Stories from the front line of the social care crisis – Mary and John

In January we noted that: 

Millions of pounds have been spent on hiring agency social workers to review care packages.  It’s about cutting packages not reviewing them – however, the new chief officer of the EIJB has emailed councillors essentially saying that there might be push back about this process.  We heard one story of how a package was cut – people are guilt tripped by being told that there are others who are worse off who need support – families face this exercise on their own and it’s hard to appeal or complain.  

We spoke to Mary about the impact of this process and the resulting cut in the care package received by her son John.

John has lived in supported accommodation for more than a decade with a care package designed to support his basic needs and allow for independent living.  During this period the care package was reviewed by an experienced social worker with insight into John’s needs.  However, in 2023 the Health and Social Care Board (aka Edinburgh Integration Joint Board or EIJB) decided to contract agency social workers to review care packages.

Mary explained what happened next.  The agency social worker got in touch to arrange a review meeting with Mary and John.  They insisted that the meeting had to take place almost immediately because they were working to a tight schedule.  The meeting went ahead.  At the outset the social worker explained that there was high demand for care packages and that levels of care currently being received by individuals already in the system meant that people with greater need were not able to access support.  Mary felt that this was an entirely inappropriate way to begin a review – essentially trying to guilt trip her and John.  The rest of the meeting was similarly unsatisfactory with the social worker showing very little insight into John’s needs and experience.  In this context John’s own voice was marginalised.

The social worker explained that she would report back to her manager and a decision would be made but that she would speak to Mary beforehand to inform her of what was being recommended.  In fact, that conversation didn’t take place, and just over a week after the review Mary and John were informed that the care package would be cut by 55%.  This was devastating news; the reduced support would mean that basic needs were not met and John’s opportunities for a social life outside his home would cease.

Mary responded by making it clear that she would make a complaint at the highest level if the new package was implemented.  The cut was then reduced to 14%.  This still has a big impact and Mary, now retired, must fill in gaps herself.  She is very aware that had she not had the confidence and knowledge to argue back against the social worker’s recommendation the situation would be so much worse.  And she wonders how many individuals who didn’t have the support to push back are now living with totally inadequate support.