I’VE been doing a bit of digging this week, following the recent Journal story about a Salisbury care home branded ‘inadequate’ by inspectors.

And I learned that half the residents at the home, Laverstock Care Centre on London Road, are funded by Wiltshire Council.

I’m telling you this, not to knock Wiltshire or this particular home, but because everyone acknowledges that the care system nationally isn’t working. As the home was put into special measures for the second time in 18 months, the Care Quality Commission said it was not safe, effective, caring, responsive or well-led.

Staff shortages were a particular problem, as Journal readers confirmed. One ex-employee told on our website of colleagues standing in the corridor in tears over their workload and the way they were treated.

Now the council has told me that it is funding 34 of the residents on a block contract, at a cost of £25,000 a week, equating to roughly £735 per person.

It is common practice across the sector for self-funding residents to be charged much higher fees to subsidise those reliant on local authority money, because local authorities haven’t got enough – money, that is.

A government ideologically hell-bent on cutting back the public sector makes sure of that, even though it hasn’t got any better answers to how we take care of vulnerable elderly people.

The Laverstock home’s owners declined to tell me what they charge self-funders. Maybe a reader with a relative living there will enlighten me?

Without this key piece of information, the CQC report leaves us unable to make fully informed judgements.

A Wiltshire spokesman told me: “We are disappointed that the care standards at this home are so far from what is expected. Our primary concern is the wellbeing of residents, and we are working with partners and the home’s management closely to help ensure that improvements are made quickly.”

A spokesman for the home said: “The care sector suffers from many challenges, including nationwide underfunding and difficulty recruiting suitably qualified and trained staff, but this should never be used as an excuse for shortcomings in services.

“We were very disappointed with the content of our most recent CQC report and made clear to the CQC that we believed there were factual inaccuracies in their findings.

“We are nevertheless proud of the steps taken since March to address areas where we could make improvements. The health and wellbeing of our residents is our absolute priority and we are committed to consistently providing the high-quality care each resident should expect.”

I’m sure they are. But can they do it, unless the funding system is sorted out? Starting with an open discussion about the real costs of good care and decent pay for those who deliver it.

If you get cancer the NHS uses our money to look after you. If you get Alzheimer’s, that’s also a disease. We taxpayers should care for you, too.

If only we could trust the government to spend our taxes that wisely.

anneriddle36@gmail.com