around. I know why they do it, they want customers to spend more time trying to find what they need and in the process see other products, but it's so unhelpful if you are expecting the items you need to be in a certain place and they aren't there.

As a result of all my gripes and grumbles I'm mostly sworn off going to the shops now, preferring online options. That does mean more trips to the post office with parcels to return, however, highlighting the need for local services like a post office and for the staff within those services to understand the needs of all of the people in their community.

Most people with dementia tell me that counting money is by far their biggest challenge, and this certainly rings true with what Alzheimer's Society are reporting. Then there is the difficulty of selecting the goods you really want. Prior to my dad's diagnosis he would often shop in a very random way, bringing home items from the supermarket that didn't correlate into meals he would want to eat, and going to other shops and auctions, spending a lot of money on things that weren't worth what he was paying for them and that he didn't need.

In hindsight, I suspect that this was often due to going around shops and picking up things that looked appealing, or that seemed familiar to him on that day. He could easily have been seen as a 'soft target’ for unscrupulous people who just wanted to sell him something, regardless of whether he actually needed it or not.

So what does a good example of supporting a person with dementia as they go shopping really look like? ‘Family’ parking spaces (rather than just ‘parent and child’ parking), good signage and easy-to-find and use facilities (like toilets), good lighting and not bombarding the senses with loud music or announcements, appropriate flooring and careful use of mirrors, good availability and labelling of products, staff training in helping customers who are living with dementia, different payment options and support with counting money (with staff being completely honest and trustworthy in that process), giving time, and being kind and attentive - perhaps offering to accompany a person around a large store like a supermarket so that they can find what they are looking for.

It's also about recognising a person's right to a shopping experience that makes sense to them (which means each individual, not a one-size-fits-all) and tailoring the amount of help/support offered. It's about forming relationships with regular customers, something small independent shops are often great at but bigger stores with higher staff turnovers can struggle with. It's about not being judgmental, and from a purely business perspective, understanding that whoever your customer is, and whatever physical, mental or cognitive challenges they have, their money is as good as anyone else's in your till – the ‘business' case for being ‘dementia-friendly’ is clear from the Alzheimer’s Society retail guide.

Ultimately, a person with dementia may not remember you, but they will remember how you made them feel. That, for me, really sums up how you make a shopping experience for a person with dementia the stress-free, enjoyable time it should be.

Until next time...
Beth x







You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

Monday, 25 July 2016

Reframing the reporting about violent older people in hospitals

Recently the BBC ran a story that over 75's are responsible for 57% of physical assaults on NHS staff in hospitals. These assaults range from biting and pinching through to some of the most serious attacks that are recorded. In trying to explain why these incidents are happening, the stress and confusion that a hospital stay can cause were highlighted, and patients who are living with the effects of dementia were inevitably mentioned.

Sadly, I think many people reading the headline and acknowledging that dementia is mentioned will, yet again, assume that all people with dementia are violent. Little consideration will be given to how hospital environments contributed to the circumstances around these incidents, or indeed how the lack of comprehensive staff training or appropriate staffing numbers did likewise.

What also won't be examined is how many people were avoidably in hospital in the first place, or who had remained there for far too long when not clinically necessary because of failings in the availability, organisation or funding of social care places. It's just quick and simple to look at older people and say: "They are violent because they have dementia and are attacking the people trying to care for them."

What has to be understood is that people with all different dispositions and from all walks of life develop dementia. If you were an unpleasant person with a quick temper and a tendency to be violent prior to developing dementia, your dementia may or may not make those character traits more pronounced.

Likewise, for some people who were mild-mannered and never hurt anyone, the development of dementia can lead to symptoms such as paranoia, hallucinations, disorientation, confusion and anxiety that can result in a person lashing out without realising they are or without intending to. It is simply their reaction to what they are experiencing in that moment, allied with the circumstances (environment, staffing etc) that they are in the midst of.

