Light Touch Inspections, Winterbourne View and the CQC

There was a report on the Community Care website on Friday that the CQC were ‘calling time’ on their so-called light touch inspection ‘regime’ thereby rolling out potentially to annual inspections for adult services and care homes.

As the article emphasises

Bower said that the CQC had favoured a “proportionate, risk-based, light-touch” approach to regulation – in which services were left uninspected for up to two years in the absence of issues coming to light – but service users, providers and staff favoured more inspections.

“What people want, particularly people who use services, is for us to put our boots on the ground,” she said. “Inspections are a really positive quality assurance for providers.”

It’s hard to believe Bower would have been saying this if she had not been forced into the position by the Winterbourne View scandal where substantial abuse was uncovered.

A shame that she did not show more backbone and spirit in protecting the organisation that was handed to her to lead when all the cuts were coming hard and fast. It did not take a genius to work out that the only reason the so-called ‘light touch’ system was implemented in the first place was to save money. The problem is, that it has stripped the CQC of any credibility it might have had as a regulator.

And yesterday, this same CQC criticised Winterbourne View and it’s owners, Castlebeck had misled that self-same regulator about issues that where taking place and abuse that was taking place while they were inspecting the service.

Interesting to see the Independent highlight the issues which the CQC raised as criticisms of Castlebeck

Inspectors said they found people who had no background in care services had been working at the centre, references were not always checked and staff were not trained or supervised properly.

They added Castlebeck failed to meet essential standards, required by law, including:

:: The managers did not ensure that major incidents were reported to the Care Quality Commission as required;

:: Planning and delivery of care did not meet people’s individual needs;

:: They did not have robust systems to assess and monitor the quality of services;

:: They did not identify, and manage, risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients;

:: They had not responded to or considered complaints and views of people about the service;

:: Investigations into the conduct of staff were not robust and had not safeguarded people;

:: They did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurred;

:: They did not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse;

:: They did not have arrangements in place to protect the people against unlawful or excessive use of restraint;

:: They did not operate effective recruitment procedures or take appropriate steps in relation to persons who were not fit to work in care settings;

:: They failed in their responsibilities to provide appropriate training and supervision to staff.

While there is no excuse for such considerable failures, you’d think that a good regulator worth it’s proverbial salt should have picked up some of these issues through a thorough and robust regulation system.

Remember this is the same Bower who has promoted extensively the use of whistleblowing and family members as a ‘resource’ to augment their inspection processes. And then the organisation feigns upset when things are concealed to it.

How did we come to this? How did we, as a society, allow the organisation that regulates Health and Social Care to be stripped bare due to a resource-led decision and blunt its teeth so incredibly that people who depend on these services can have no confidence in its position to protect?

Money, cost, closed eyes and an ability to discharge responsibility for the care of those in our society who need particular protection has led for this situation to emerge.

Unfortunately I can’t go into details about some of the things I  have seen over the past week that makes me feel  much more strongly about these issues but suffice to say this – which, in itself – could even be too much.

I visited a care home which had an ‘excellent’ star rating. Yes, the stars are outdated but it is an easy way to check and remains so. There had been no inspections over the past year, at least, anyway. Excellent. And it looked it on the outside. My involvement was due to a large scale safeguarding investigation. Let’s just say it was very far from excellent and had been for a number of years, including when the last ‘excellent’ inspection rating had been given.

The inspections depend too heavily on self-reported data and too little on ‘feet on the ground’ and investigations skills. I sometimes wish I could try doing a really thorough, wholesale inspection of any given inspection service. I’ve worked in residential care. I know what I would look for. It angers and upsets me that self-reporting and the ‘light-touch’ were ever permitted for purely cost-related reasons.

But the CQC says it is increasing inspections – still it will not be close to previous levels. To see them criticise Castlebeck – all well and good – but it doesn’t take the responsibility for inspection and regulation away from them. It bears some resemblence to the social workers who are told they are more easily led by parents who conceal information from them. If the social workers are chastised for ‘believing’ why not the regulator.

It makes me angry. Maybe time to invest in regulation and inspection and demand better services that actually protect against, rather than mask poor care. It is ever more important.

Personalisation and Professional Disillusionment

Yesterday, Community Care published the result of a survey they had undertaken about ‘personalisation’ among social care professionals.

