Posts Tagged ‘consumer control’
Simplicity
Today I sat next to a sick man. He told me about the tomatoes he grew this summer. Tomatoes so big and sweet, juice dripping down… he had devised a cage to keep the squirrels away, and it worked. His partner chatted with a nurse about working, as a girl, on a farm, the meticulous methods that the older girls used because they were paid by the quantity of work they produced.. the fun, the hard, hard work. They both spoke of their home, the expense of having someone help him there, still cheaper by far than the nursing home, but not so insurable.
Most people do not ask me to help them find the best or the fanciest things. They want the simple things, really, the things that easily fold into their life as they have come to enjoy it. Staying up late, morning crossword puzzle, and coffee. The TV turned on just for the noise, or not. The birds outside the window, feeder filled. An open window. Grass. Beloved pets at our feet, on the bed, spoiled rotten.
A long time ago, I had been talking to a woman at her home, and called to check in. Her husband told me that she had been in the hospital, and was now at a nursing home nearby for short-term rehabilitation.
I went to see her. On the bed of the room she was staying in, I saw only a suitcase and a cane, but not the woman. I looked, but the room was dark, too. Walking back to the nurse’s station, I saw her small figure walking slowly down the hall. She grabbed my arm, and walked with me to the room, and shut the door.
“Julie,” she said, “I just went upstairs! I just told the nurses that I am going home!”
She had just been exploring, as she was keen to do, and had found the long-term portion of the facility–and talked to people who said they had been there for more than a year. She said she did not want to become one of them.
A few weeks later, I called her again. She told me that she had had a wonderful Sunday recently, cooking and laughing with her husband. She said that in all, she spent many days in bed, sometimes had a hard time. She had help, just about enough of it.
And for those Sundays, the scent of her native dishes, the sun streaming into the windows, plates on a table, being home mattered more than anything. Simple pleasures.
Enhancements
As I mentioned in last week’s post, it was an exciting week to watch the changing healthcare world, and the long-term support service world that surrounds it, as well.
But remembering the idea behind this whole blog, I would like to talk about the visit I made this morning, before our office closed. Like so many of my referrals, this one came from my friends at the hospital. Now, I have often thought about the job that hospital case managers and social workers have to do, and I am not sure I would be able to endure the combination of witnessing human tragedy, being abused from many angles–including some patients, their family, or at times perhaps other hospital staff. Ethical considerations come into play constantly, around privacy and decision-making, and all of it is bound by the constraints of rules, most of which have something to do with the hospital (or after-hospital care) getting paid.
Unlike my colleagues, I have the luxury of walking out of dangerous or even uncomfortable situations. I also am not present (yet) when the people I see die. But the crisis mode of the hospital setting has a definite beginning and end. I am often the connector between admission and discharge to home. And so we attempt to link the two worlds somehow, with luck, if the right programs and services exist.
So, the man I met today must have been born during World War I, I realized, though I never would have guessed this had the hospital not given me his age. He had led a very active life up to a recent surgery, and was contemplating today any other possibilities for staying independent in his last years–because he told me that he could not imagine that he really had so much longer left. (I am not so sure; he seemed closer to eighty than to the century mark, even days following major surgery.)
But I mention this gentleman not because he made my day–and he did. He was a unique individual, as he had worked in hospitals and medical practices throughout his career, and furthermore had lived through the various hardships and good times that a long, full life ought to bring. It is unusual that I meet someone with that breadth of insight into the healthcare and social service system that he had. But it is not so unusual that I meet people who fall into various exceptions and restrictions, and other reasons that our “system” has to deny people needed and requested assistance.
So, I was dismayed–no, this is not an exaggeration–to learn on Friday that federal grant funding will be used within our aging and disability community to build “infrastructure” (a.k.a. bureaucracy). I have watched over the last four years as our own front lines have turned from a great cooperative effort for consumers about all their available options, to (for the most part) a fast-track into services at that front-line worker’s individual agency.
I know this is not always what happens, and I realize also that at times an array of options may be presented at the same time that a worker goes ahead and does an intake. At the same time, it is hard to imagine a more attractive scenario for a discharge planner who knows that a consumer over age sixty will need long-term care services, and can see someone immediately rather than waiting for an intake. It was never the intention of the program, but it makes the professionals and the agencies happy. The one left out of this particular loop, though, is the consumer. Again.
In so many ways it was inevitable that a good idea would become yet another funding stream for the same-old same old without a real vision of what we wanted to achieve. From the start, I have hoped that the goal was consumer-driven, creating a streamlined “no wrong door” for consumers–not only to our own agencies, but to the community as a whole. I thought that services themselves were supposed to be created, that options would increase as a result of the stories we brought to the state.