Delirium and other mental health problems that either haven't been diagnosed or aren't being well treated can also contribute, not to mention the side-effects of a medication, poly-pharmacy or indeed something as simple as a urinary tract infection, being hungry or tired - do not underestimate the effect of sleep deprivation. A person may also feel angry, ashamed or undignified if they aren't being supported to wash, use the toilet or be mobile in the way they would want to be, resulting in feeling uncomfortable or becoming incontinent or immobile.

I am not in any way making excuses for violence against NHS staff, nor would I ever condone it, but before we brand older people as violent patients I think we need to understand how being a hospital patient can make you feel.

Last year I spent one night in hospital following the birth of our daughter. All the care I received was wonderful and the staff were very kind and helpful to me. But I didn't sleep a wink. Nor did I particularly like the food. I definitely wanted to lock the bathroom door when I went for a shower, and ideally would have preferred to keep the curtains around my bed closed, but because we all had to be in view of the staff so we could be monitored, that wasn't possible except for breastfeeding or getting dressed.

Granted, I had just had a baby and hormones were going wild, but fundamentally I was a knowledgeable, articulate person who could speak up for myself and wasn't in danger of having to stay in hospital any longer than was absolutely necessary. Yet I felt vulnerable. And if I can feel vulnerable, then I can only imagine how an older person, potentially with reduced communication abilities due to their health, might feel.

I have written before about how undiagnosed pain in a person with dementia can affect that person. I've also written about unmet needs being misunderstood as 'challenging behaviour' (a phrase I hate), and about the effects of illness, incontinence, hunger, dehydration and sleep problems. I've also addressed the shortcomings in hospital environments for older people in comparison to the environments we offer children.

All of these issues can easily converge and result in avoidable incidents. Aggression is so strongly linked to dementia that I meet people who are surprised if their loved one isn't aggressive. Yet there is so much that can be done through person-centred care, occupation, reablement/rehabilitative support and life-story work to support people with dementia to cope with their symptoms.

Whilst the BBC based their story on firm evidence, with figures obtained from NHS Protect (the organisation dealing with crime across the health service), I suspect that many people simply won't see beyond the statistics and examine the real issues, let alone tackle them. As a result fear of having contact with older people and people who have dementia proliferates. With such ostracisation comes isolation, and an even greater chance of people who are already feeling misunderstood reacting to that in ways that hurt them every bit as much as those trying to provide care and support for them.

Understanding about dementia has improved over the years, but it isn't where it needs to be to provide appropriate, individualised support for every person. Geriatrics isn't an area of medicine that is oversubscribed with our brightest and best professionals in the way paediatrics might be considered to be, and ageing within our society still isn't universally viewed with dignity, respect or compassion. Often older people's services are underfunded, stretched to capacity (and beyond) and seen as little more than a 'dumping ground' for people viewed as adult babies and stripped of their identity.

We are long overdue a complete re-evaluation of how we care for older people in hospital, including the need to even be in hospital to begin with, and an honest stock-take on how circumstances (many of which we can control) result in incidents that are then beyond anyone's control, least of all the patients at the centre of them. As in all areas of healthcare, prevention is always better than cure.

Until next time...
Beth x







You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

Monday, 11 July 2016

Co-production in health and social care - It really isn't rocket science

Last week was the first ever National Co-production Week, identified on twitter as #CoProWeek. Organised by the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the creation of this awareness raising week marks an important milestone in recognising that if you work in health or social care, it's actually a pretty good idea to listen to, involve and continually work with the people who are using your service(s).

Purely co-incidentally, the start of National Co-production Week also saw the launch of a report I was involved in creating with Carers Trust that looked at the 'Care Act for Carers: One Year On' (PDF). Amongst our recommendations was an explicit remit (on page 23) tasked to one of the pioneer co-production organisations, Think Local Act Personal, to involve carers (people who care, unpaid, for a friend or family member) in services:
"Think Local Act Personal should work with carers to devise and offer training and materials to support practitioners to work with carers to co-design personalised support."
We also reiterate the importance of ‘co-design’ in our 2018 ‘wish list’ (on page 25):
"Social workers and other care practitioners can show that tailored support plans are routinely co-designed and kept under review with carers."
The history of co-production

'Co-design', or 'co-production' may sound like modern day jargon (they are unpopular descriptions with many people I know), but various incarnations of the basic principles of involving people who use services, and their carers and families, in how services are designed, created and run have been around for many years.

