Absalute Madness!!

[RATTER15]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/10980976/Collapse-in-number-of-people-barred-from-working-with-elderly.html

[wolf63]

If I was a vulnerable person I would like to think that the people that I interact with had been vetted thoroughly.

?

[Peter Pedant]

Ratter I am not sure it is ( A M)

it depends on whether you thought the old strict system was working.
er I dont think so... so it is questions of loosening ( or oops oh dear abandoning a system that is not fit for purpose ) in order to free upa market.

I am not aware the flood of immigrants who are working in care have passed the CRB checks...

Other related questions are: should we have an intrusive regulation system that does nothing besides give civil servants jobs ?

CQC - and monitor - spring to mind in this

and finally what is regulation for ?

The GMC ( doctors ) has an iron-cage of regulation, including no fifth-amendment and punishment before the case is heard ( interim suspension)
and that didnt stop Stafford...

[naomi24]

//It follows new rules introduced amid public concern that criminal records checks were being used excessively and too many people were being barred from working with children or vulnerable adults because of minor offences in their past. //

Public concern? Did the public campaign for a change in the rules - or did campaign groups with the welfare of criminals at heart lobby for a change in the rules? I suspect the latter - and having succeeded why is anyone surprised it's all gone wrong?

[Peter Pedant]

No wolf - filling out a 50 page form is not thorough vetting,

screwing people because they didnt mention parking fines ( GMC about five years ago) isnt thorough vetting.

suspending a doctor from medical practice because of what he did as a School governor completely unrelated to medicine is not through vetting or good regulation -GMC again, overturned on appeal.


Macnamara fallacy - because you can measure something doesnt make it mean something.

[Peter Pedant]

Absolutely Naomi when CRB came in - the final choice was meant to be checked. Now it is a blunderbuss for all applicants even tho at the time 'they' said we wont be doing that .

My employer wanted a running CRB.....

[pixie373]

I believe violent and sexual crimes are still automatically barred and others are looked into. It seems sensible to me. The abusers we've read about in the papers recently wouldn't have had a history, it didn't stop them. Imo, there are some crimes that are minor and don't necessarily suggest a risk to others.

[naomi24]

Pixie, if 'others are looked into' why isn't it working?

[pixie373]

A DBS check is no guarantee of future behaviour, good or bad. Personally, i would make it easier to sack carers that are just not the right characters. You can tell very quickly, but it is practically impossible to get rid of them.

[naomi24]

Nothing is a guarantee of good behaviour - but I think we need to do the best we can when recruiting, especially where vulnerable people are concerned - and I agree with you - sacking those who don't meet requirements should be a given.

[pixie373]

It should be- but the processes you have to go through first make it farcical. The one and only thing that makes the difference is character- and there's no way of measuring it. It's something people are instinctively good at- but "a feeling" about somebody is not enough to go on. Unfortunately, it seems that others will occasionally cover it up, too.

[Hypognosis]

Well, if this doesn't play on people's fears, what will.

It's the 'bumped off by dodgy nurse' trope, writ large. The hoodlums will always have someone with a squeaky-clean record at their beck and call.

[pixie373]

I'm still not sure what the exact difference is. It appears to be the same as it always has been (in the last ten years, anyway- when i started you needed a CRB to work with children, but not elderly people).

[Peter Pedant]

unfortunately our leaders do, Pickso
think ...... A DBS check is no guarantee of future behaviour, good or bad. Personally

from a theoretical point of view they regard past convictions as sentinel events predicting future naughtiness....

and even if the majority are below the radar,

as soon as some one is convicted who had a ffixed fine for not wearing a seat belt in 1985, they go oh yes yes it is all working as it should...

[Colmc54]

Before the dementia kicks in we'll all have to learn Polish!