Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:26:16.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some social consequences of remodelling English sheltered housing and care homes to ‘extra care’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2008

FAY WRIGHT ,
ANTHEA TINKER ,
JULIENNE HANSON ,
HEDIEH WOJGANI  and
RUTH MAYAGOITIA
FAY WRIGHT*
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, London, UK.
ANTHEA TINKER
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, London, UK.
JULIENNE HANSON
Affiliation:
The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London, UK.
HEDIEH WOJGANI
Affiliation:
School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, Reading, UK.
RUTH MAYAGOITIA
Affiliation:
Centre of Rehabilitation Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Fay Wright, Institute of Gerontology, Strand Campus, King's College, London, WC2R 2LS, UK. Email: fay.wright@kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Across the United Kingdom, new build and remodelled ‘extra care’ schemes are being developed in many areas on the assumption that they offer older people with care needs an alternative to residential care. This paper reports an evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team of 10 extra-care schemes remodelled from sheltered housing or residential care units. The evaluation audited buildings and identified social and architectural problems. No two schemes in the sample were alike; some aimed for a dependency balance and others set a dependency threshold for admission. The three criteria used for assessing eligibility were the number of paid care hours the older person had at home, their property status and the type of disability. This article focuses on the wide variation in assessing eligibility for an extra-care place and on some social consequences of remodelling. A number of tenants remained in situ during the remodelling process in six of the schemes. Building professionals were unanimous that retaining some tenants on site caused significant development delays and increased the remodelling costs. There was also a social price to pay. ‘Old’ tenants resented their scheme changing into extra care and were hostile towards ‘new’ tenants who had obvious needs for support. In some extra-care schemes, ‘old’ tenants were refusing to participate in meals and all social activities.

Keywords

extra-care housingremodelling sheltered housingtenant hostility to newcomers
Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 135 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audit Commission 1998. Home Alone: The Role of Housing in Community Care. Audit Commission, London.Google Scholar
Bernard, M., Bartlam, B., Biggs, S. and Sim, J. 2004. New Lifestyles in Old Age: Health, Identity and Well-being in Berryhill Retirement Village. Policy, Bristol, Avon.Google Scholar
Bernard, M., Bartlam, B., Sim, J. and Biggs, S. 2007. Housing and care for older people: life in an English purpose-built retirement village. Ageing & Society, 27, 4, 555–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croucher, K., Hicks, L. and Jackson, K. 2006. Housing with Care for Later Life: A Literature Review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2004. Extra-care Housing for Older People: An Introduction for Commissioners. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2005. Independence, Well-being and Choice: Our Vision for the Future of Social Care for Adults in England. Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions 2004. Opportunity Age. Volume 2, A Social Portrait of Ageing. Department for Work and Pensions, London.Google Scholar
Elderly Accommodation Counsel 2007. Statistics on Extra-care Housing in England. Elderly Accommodation Counsel, London.Google Scholar
Heywood, F., Oldman, C. and Means, R. 2002. Housing and Home in Later Life. Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
Ladyman, S. 2005. Supporting Older People: Meeting Changing Care and Housing Needs. Speech at Help the Aged Conference, 23 February 2005. Available online at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/News/Speeches/Speecheslist/DH_4105330 [Accessed May 2008].Google Scholar
Laing and Buisson 2006. Extra-care Housing Market Report 2006. Laing and Buisson, London.Google Scholar
McCafferty, P. 1994. Living Independently: A Study of the Housing Needs of Elderly and Disabled People. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) 1969. Housing Standards and Costs: Accommodation Specially Designed for Old People. Circular 82/69, MHLG, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Oldman, C. 2000. Blurring the Boundaries: A Fresh Look at Housing and Care Provisions for Older People. Pavilion, Brighton, East Sussex.Google Scholar
Riseborough, M. and Fletcher, P. 2004. Extra-care Housing: What Is It? Fact Sheet 1, Housing, Learning and Improvement Network, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
Tinker, A., Wright, F. and Zeilig, H. 1996. Difficult to Let Sheltered Housing. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.Google Scholar
Tinker, A., Zeilig, H., Wright, F., Hanson, J., Mayagoitia, R. and Wojgani, H. 2007. Extra Care: a concept without consensus. Quality in Ageing 8,4, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. 1964. The Last Refuge: A Survey of Residential Homes and Institutions for the Aged in England and Wales. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Willcocks, D., Peace, S. and Kellaher, L. 1987. Private Lives in Public Places. Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Wright, F. 1998. Continuing to Care: The Effect on Spouses and Children of an Older Person's Admission to a Care Home. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.Google Scholar