The headline figures while wholly unsurprising, make for interesting reading where only 41% of respondents felt that service users would benefit from the implementation of personal budgets and 83% felt that cuts would impede the progress of the personalisation agenda.

To which my first thought was ‘only 83%’?

Anyone who has read some of my previous writing/ranting about personalisation will be pretty clear where I stand.

While the idea and the concept of introducing more person-centred support planning and opening up direct payments to a wider range of people is absolutely fantastic as a concept, the implementation has been dire.

There has been a complete side-lining of service user groups that don’t fit into the ‘easy’ mode – namely those with mental health problems, older adults and those who might not have capacity to involve themselves fully in the support planning process, the same figures and quotes that the government and her agencies roll out again and again about the man who pays for a PA to go with him to a football match instead of a day centre are so completely off the radar when the smaller pool of money available for care services exist that they are almost insulting to those for whom a) the thought of having enough money allocated to pay for two tickets to a football match would equal 7 showers a week – so it’s football or cleanliness and b) that group of people (because, yes, much as the government don’t want to accept it, they do exist) that actually WANT to go to day centres.

And so we plough on.

But even though I have had many criticisms of the way that personalisation and particularly personal budgets either managed centrally by the local authority (where the end effect is exactly the same for the service users in most situations) or delivered by direct payments (where someone has to have capacity and desire to take on the direct payment and employ assistants or have someone who is willing and able to do that for them) – there is more to the personalisation agenda and process which is in danger of being lost in the process.

Personalisation as a value base and an approach to work and social work in particular with people who need or who are eligible to receive services for care ties in perfectly with aims of re-addressing the power differential between provider and ‘receiver’ and the imbedded dichotomy between ‘giver’ and ‘taker’ in society.

That model of giver/taker which is bound within the welfare state system can create an imbalance and the potential to give back some of the ‘control’ and some of the decisions to the person who receives services may, in some way, redress elements of this balance. There is no way that my training and experience has taught me better than anyone else, what YOU as a recipient need. Yes, I learnt my theories and my models and understand that building social networks is important but if you prefer to do that at a coffee morning at the local museum instead of at a day centre that’s perfect. If you want your neighbour’s granddaughter to help with your personal care rather than an anonymous and frequently changing ‘carer’ from a local agency who is paid at mimimum wage and has a day full of appointments and who isn’t paid for travel time by her agency so she needs to cut short on some of the time – perfect.

But we already had that system with Direct Payments. Where is the difference?

Ideologically, the difference was that everyone would know how much money they were ‘getting’ – whether directly or managed and they would be able to be consumers. Our society tells us that money is power. Money creates consumers and the market will right itself.

Even, theoretically, when a personal budget is managed by a third party (and I include the local authority as a potential ‘manager’) you will know how much is ‘allocated’ to you so that you can ‘spend’ it in the way you want.

This doesn’t happen in practice though because local authorities need to save money and are still tied up into procurement contracts that make agencies unequal when ‘bidding’ for the funds that have been allotted via personal budgets.

I know this is getting a bit technical and complicated but it’s important to understand. I don’t think anyone can oppose ‘personalisation’ as an approach regarding empowerment and ideology.

The implementation, however, reeks of money-saving and penny pinching. It also has pushed the responsibility for services away from the local authorities and onto individuals and their carers.

You have £100 per week, find the care yourself – then we (the LA) aren’t responsible anymore.

I’m wholly in favour of contracting out assistance and advice on self-assessments and support planning to local voluntary sector organisations. My own LA tried that. We referred lots of people to them.  They withdrew because we were referring too  many people to them and the local organisations didn’t have the resources (or the contract) to undertake as many support plans as were being referred – but the idea is not one I have any problem with and in fact, I rather like it.

But this wasn’t offered to people who do not have the capacity to lead in their own self-assessment and support planning. The organisations couldn’t do that because they were not experienced in non-directed advocacy work – it takes longer.

It is hard to see through the budget cuts as well towards a future where, as Burstow as said he wants direct payments to be the ‘preferred method’ of delivery of personal budgets.  I don’t want to detract from the fact that this is and will be fantastic for some, perhaps most people, we move to a model where there is – again – a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

The true tragedy of the personalisation agenda is that is has and is coming to fruition during a period of cuts – the government (and the previous Labour government too) want to pull back the responsibilities of local authorities and with the criteria for accessing any support is rising rapidly it may well be that more and more personal budgets are delivered directly from peoples’ own savings or disability benefits (while they still exist).

