Well, they’re at it again. Nursing home operators and advocates for quality nursing home care are bickering over nursing home regulations and how much regulation is enough. This time they’re facing off in Kentucky. The operators and their supporters claim the current regulatory environment in Kentucky invites “toxic litigation” and that the funds used in such settlements and other fines could be better used to improve care and reduce costs. The quality advocates and their supporters say that’s nonsense and that regulations and penalties are put in place to provide an incentive to put resident care above the bottom line.
This is an old battle. It’s been going on since the 60’s when Medicare and Medicaid came along and nursing home operators discovered how much money there was to be had in the LTC business. Long Term Care facilities were not as closely regulated as they are today and the resulting “hell hole” horror stories gave nursing homes a bad name. Then OBRA came along in the late 80’s and conditions seemed to have generally and gradually improved since.
While OBRA was landmark legislation, the above is an oversimplified version of events and it took much more than government oversight to put Long Term Care on the right path. It took – and still takes – many different people from many different directions to make Long Term Care work and evolve. And sometimes those people coming from different directions clash.
From a caregiver’s perspective, these two adversarial camps, the operators-administrators-managers and the regulators-advocates-surveyors, can be seen as one big group. As a group, they collectively create and enforce the standards and policies under which we work. However, by the time all of this gets to us, what they’ve come with often doesn’t make much sense.
Oh, the particulars are good. It always about making some improvement in our residents’ lives. No one is going to argue for bringing back vest restraints or argue against resident privacy rights. We all accept that regulatory oversight and the policies that result from it are both necessary and well-intentioned.
What doesn’t make sense from a caregiver’s perspective is that the additional duties created by these regulations and policies are rarely accompanied by a corresponding increase in direct care staffing levels. We are simply told to do more with what we have. When I started in 1977 my resident group included 12 residents on second shift and 10 on first. While some places have improved on this, that ratio is still pretty much the standard. And due to difficulties in keeping facilities properly staffed on a day to day basis, the reality is often worse.
Not too long ago, I conducted an informal Facebook poll of direct care workers regarding care plans. My question: “Do you feel that your workload is light enough to enable you to consistently meet the care plan goals of all the residents assigned to you?” The overwhelming response was “No,” often expressed forcefully – and sometimes, colorfully. Out of 303 caregivers, only four answered yes.
It reminds me of that classic definition of “a mess”: A mess is trying to fit ten pounds of manure into a five pound bag. When you simply pile on more work but fail to provide more direct care workers to do it, you’re going to have some kind of mess.
Dear Operators-Administrators-Managers-Regulators-Advocates-Surveyors and assorted LTC professionals: we simply cannot do what you ask with what you’ve given us. Believe us, we want to do everything you ask of us – and much, much more. Perhaps you could find a way to work together and help us out a bit here?