Blog

  • Categories
  • Category Archives: Doctors In Unite

    We do not wish to reinvent the wheel. Keep Our NHS Public and the Socialist Health Association are launching National Care Support and Independent Living Service on 10th October, The TUC and the Labour Party, through Reclaim Social Care, have good policy on how social care should be organised which Doctors in Unite would be able to broadly align with.

    Doctors in Unite believe that the current model for social care is not working and that this has been brought into sharp focus during the COVID 19 Pandemic. Care homes bore a huge burden of deaths during the first wave, for many reasons, but not least due to the fragmentation that privatisation has imposed on that sector. This has led to a lack of local capacity and national coordination of care for some of the most frail and vulnerable in society.

    Social Care at home is in a similarly parlous state. Domiciliary care is also largely outsourced to the commercial sector and provided by a workforce on extremely low pay, poor conditions and zero hours contracts. Many workers are not paid for the time they spend travelling between clients. Workers have too little time to spend with clients and it is difficult for them to build trusting relationships.

    We believe that:

    1. Care is a basic human right and is good for society as a whole. There must be a national care service which is publicly funded, publicly provided and free at point of need. It should be paid for out of general taxation and years of underfunding must be reversed. The Keynesian Multiplier for care service is substantially higher than the 2.5 figure at which spending is self-funding because for every £1 spent on the service the economy benefits by £2.50 which generates £1 in taxation. Within reason, spending on services with a multiplier above 2.5, such as health, care, environments, education and welfare actually reduces the deficit and so is money well spent.
    2. Private/for profit care services should be brought back into public control.
    3. The national care service must be subject to local democratic control. Users, their families and workers, through their trade unions, must have a strong voice and local councils must be accountable. Neighbourhood health committees should be set up as we suggest in our earlier paper “Public Health and Primary Care”. https://medicalpractitionersunion.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/public-health-and-primary-care.pdf   The service should be funded centrally but organised locally.
    4. Users and their families must be at the centre of their care, which should be personally directed and flexible, but not through personal budgets. We acknowledge that users are usually best placed to determine the care that they need but we are concerned that personal budgets can be unnecessarily expensive and bureaucratic to administer and will give some an economic advantage over others with equal need. Everyone should be able to access the care that they require in the way which is most suitable for them as individuals without the need for personal independence payments. We would like to work with disability action groups to develop personally directed care while taking the economic inequalities out of the system. There must be proper funding and support in place to enable users to access the system and find services that meet their needs.
    5. There is a broad spectrum and continuum in social care needs Doctors in Unite believe that the natural home of social care is within the local authority not the health service. Nevertheless, where necessary, a National Care Service and the NHS should work collaboratively for the needs of a user. There is no need to merge the two services. It is unhelpful to classify a need as either social or medical, a need is a need. Services must be properly funded so that if someone needs a bath they get help with a bath without the historical arguments as to whether the need for that bath is social or medical.
    6. The National Care Service should be funded sufficiently so that people can be supported to live independently if they wish. People should not be pressured to go into a care home because services, such as night sitting, are not available in the community or deemed too expensive. Similarly, residential care home options should be available if this is what people prefer and need.
    7. Care must be dignified and both residential and domiciliary care should be comfortable, homelike and run by the local authority. Many small locally run services strive to provide this though often they struggle to remain viable. Bringing these providers into public ownership whilst maintaining their ethos would provide stability for staff and clients. Proper service planning would also end the geographic perversity such that residential care homes are set up not where they are needed but where the real estate is cheapest, meaning long journeys for relatives to visit their loved ones distant from where they live.
    8. Domiciliary care should be brought back into social ownership under Local Authority control immediately. As already stated, users and their families must have a strong voice as well as fully engaging with care providers.Existing small locally run businesses could be organised to work collectively as not for profit cooperatives. Current owner managers could be employed by the publicly owned National Care Service with a national wage structure rather than owning the businesses. We think that many might prefer this as their jobs would be less precarious. A national care service should capture the ethos of the smaller organisations, providing comfortable homely care but relinquish the current commercial economic model. Smaller providers often aren’t able to respond to crises and weren’t prepared for the pandemic, for example, they had totally inadequate supplies of PPE. A national care service should take the best of all the models, be properly funded and brought back into public ownership.
    9. Under a National Care Service care workers must be properly paid, we support an immediate 35% pay increase. Care workers must have a proper career structure with progression and training which must be funded and transferable, including into the NHS. These must be nationally agreed, along with terms and conditions, as is the case with Agenda for Change in the NHS. We would like to see an end to all zero hours contracts, though acknowledge that some workers do find their flexibility helpful. We therefore would support an opt in to a zero hours contract after three months of working, as is currently available in Wales.
    10. All social care vacancies must be filled within a year.
    11. Last but by no means least we must note that a large proportion of care workers are overseas migrants, many with precarious residency in the UK. Without these people a National Care Service could not function. We demand that they are all granted permanent status immediately and that care workers are regarded as essential workers for immigration purposes.

