I'm just bracing myself for an initial meeting, doubtless to be followed by many others, where we'll try not to redesign my sons very good Person Centred Care package (that's taken many years to get in place). The new CQC has decided - without understanding the package - that it needs to review what CSCI very recently rated an Excellent package, and thinks that, because it doesn't fit their one size fits all tickboxes, it may be illegal. They don't seem to think there's anything wrong with the service, and nothing has actually changed (apart from their own administration) but we now have a problem.
His care is complicated, and difficult, and it isn't made any easier by being threatened that parts of it may have to be withdrawn for administrative reasons. There's quite a lot of stress involved in caring for someone with a life threatening condition and the sheer physical strain of what we have to do is itself extremely tiring. We could really do without these 'manufactured' problems. I'm sure the administrators involved feel they are acting from the best safeguarding motives, but from where we're standing (sometimes falling down due to exhaustion) it feels like the attitude is sometimes 'never mind the service, see how safe it is'. Real safeguarding would ensure my sons health and welfare was safeguarded, but it feels like the main thing being actually safeguarded is the legal back of the administration.
I know it's heresy to say anything against safeguarding after Soham and Baby P, but someone has to stand up and say safeguarding isn't everything. If the sins of the few are going to mean anyone with a severe disability doesn't get the service they need, something has gone too far. Neither my son nor I have murdered any children lately, but we're paying the price by having his health put at risk so that organisations that should be providing care, can never be blamed for anything. Bad things have happened - more bad things are happening to us as a result.