I am fearful of the future for adult social care but I’m not necessarily unhopeful.

I think there is potential for change and development but unfortunately the ways I see of improving systems come at higher cost.  There has to be some major research and debate about the delivery of personal budgets and the way that personalisation encompasses people who lack capacity and lack advocates (family and friends) and how they can best benefit from this process – perhaps access to additional funds to pay for the trust fund type system of management we were assured would happen but in practice is not feasible for a relatively small sum of money as it costs more than it might deliver.

We need to see more about how support planning can work in the voluntary sector as, speaking personally, I genuinely don’t have time to do the process of support planning any justice as a part of my day to day job. It ends up being rushed because I can’t devote a couple of visits of a couple of hours to talk through and develop a truly person centred support plan.

The process of self-assessment needs to be reconsidered because while the idea is fantastic for some people – our self-assessment forms are biased towards physical disabilities and look scarily similar to a DLA form where people are asked to explain how they are on ‘their worst day’. That doesn’t really help with confident-building when you are working with someone who has very low self-esteem and depression/anxiety. The process of self-assessment in itself can and has been traumatic – let alone the person who is not able to engage with the assessment process due to a lack of mental capacity where questions about ‘dreams, hopes and wishes for the future’ while well-intentioned, can be hurtful and hard for families to listen to when they are asked to their parent who has advanced dementia.

I fear we have allowed a great conceit to be steamrollered into simply another ‘one size fits all’ approach to developing social care. It doesn’t have to be like this but that seems to be the government perception about what ‘personalisation and personal budgets’ are.

Choice is fantastic of course, but sometimes people want quality as well. It shouldn’t ever need to be an either/or. It does feel like it at the moment with the promotion of choice above all things.

So where are we going? Personalisation isn’t going away and nor should it. Personal budgets aren’t going away and nor should they.  Local authorities, however, might be going away – further and further away from social care and the responsibilities that they hold towards it.

We keep up with the advocacy and with the systems that are failing because we owe it to those who are reliant on these systems to make them work as best they can but we keep trying to pinpoint and pin down the flaws in the implementation with the hope that sometime, some day, someone will listen.

As professionals we don’t oppose personalisation. We have always been trying to use person-centred approaches. We just dislike injustice and inequity and that seems to be painted all over the current implementation and the frustration is that so few people (if any) in government seem to be aware.  Am I disillusioned? Yes, definitely. We were promised new ways of working in a more person centred way.

Desperate, no, not yet though as long as there’s some fight left in the belly to keep banging on and on and on about what personalisation SHOULD be and why it isn’t working yet. Not for everyone.

A Vision for Adult Care – a few brief thoughts

I’ve only just had a chance to read the ‘Vision for Adult Care’ published yesterday and wanted to offer a view very initial thoughts although I haven’t any doubt that it will be referred to continually for many years to come.

Having read it my initial response was a little underwhelmed. I don’t know what I was expecting. Perhaps that was just it really, we knew exactly what to expect. There wasn’t anything in there that should surprise anyone at all.

We know that there needs and will be a genuine desire to push the personalisation agenda and move towards personal budgets where service users and carers have greater control over the budgets that they are assessed to need with services rather than directly provided and commissioned services being chosen ‘on their behalf’.

I have always attempted to care plan with rather than for people. That has been the policy for about 20 years arguably since the 1990 NHS and Community Care Act. What stymied the ‘choice’ element back then was the realisation that services have costs attached and ‘block contracts’ are cheaper and provide more services are cheaper costs to the councils. My understanding is that block contracted care with little choice in the provider was never the goal of the reform to legislation 20 years ago. That was supposed to, and did, open up the ‘social care’ market. It has just led us down this prescriptive path because the prescriptive path was cheaper than the choice and user-led path.

That should be the lesson for the government of the day – but enough with my cynicism.

I can wholly embrace the desire to move everyone to personal budgets and moreover, I absolutely welcome and appreciate the acknowledgement that having a personal budget is not the same as having a direct payment.

The language of social care seems almost designed in some ways to alienate and obfuscate so I apologise in my use of jargon.