     

    APPENDIX 1

    KONP/SHA NACSIL demands: 

    Publicly funded, free at the point of use    Publicly provided, not for profit 

    • Nationally mandated but designed and delivered locally
    • Co-produced with service users and democratically accountable
    • Underpinned by staff whose pay and conditions reflect true value & skills
    • Meets needs of informal carers  Sets up an independent living task force 

     

    APPENDIX 2

    Reclaim Social Care policy and demands:

    https://www.reclaimsocialcare.co.uk/policy/

    Reclaim Social Care is clear that the country requires social care to be:

    • based on supporting independent living for all
    • free at the point of use
    • paid for, like the NHS, through central taxation
    • brought into the public sector
    • staffed by people well supported and with a positive career structure
    • with financial support for voluntary carers

    Reclaim Social Care composited the below motion which is now Labour Party Policy:

    SOCIAL CARE COMPOSITE RESOLUTION PASSED AT LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2019

    This was brought together from motions from across the country, many based on Reclaim Social Care’s text. It is now Labour Party policy.

    Conference notes the current postcode lottery of Social Care funding and the real hardship and unfairness this causes, impacting on the most vulnerable within our society reducing life expectancy, health outcomes and wellbeing.

    Labour to develop a universal care and support service working with user groups, in collaboration with a national independent living support service and available to all on basis of need, based on Article 19 of the UNCRPD.

    England’s social care system is broken. Local Authorities face £700million cuts in 2018-19. With £7billion slashed since 2010. 26% fewer older people receive support, while demand grows. Most care is privatised, doesn’t reflect users’ needs and wishes, whilst charges increase.

    Disabled and elderly people face barriers to inclusion and independent living, thousands feel neglected. 8 million unpaid, overworked family carers, including children and elderly relatives, provide vital support.

    Make the provision of all social care free to recipients as is the case for health care under the NHS.

    A service:

    • That provides a new universal right to independent living
    • Enshrined in law and delivered through a new National Independent Living Service co-created between government and service users.

    Consequences of marrying social care to the NHS include medicalisation, isolation, indignity, maltreatment, bringing social care under a struggling NHS umbrella is not the answer.

    Transfer responsibility for funding social care from the LA to the national exchequer through progressive taxation.

    Distribute funding to the LAs for social care on the basis of the population served (age, sex and deprivation) and the cost of care.

    Locally democratic and designed by service users and carers in partnership with LAs and the NHS, delivered as far as possible by service users.

    Publicly, democratically run services, designed and delivered locally, co-productively involving local authorities, the NHS and service users, disabled people and carers.

    Providing staff with nationally agreed training qualifications, career structure, pay and conditions.

    Fund social care to provide a pay rise of at least 35% to all care workers.

    Giving informal carers the rights and support they need.

    Conference resolves that within the first term of a new Labour government to provide a universal system of social care and support based on a universal right to independent living.

    https://www.reclaimsocialcare.co.uk/a/40563951-40565561

    Summary

    1. Social care is in a deep crisis created by severe cuts enforced on local government by central government and the failure of the system to defend itself from these attacks.
    2. Integrated care is now proposed as a solution to the social care crisis, but not only is it not the answer, but it will harm, both social care and the NHS itself.
    3. Social care is a distinct public good state and it needs to be organised in ways that recognise its strengths and its role as an agent of citizenship for all.
    4. The problems facing social care today are the result of decades of poor policy-making and the refusal to put social care on a level footing with the NHS and other services.
    5. The resources necessary to transform social care into a universal public service are modest and can easily be achieved with the necessary political will.
    6. Universal social care should be implemented alongside a range of other reforms, including the reintegration of social care for children and adults.
    7. Creating the case for a decent social care system also demands the creation of a wider alliance for change and systems that can protect the system in the future.
    8. Better coordination of health and social care services will only occur if the NHS itself begins to work more effectively with citizens, families and communities.

