Sector reform
altogether and risk them falling further and further behind? For those that have adopted technology,
some may have bought legacy software some years back and are now stuck using a system that does not provide value in the way that a modern and sophisticated care management system would. Without the right funding, these providers will be stuck using a system that no longer serves them, and no amount of training is going to enable providers to get value from a system that is stuck in the past. As a software provider, designing
technology that is accessible and easy to use for care providers is my top priority, and I am not alone in that. There is an outdated notion that the social care sector is tech-phobic, but in my experience, this certainly has not been the case. Good technology meets people where they are and supports their needs. It prioritises solving users’ actual problems. If the government were aligned with the sector’s needs, it might find that care providers need funding for technology more than they need training on it. While I concede that certain technologies
may need training to roll them out more widely, training in motion sensors, AI, and video telecare is meaningless if providers cannot afford to implement them. This latest government scheme is designed to upskill leaders, but leaders need hardware, infrastructure, and budgets – not just knowledge.
Funding promises do not match reality Government claims of ‘additional funding’ do not hold up under scrutiny. The promised £880 m is just a fraction of what is needed to bridge the widening gap in social care – now facing a £2.8 bn rise in costs. And while costs are rising, so too is the population accessing social care services. According to the Health Foundation, a million additional health and care staff will be needed by 2031 to meet the growing demand for care in the UK. This is a sector struggling from a lack of resources, not training. Let us put that £880 m into context:
n It could buy 8.8 m motion sensors at £100 each.
n It could fund the annual running costs of only 733 care homes, based on an average cost of £1.2 m per year.
With over 17,000 care homes in England alone, this shows how far £880 m really stretches. Time and time again, social care has been on the receiving end of hollow
40
www.thecarehomeenvironment.com March 2026
commitments that sound good on paper but do not translate into real-world change. What is needed is an investment that care leaders can actually put to work – not another initiative to tick off in a manifesto.
The high cost of digital exclusion If we cannot support the entire sector to digitalise, the consequences of digital exclusion will not just impact operations – it will hurt the people in the sector, too. Providers without access to digital systems cannot benefit from the time- saving features of digital care planning, automated medication alerts, or remote monitoring tools. This leaves staff with higher administrative burdens and more time spent on paperwork or bogged down in outdated legacy systems, instead of focused on person-centred care. In rural areas, where internet
infrastructure remains patchy, digital exclusion can mean providers are unable to meet even the most basic of digital transformation targets. Meanwhile, service users miss out on innovations that could help them live independently in their communities for longer. Care providers operating on tight margins
are often least able to absorb the upfront costs of digitisation. The result? A two-tiered system where only the best-funded providers can adopt new tech. This widens inequality between services and places additional
To genuinely improve care outcomes, we need a joined-up strategy
pressure on already disadvantaged communities. Without clear, accessible funding and
implementation support for the providers who need it most, digital transformation risks reinforcing existing divides rather than bridging them.
The sector is buckling This new qualification arrives at a time
when many providers are already struggling to stay afloat. They are battling recruitment and retention issues, skyrocketing energy bills, and yet another hike to National Insurance – costs that are rarely mitigated by increases in funding or support. Every care leader I speak to is
juggling multiple pressures just to keep services running. Adding a new training requirement, however well-intentioned, without first alleviating these fundamental stressors, risks being seen not as support, but as yet another burden. Labour’s recent rejection of an NI
exemption for care providers directly undermines the viability of the very services they claim to be supporting.
Policy contradictions Wes Streeting talks about harnessing the full potential of technology in social care, but in the same breath, his party has voted down financial relief that providers desperately need to function. This is a clear contradiction. You cannot
modernise a system while simultaneously stripping it of the resources it needs to operate. We need policy coherence, not digital ambition on one side and financial austerity on the other. If this government wants to be taken
seriously on social care reform, it must stop sending mixed signals. That means funding digital transformation and the people expected to deliver it.
tomertu -
stock.adobe.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43