Managed personal budgets seem to be a way that some local authorities have ‘dodged the issue’ of blocks to direct payments or when people have been reluctant/unwilling to move to direct payments. The government seems to have made, at least an attempt to understand this.

As the document says

We want people to have the freedomm to choose the services that are right for them from a vibrant plural market. That is why this vision challenges councils to provide personal budgets, preferably as direct payments to everyone eligible within social care within the next two years’

That ‘preferably’ offers the councils some get out within the target of ‘two years’ but it will be interesting to see what outcome measures (because there will be new outcome measures) are going to be taken up in my council, at least and what kinds of pressures and supports will be rolled out for that broader ‘direct payments’ issue.

I wonder how many people accept and understand that these ‘direct payments’ and ‘personal budgets’ are all means-tested and can all be charged. I mention that because sometimes in the press there doesn’t seem a complete appreciation of that. I say that as someone who has recently assisted to set up a direct payment personal budget to someone who is paying full cost. He is paying as much as he is getting back. Sounds nonsensical? Not really, because this way he is able to ‘buy’ into the support package and information that is given in the same way it is to those who don’t pay for their own support. Apparently, according to the government though, we don’t provide the same levels of support for full cost users, that is also rolled out as a goal for the future. I wholeheartedly welcome that. Access to support, information and care planning should and will be a universal service. I’ve always believed it is inherently unfair that people who are charged full-cost have sometimes been denied that support – indeed, I have personally provided it and argued successfully with my managers that I should wherever it has been possible but I am aware that too often the local authority has washed it’s hands of anything that it does not have a direct responsibility for – mostly due to cost rather than callousness. But back to the ‘vision’..

The paper sets out a number of principles

Prevention

‘empowered people and strong communities will work together to maintain independence’

Wonderful. No-one can deny statements like that. The vision specifically explains (quite rightly) that early intervention promotes better outcomes (and lower costs) in the longer term. This is what we have been saying for years – as the eligibility criteria have increasingly tightened. Therein lies the so-called rub. The way the ‘vision’ ducks this is by emphasising community support and action alongside paid care services. The ‘Big Society approach to social care’. Gulp. I honestly still find it difficult to understand ‘big society’. Does it mean more people doing voluntary and community work? I am sceptical even though I don’t want to be. My concern is that it means a greater pressure on family and friends as carers.  The vision mentions the ‘scheme’ in Japan where families ‘swap’ care responsibilities in different areas of the country. I worry that too great a reliance on informal and ‘free’ support will lead to un inequitable access to equivalent services for people that don’t have large support networks or live in supportive communities. Time Banks are also suggested as a way of providing support which is good, I like the idea but too great a reliance on hours given willingly may not be the best safety net.

I absolutely agree that commissioning needs to be closer to the ground. I see some of the craziest commissioning decisions being made and can’t believe anyone in those service areas have any clue about what  the local community needs or wants.

The vision does state clearly that ‘Carers are the first line of prevention’. Good. And it goes on to explain ‘Councils should recognise the value of offering a range of personalised support for carers to help prevent the escalation of needs that fall on statutory services’.

I have set up a lot of carers’ direct payments myself and have a few carers who manage them. In some ways, it is very easy to ‘sell’ direct payments to carers as there is a much greater degree of flexibility but there is actually very little money allocated to carers’ direct payments presently. I hope this ‘vision’ and appreciation of the longer term saving that carers are contributing that we will be able to offer them more money through direct payments themselves. Carers Allowance is some kind of evil joke that is, in my view, insulting. Carers Direct Payments potentially can ‘make up’ for it but the local authorities have to loosen the poor upper limits on the carers’ direct payments.

We are promised a forthcoming carers’ strategy. I await it will much interest.

Telecare and technology is also mentioned. We have been promoting this for a few years. It can be very successful but it cannot replace human contact.

Personalisation

I’ve mentioned this above and am very glad that the document acknowledges that ‘A personal budget alone does not in itself mean that services are automatically personalised’. In some ways, that has been my cry in what I thought was the dark. The document mentions the areas that have been slow to pick up in the roll out of direct payments, namely older adults, adults with mental health problems, adults with learning disabilities and adults who lack capacity.  Regarding one of the ideas for managing direct payments for people who lack capacity, one of the suggested ‘solutions’ is placing the control of the budget in the hands of ‘another suitable person’. Interesting. I wonder what this means – informal care and support, a trust fund type project, a professional. All have potential costs and as the criteria for eligibility tighten, the money itself will be less. Higher quality care and m0re choice with less money. Sounds perfect.

