MARTYN Underhill, Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner, is quite right that society must do more to protect elderly people.

However, should it be down to families to install cameras to monitor the care, or sometimes lack of, that their loved one is receiving in a care home?

The issue with “spy cameras” however is twofold.

First of all, they usually don’t have the consent of the person being recorded, which is a requirement in a bedroom.

Secondly, covert camera use can break down trust and confidence between the provider and the family/resident. It also could result in the elderly person being abused before evidence is recorded.

We believe overt systems are the appropriate way forward.

Why is the care sector itself not following other business sectors and embracing all aspects of technology to safeguard vulnerable people? Is it burying its head in the sand and failing to face up to its responsibilities?

It is a fact that the vast majority of care homes are compassionate environments where residents can feel safe and cared for, however it is also a sad fact that there are individual cases of serious abuse.

Our own research in the South East found that nearly 60 per cent of the people questioned welcomed the use of camera surveillance to safeguard residents.

Cameras in care settings can never be a substitute for adequate staff numbers, supervision or training. However, independently monitored cameras can highlight both good and poor practice.

Combining the use of stateof-the-art technology with the judgement of professional experienced people, surveillance need not be a “Big Brother is watching you” scenario but something that families, staff and commissioners embrace as key to offering peace of mind and high quality care.

BEN WILSON

CARE PROTECT, CLEVELAND

Write to us: Christchurch Times, Richmond Hill, Bournemouth, BH2 6HH or email timesletters@newsquest.co.uk