The BBC reports on a new Anchor housing association project to provide a 'luxury' care home, targeted at 'baby boomers' like me, who are property rich but income poor. They accept that it will not be for people paid for by local councils or many people who are self-funding.
Why this should be seen as a novelty I am not sure, since there are many such luxury care homes that exclude the poor by their prices? Except, I suppose, that it comes from a housing association more strongly associated with a charitable motivation. We have all got used to people paying for luxury, and perhaps I would want it for myself when I get there, although if they are targeting baby boomers, they are probably a couple of decades too soon.
But the question has to be asked: why should council funded or self-paying residents not also get a good standard of provision? The claim here is a magnificent advance to a 1:5 staff ratio, rather than a more typical 1:8 or 1:12, and everyone gets 12 weeks induction training, including stuff on dementia. Why should this be regarded as luxurious? Surely a reasonable level of staffing and training for the staff should be regarded as normal.
BBC News Report: is there a future for luxury care homes?
I agreed with your point of view. Thanks for all the information here. It is really useful to know.
ReplyDeleteEmi care homes