There aren’t really any solutions offered but at least acknowledging some of the difficulties is a start.

Interestingly, there is a line about increasing choice to people living in residential care which is a fantastic idea. I am very curious and excited to see how this might happen in practice.

Again, the examples offered in the Vision relate to people that have capacity, support and ideas.

There also seemed to be a suggestion that the IMCA (Indepedent Mental Capacity Advocate) role might be broadened. This is a joy to my cynical self. I  have worked extensively with our local IMCA service and I couldn’t praise them highly enough. I really really hope we can use them more but they will need to be paid.

Plurality and Partnership

The vision emphasises an idealised support ‘partnership’ between individuals, communities, voluntary sector, private sector, NHS and local councils. Probably in that order of preference.

We are told the aim is ‘a broad market of high quality service providers’. Absolutely fantastic. This is my vision for social care as well. I am just a little cynical about the high quality=low cost possibilities but I am willing to be proved wrong, indeed, nothing in the world would make me happier. I want to be able to advise and promote high quality care from many different providers. But that was what we were promised 20 years ago.  The vision promotes a move away from the ‘block contracts’, again, personally, I feel in general they have been negative and have limited choice but there has to be an acknowledgement that they grew out of a necessity to reduce costs.

Protection

Safeguarding concerns have often been raised about the roll out of direct payments and a potentially larger, unregulated workforce of Personal Assistants as well as issues regarding management of finances.

The vision seems to have a great deal of faith in CQC (Care Quality Commission) to inspect services where safeguarding concerns have been raised. Anyone else notice the slight problem here? That’s a bit like closing the door after the horse has bolted – I apologise for the cliche.

There is also the suggestion of a type of ‘neighbourhood watch’ scheme for people in communities to ‘report’ and ‘look out for’ people who might be being subject to abuse. Honestly, I hope this is happening anyway. Fine, it doesn’t do any harm but it doesn’t replace a strong safeguarding structure and culture. I noted there is a particular statement that

‘Local government should act as the champion of safeguarding within communities’ which suggests  that whatever the new ‘practices’ outside the local authorities will do, it won’t be safeguarding. There is a consideration to put this function on a statutory basis. Please, please, yes, yes. Vulnerable adults need the same protections as vulnerable children. This is long overdue and a real failing of the current safeguarding system that at times feels too toothless. It is very hard to get police involved sometimes where I can’t imagine there would be the same difficulties if we were talking about children rather than adults.

Productivity

The vision goes into greater detail about the financial package the local authorities and social care has been ‘gifted’. So be it. It is unprotected money and we all have doubts as to whether it will be enough but noone is getting any money at the moment. There is a focus on efficiency savings.

One of the elements that made me happiest actually is hidden towards the back of the document where it states that ‘The Department of Health will amend the ‘Payment by Results’ tariff from April 2012 so that the NHS pays for reablement and other post-discharge services for 30 days after a patient leaves hospital. From next April, Trusts will not be reimbursed for unnecessary readmissions to hospital’.

Hopefully, this will mean that discharge planning is more coherent and less rushed with the Trusts knowing there will be cost implications of readmission if they ‘get it wrong’. Good.

On the other hand, the vision wants councils to rip apart any remaining in-house services. I understand their point that this is potentially narrowing choice but often, certainly everywhere I have worked, it has been the best quality service when compared with private sector care services. This makes me sad. Goodbye, in-house support. I miss you before you have even gone.

People

And so we move to the social care workforce. Sigh. Yes, the government say ‘care workers, nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and social workers, along with carers and the people who use the services’ and you get the impression they put the list in order to importance in their own minds’ eye.

The vision explains that

‘New and continuing professional roles will be developed for front-line social workers, occupational therapists, nurses and others’.

And then goes on to explain the problems there are with sickness and absence in the sector. I wonder if all the reconfigurations have been an issue about increased stress and uncertainty, never mind. I’m sure the government hadn’t considered that.

Interestingly there is mention of working with Munro’s review of children’s services in social work to allow social workers to have more ‘decision-making authority’. Huh? I thought the decision-making was to lie with the service users.