Instead, I watch a constant tug–still–for control. When I say the words “consumer control”, there still is, somewhere, a resounding “But…” lurking in the room, a caution for safety, a discussion about “what people need”, and ultimately, discussions about assessments and service plans that make me cringe the higher we toss these lofty and made-meaningless notions into the higher offices and commissions and governments, and away from the people who are asking for help.
Everyday that I have done this job over the last four years, I have met people whose lives and experiences inspire me. I have heard stories of sacrifice and endurance and compassion and love. I have seen horrible tragedies right here, right in front of me, seen people actually die from systemic neglect. And still, we have the nerve to tap into federal funding that will create yet another layer to wade through, all under the guise of cooperative efforts and increased communication.
After watching the horses trot farther and farther from the aging and disability consortium stable, federal infrastructure money will likely do nothing more than create more competition, and less cooperation. And likely, those who have the power now will hold tight to it, and the funding, as they maneuver to favor the programs and philosophies and rules that they already hold dear.
So where does this leave the man I saw this morning? Well, strictly nowhere. He will likely remain optimistic, as he seems always to have been, and likely still not quite eligible for this, definitely not eligible for that program. It should not be so complicated. And in fact, it really should not matter. The various eligibility questions, in our country, are barbarisms, statements that we truly do not hold all of our citizens as equals, when the very basic needs to sustain life are denied, constantly, because we spend more time talking about eligibility and cooperation than we do listening to–and giving– what people want and need.
Control
Later this week, I have to go to a meeting to discuss a training module created on the topic of “consumer control”. Now, for those of us in the disability world, these words have powerful meaning: a tenet of independent living, of disability rights, of civil rights across the board, when you get right down to it. And yet, I am anticipating more attempts once more to water down the rhetoric, to emphasize the progress that has been made in “person-centered” service delivery, in “consumer-directed” service delivery, in shared decision making. And while these attempts to include the consumer/patient/client in the discussion about care and services are better than total exclusion of the person, they are still missing the point.
In my work, the number one complaint I hear from people when they refuse services that are available to them is that the services were somehow intrusive, inappropriate or judgmental. I hear that they are not what the person wanted or perhaps even needed, but that someone–a professional of some sort–convinced a person to accept help, or care–or it was just done for (to) them.
One person determining “what is best” for another person is not an exercise of equality in the least. In fact, as the person–or family in the case of a child–is seen as the receiver of something, rather than as the subject of a service-related relationship, the relationship is skewed from the start. Is it any wonder that people do not follow service plans when they are not the ones who are in charge of them?
Loss of control is perhaps the most frightening part about the aging process, and also within the world of illness and disability, if for different reasons. We seem to have a desire as a society to protect those who do not fit the stereotype of what we deem fit and strong. A number alone–a number of years–can determine whether a person is clumsy, or a fall risk. It can determine whether someone is categorically entitled to certain services, like meals on wheels. It seems to invite sudden permission to resort to diminutives when addressing a person whose name we do not know. And for people with disabilities, if the notion does not invite pity, it may well invite fear, as we avoid the issue of difference entirely simply by not considering access of all sorts, by not even entertaining the possibility of a wheelchair, or a seizure, or an inability to speak.
But we as professionals may well envision our perfect worlds for people. We may know the most effective treatments, and the best living conditions for a certain set of circumstances. And actually, we may have some great ideas based on the experience we have and the things we have seen. But always, always, our consumers are the best teachers we have. It is necessary not only to listen, but to relinquish the reins to them. We work not with the people we serve, but for them. Really. It matters that much. The medical care we give, the services we set up, everything we do should start and end with the same sort of relationship I would expect if I walked into an Apple store, and told the worker what I need my I-Pad to do for me. And we should deliver–and if we cannot, we should go back and figure out how to respond to the need we were unable to fulfill.
I talk to a lot of people who are very good at creating their own solutions that really do meet their needs. A man I met a few weeks ago was in a quandary when he needed a doctor’s signature to complete a transportation form. He had stopped seeing the doctor, because he had pooh-poohed the man’s choice of a treatment that was not what the doctor had recommended–even though that treatment had been effective in the end. A woman sat in a nursing home for months, complaining endlessly to whomever would listen, that she did not want to be there, that she wanted to go home. And yet, over and over she had been told that she was too weak, that she could not manage on her own, that she was not safe. This sort of prison must be the ultimate loss of control in our society. (Now she is home, safe.)
I had a dream not so long ago that prescriptions for medicationss were a thing of the past. All medicines were legal, and available, and we just took them if we thought we needed them, consulted with professionals if we thought we needed to. I know it sounds medieval, and reckless to some, but I wonder as the world becomes wilder, as we self-publish and grow, if we cannot reinvent the sort of control we have as individuals to determine our own needs, if we cannot let go of our own (perhaps unconscious) desire to “help” others (which is another word for controlling them), if we cannot see fit to trust–truly–in the ability of those whose abilities are different from our own to make decisions about their own lives.
Only Anecdotal 