If anything, that is my personal disappointment. Through my work I’ve met stalwarts of the 'co-production scene' who have been co-producing for an incredibly long time and yet they feel little has changed on the frontline. In my view, that lack of change isn't a reflection upon those individuals at all, but more about how our health and social care systems respond to those people and the need to challenge the status quo.

Historically, we’ve been far too keen on ‘doing things to people’ rather than truly involving people in their own care and support. We like to tell our fellow citizens how things will work and what will happen to them, being prescriptive and precise, and expecting them just to go along with it. Their own opinions have been seen as irrelevant, perhaps even dangerous, and of course 'professionals know best' anyway. In other words, citizens (patients, service users, carers and whatever other labels you want to affix to ‘Joe Blogs’) should be ‘seen and not heard’.

In June 2012, I wrote a blog entitled ‘How do you make good dementia policy?’. Much of what I talk about in that blog is about co-production, except I didn’t call it co-production then. To me it was just the simple principle of involving people, which I summed up in this quote:
"My view is that you need those with direct past and present knowledge and experience of dementia to be at the forefront of policy making, privately and publically."
Tokenistic involvement isn’t enough

I have a fundamental belief that within health and social care, there is still an arrogance amongst many leaders to even involve citizens in their work, never mind truly embracing co-production and embedding it within their organisations. Often involvement is tokenistic, piecemeal and descends into glorified talking shops, which are then evaluated poorly and deemed pointless.

Budgets to support true co-production rarely exist, or are extremely limited. Interestingly, these funding arrangements are always decided by people employed by organisations, and I do wonder if being in the safely of a salaried job stifles the desire to engage and create beyond your own job description.

That may sound harsh, but given that in 2012 I was writing about the need to involve people who use services and carers in those services, I simply haven't seen enough innovation to justify a more positive assessment. If we could get to a stage whereby the viability of health and social care services was judged by how well they engaged with the people using their services, and their carers and families, I suspect a rapid improvement would soon follow.

Current, classic examples of organisations not engaging are seen on the conference scene, where too often I still see programmes for events that don't include the voices of experience. From the knowledge I have through my work, I don't believe that enough local authorities co-produce their services with their citizens, nor do NHS trusts or social care providers, and likewise for national government.

And yet, in that 2012 blog post I made the value of lived experience crystal clear when I said:
"The greatest educators are people who have learnt from their own experiences."
Time to change

I am impatient for change, I would freely admit that, and those who are embracing the true principles of co-production don't get enough praise for their work. For everyone else, I come back to this quote from that 2012 blog post:
"If you want to know about frontline warfare, you ask a soldier. If you want to know about famine in Africa, you go to Africa and ask the people who are starving. If you want to know about dementia, ask the people living with it and carers past and present who have dedicated their lives to understanding dementia."
For dementia, read any condition, any service, any experience. There are always citizens to ask about their health and care, always something to learn from listening to them, and always a way of meaningfully and fully engaging them in how you serve them now and in the future. It really isn't rocket science.

Until next time...
Beth x







You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886

Friday, 24 June 2016

Care and support in the post-Brexit landscape

Mostly I love social media and its ability to give 'real time' reaction to news and events, but I have to say that I didn't enjoy the negativity I saw this morning following the decision of the majority of the UK electorate to vote to leave the European Union.

