Is a rise in care home closures the sign of an industry in development or in turmoil?

A spate of care home closures, seeming to indiscriminately touch all parts of the UK, has not gone unnoticed by the media despite the enticing curiosity of a new coalition Government. The ageing demographic that healthcare practitioners face is well-publicised and it would rash to suppose that a new politics has so soon had a negative effect on the care sector, rather perhaps, if we are to point a finger at politics, that a voting campaign caused many closure decisions to be delayed in favour of the calmer post-election atmosphere.

This is not to say, however, that the unpopular site of society’s most frail and vulnerable citizens being forced into relocations will not have a negative effect on public attitudes and risk an added and unwelcome characterisation at a time when unpopular cuts to the public sector are even now being prepared. Tuesday’s Queen’s speech and its many announcements included the forming of an independent review which will look in detail at the UK’s funding of elderly care, with a scheduled twelve months set aside in order for the review to reach the long-term solution the care industry is desperate for – but is the sector solely in the hands of politicians?

The answer to this question might lie in the reasoning behind elderly care service closures. Though it’s true that some of this week’s announced closures, such as Abergavenny’s Saxonbury Nursing Home and Birmingham’s Washwood Heath, as well as the loss of key services like Flintshire’s Admiral Nursing Service, can be seen to arise from financial difficulty, another observation is that the drive to produce more modern and versatile forms of care might have made the loss of some care facilities a necessary evil.

Cypress House in Cheshire and Crewe’s West View and Manor Way care homes are three such examples of facilities that are being closed to make way for a new era of care. Schemes that include retirement housing, ‘extra care’ villages and sheltered housing accommodation are proving more enticing propositions to developers due to the more flexible outlook on care they are able to achieve, in encouraging a more independent lifestyle amongst those with care needs.

Even if we do take the view that there are optimistic signs the industry can avoid the horror stories some observers have foretold, of an over-full care sector riddled with failures and abuses, the forced relocation of elderly people will remain a contentious issue. Campaigners’ attempts at blocking closures where frail residents have expressed a wish to remain have not proved completely fruitless, most notably in the case of care solicitor Yvonne Hossack, credited with saving the services of over eighty care homes having seen first-hand the effects that forced relocations can have on life expectancy, and even defeating a charge of ‘serious professional misconduct’ that was brought against her by local councils, who know doubt realised she had become a major obstacle. Nevertheless, the ingredients needed to save care homes scheduled for closure are not an easy recipe to muster, with hard-fought campaigns, such as that which have so far saved the service of Bryneithin care home in the Vale of Glamorgan, sometimes being fought over the space of two years.

It is quite likely that the issue of rehousing elderly and frail people will become a matter for full public debate regardless of how many closures are successfully fought and whether or not there is a justifiable reason for wanting to develop existing services. However, though the issue threatens to remain a complicated and controversial one for as long as society adjusts to an ageing demographic, there are at least signs that the industry can help itself in many ways rather than placing itself totally in the hands of Central Government and independent reviews.