I am thrilled that there seems to be a linking of social work with community development. Seriously. I think this is absolutely the best area for adult social work to place itself and I am genuinely excited to think there could be a role for social workers in community-based growth. However, the skills sets may not quite be there and there will need to be some additional support given at first.

Generally, it’s a mixed bag that tells about lots of hope and plans as expected in a vision. There isn’t much suggestion or explanation yet but that will come with time. Some elements are clearer, some even foggier than they were before and my brief thoughts have been less brief than I imagined.

I find it very hard not to be cynical and I find it very hard to trust this government to be honest. There seems to be a worryingly high dependence on ‘free’ care provided by family and community and no explanation of where the support will come from when these community supports don’t exist.

But I do want the system to be better. I want everyone to receive a better service, not just those who are able to actively engage with the process of receiving a direct payment and I want the changes to work. I don’t care much for the government but I do care desperately for the sector.

A vision is nothing more than a promise until it delivers though. I want the central government, a government without  a mandate, to deliver on outcomes and promises as well as local government officers.

And with that, I sign off the longest post I have ever written for this blog – thanks for staying till the end (if you did). It terrifies me that the word count for one post I wrote in 40 mins is the same as the word count for the essay (currently taking a PQ module) that has taken me about 4 weeks to write… .. . . .

Of CTOs

Community Treatment Orders – Supervised Community Treatment – however it is termed it is one of the aspects of the amended Mental Health Act that I thought I would likely not have significant contact with on a day to day basis. I was right. But my experience might be far from typical as the take-up of these Community Treatment Orders has been much higher than was estimated by the government.

As Community Care reported a couple of weeks back

The statistics revealed that 2,134 community treatment orders were issued in England from November 2008, when they came into force, to March 2009. The government expected there to be 450 CTOs in England and Wales in the first year.

That figure of about 2000 is only until March – currently the whispers (from various training courses) say that the figure is nearer 4000.

So what are they for?

And who do they affect?

[picapp src=”0274/2148922a-9136-4e9a-93ab-ae2e0c5430ec.jpg?adImageId=7124022&imageId=277616″ width=”500″ height=”332″ /]

This was one of the more controversial parts of the amended Mental Health legislation in England because it allowed for conditions relating to treatment to be placed on patients in their own homes. It allows for a process of ‘recall’ to hospital is the conditions relating to treatment are not met.

We, in our training and discussions, are often signposted to people who may have a very clear history of ‘revolving door’ admissions with similar sets of circumstances and the CTO provides a means of enforcing treatment with the threat of recall to hospital in the background and a legal framework being provided in order to do so.

The general discussions that I’ve been party to in my local trust area seems to revolve around a few consultants being very much in favour of using them and others not using them at all so the national figures are high. It is another way of managing risk through compulsion and in an increasingly risk averse culture, it can be seen as an additional safeguard.

I have been involved in a couple of CTO-related decisions in my role as an AMHP (Approved Mental Health Professional). Generally the RC (Responsible Clinician) will be the one to arrange the CTO however before it is valid, the forms have to be signed by an AMHP in order to serve as one-man check and balance system to ensure that the conditions set are fair and appropriate and that the least restrictive path is met.

The other role of the AMHP is in the revocation of a CTO. If, when a patient is recalled to hospital by their Responsible Clinician it is seen fit that they need to revert to the section that they were detained under prior to the CTO, a signature of an AMHP is required on the paperwork in order to validate it.

The only CTO-related issues that I have been involved in so far have been to revoke a CTO – in the situation, the patient was not someone I knew very well but I had been involved in the initial community assessment and bringing her into hospital as a result. I was asked to consider the revocation of the CTO and saw that she was extremely unwell – at least as unwell as the point of the initial assessment considered that it was far more appropriate at that time that she was in hospital for a while longer.

The other decision is more recent so will probably come back to it at a later date and is, as of now, unresolved which is more reason for me not to dwell on details but it has raised interesting dilemmas about how much influence can be placed to sign some of the pink forms (all Mental Health Act forms are pink – for the record) if it will ‘make life easier’. As I said, it’s probably something I will return to at some point.

I was involved in some in-house training about the new Mental Health Act legislation and to be honest, because of the time involved, we skimmed very briefly over CTOs – thinking that they wouldn’t necessarily be relevant within over 65s services however, we are considering a few refresher sessions because, as Pope wisely said ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’..