Some of the language I have seen has reminded me of the worst of that which is associated with dementia - war-like rhetoric, stigma and a lack of respect. Whatever you believe about EU membership and however you voted, in my view this is a time for solidarity within our communities and positivity about what happens next. My only EU Referendum retweet was to share the reaction of Brendan Cox, the widower of Jo Cox MP, who tweeted this:

Today Jo wld have remained optimistic & focussed on what she cld do to bring our country back together around our best values #MoreInCommon
— Brendan Cox (@MrBrendanCox) June 24, 2016

'Optimistic and focused' sums up my mind-set entirely. Indeed, ever since I began campaigning on issues of health, social care, dementia and ageing I have lived by those sentiments (and others that are equally positive). Despite having some very negative experiences in my dad's years of living with dementia, I have chosen to work constructively to make improvements rather than constantly beat a drum of criticism and negativity.

Now, more than ever, I feel that as people who care passionately about health and wellbeing we need to follow that mind-set and address the following:

Avoid turning the outcome of this vote into an ageist agenda

Dissecting a democratic vote into age group demographics is very divisive in my opinion. Whilst statistics suggest more older people voted to leave the EU than younger people, that doesn't make either opinion more or less valid, they are simply different viewpoints. Many older people I’ve met didn’t feel that what we have is what they voted for back in 1975 and this referendum represented a chance to change the direction the UK has taken – effectively undoing a ‘wrong’ in their eyes. It is fair comment, even if you don’t agree with those individuals.

Whilst younger people may be more impacted long-term, the message has to be one of optimism and focusing on what can be created, changed and achieved, not what can't. As a new mum (of 7 months!), that is the message I will be telling our daughter when she is old enough. There is nothing you can't achieve, and that remains as much an inspiring message now as it was last week. The health and social care sectors need to promote this to young people who are considering their career options in this changing political world – they can be our person-centred, creative, energised leaders of the future.

Celebrate our current overseas workforce, support and value them, and welcome other talented individuals in the future

So much of the referendum campaign focused on immigration, which is a hot topic in UK health and social care given the reliance these sectors has had on recruiting talented, hardworking people from overseas. That reliance won’t change, so the message I would like to give our politicians as they shape the country in the aftermath of this referendum result is: 
  • Every overseas worker, no matter what country they are from, who is currently here and doing vital work in health and social care must be able to continue to do that if they want to and without any barriers.
  • Recruitment drives that take place overseas to fill vacancies for health and social care professionals will still be needed, and these roles need to be considered exceptional professions so that employers can make that recruitment process as seamless as possible. The only proviso is the need to be able to speak, read and write English to a high standard, which is purely a common-sense measure to ensure seamless communication and understanding in the many challenging situations people who work in health and social care face.
It is often said that overseas workers will do the work that the British-born population won't, and in both my dad's time in care homes (punctuated by spells in hospital) and through the work I do now, I have seen this consistently over many years. What I would add, however, is that as many non-EU workers cared for my father as EU workers did, so it's important to stress the diversity in the workforce that we have now as an indication of what we will need long-term.

Keep dementia care and support on the domestic (and international) agenda

With the Prime Minister resigning, there needs to be a renewed commitment from whoever takes his place to ensure that the work that has been done around dementia, notably under the auspices of 'The Prime Minister's Challenge on Dementia', continues. The first dementia strategy was launched under the last Labour government (in 2009), and whatever the future holds for the current government and the different political parties, the need for the UK to deliver the best dementia care and support in the world will not change. Likewise, the need to co-operate  and collaborate on dementia research must continue, not just with European countries but worldwide.

Going forward...
 
I would urge NHS and social care leaders to galvanise their lists of needs and wants, rather than gnash teeth and delve into the language of disaster. Vulnerable people who are in our hospitals, care homes, and within our communities who need our services, our care and our support don't stop needing that now this vote has taken place.

Now is a time to set the agenda, lead, campaign, create, change and evolve... and dare I even say unite? Should integration of health and social care be realised through the outcome of this referendum result, that, for me, would be the greatest surprise of all, but who knows? 

With an uncertain future only one thing is guaranteed - each one of us has the chance to shape that which isn't yet decided.
 
Until next time...
Beth x








You can follow me on Twitter: @bethyb1886