    APPENDIX 3

    TUC Key recommendations:

    https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/fixing-social-care

    Key recommendations

    • A new funding settlement: This year’s spending review should fully offset the cuts of the previous decade and establish future rises at a level that will allow local authorities to meet rising demand and improve pay and conditions for staff.
    • Immediate funding to fill all social care vacancies: In a time of rising unemployment, social care could provide a steady source of new decent jobs. The government could act now to unlock 120,000 existing vacancies, to help those losing their jobs.
    • Fair pay and conditions for care workers: To provide sustainable livelihoods and an attractive career, all social care workers must get a sector minimum wage of at least £10 per hour. There must be an end to the zero-hours contracts, and poor or non-existent sick pay that put social care workers at risk during the pandemic. And all social care workers must have guaranteed opportunities for training and progression.
    • A national Social Care Forum: A new body is needed to bring together government, unions, employers, commissioners and providers to coordinate the delivery and development of services, including the negotiation of a workforce strategy.
    • A reduced private sector role: The government should strengthen rules to prevent financial extraction in the care sector and should phase out the for-profit model of delivery, so that all public funding is used to deliver high-quality services with fair pay and conditions for staff.
    • A universal service free at the point of use: The changes above can be made quickly. Longer-term, the government should make social care a universal service, paid for through general taxation to ensure high-quality social care can be quickly accessed by everyone who needs it, in every part of England, without any variation in cost and qualifying rules.
    4 Comments

    Doctors in Unite are concerned at the pace of the ideologically driven moves to ease Lockdown measures. The implication is that we will have to live with a baseline prevalence Covid-19 and within the shadow of a second surge

    We have launched an open letter to the Prime Minister on the issue as we fear that the Westminster government is displaying the greatest level of recklessness in this regard.

    https://doctorsinunite.com/2020/06/21/open-letter-to-the-prime-minister-about-the-uks-covid-19-strategy-from-nhs-and-social-care-workers/

    The campaign was triggered by the experience in many other countries that are pursuing a policy of eradication of Covid-19 as far as it is practical and the Crush the Curve campaign in Ireland (North and South).

    Posted by Brian Fisher on behalf of Doctors in Unite.

     

    Comments Off on Doctors in Unite — Crush Covid

    We are sad to report the recent death of Ron Singer, retired GP and tireless and effective campaigner for a vibrant, humane, safe NHS, free and publicly provided. I have known him for many years – he was always incisive, funny and passionate, despite his fading health. He will be sadly missed. The NHS has lost a powerful supporter.

     

    We can do no better than direct you to this moving tribute from Doctors in Unite who have given us permission to reproduce here:

    https://doctorsinunite.com/2020/05/29/dr-ron-singer-the-very-best-of-us/

    Comments Off on RON SINGER RIP

                      DOCTORS IN UNITE

    The rising death rate from COVID-19 and the pressure of the pandemic on a weakened NHS have caused warranted anxiety. There were reports from Italy of rationing, when life saving equipment was simply unavailable for some sick patients, and difficult triage decisions had to be made by doctors. Many deaths in the UK are occurring among elderly residents of care homes, and unlike deaths in hospital, these have not been given prominence in daily reports.

    Press coverage has indicated that Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) agreements have been misused. Rather than an agreement on a one to one basis after full discussion and as part of advance care planning, marginalised groups such as the elderly and disabled have been asked for consent by letter. In some cases decisions have been made on their behalf.

    Such agreements should only apply to what happens in the event of the heart stopping during an illness, but they have been wrongly interpreted as consent to not having treatment for illness, or not being admitted to hospital.

    Professional bodies such as the British Medical Association are attempting to provide an ethical framework for health care staff faced with impossible decisions regarding rationing and who should take precedence. Not only has the government failed to provide guidance on this matter, perhaps because it undermines their narrative that the NHS is coping with the onslaught and will continue to do so. Their grotesque incompetence in failing to follow World Health Organisation advice has put front line workers in an unprecedented position: having to make decisions about who should and who should not receive care.

    The government, policymakers, managers and clinicians have a responsibility to patients. They must ensure that any system used to assess the escalation or de-escalation of care does not disadvantage any one group disproportionately. Treatment should be considered irrespective of a person’s background when it can help them survive, balanced against the risk of that treatment causing harm.

    A GP surgery in Wales sent letters to patients asking them to complete a DNACPR form, reportedly stating “several benefits” to its completion. The form explained that “your GP and more importantly your friends and family will know not to call 999” and that “scarce ambulance resources can be targeted to the young and fit who have a greater chance.”

    In an “ideal situation”, it continued, doctors would have had this conversation in person with vulnerable patients, but had written instead due to fears the doctors may be asymptomatic carriers of coronavirus. The practice later apologised to recipients of the letter.

    A GP surgery in Somerset also wrote letters to a support group for adults with autism, requesting they make plans to prevent their clients being resuscitated if they become critically ill. The letter was later withdrawn after criticism.

    The Guardian has reported that “elderly care home residents have been categorised ‘en masse’ as not requiring resuscitation”, and that “people in care homes in Hove, East Sussex and south Wales are among those who have had ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ notices applied to their care plans during the coronavirus outbreak without proper consultation with them or their families”.

    The Mirror also reported that adult patients and parents of children with chronic conditions were sent letters asking if they wanted to have DNACPR statements agreed in case of admission to hospital with coronavirus.

    A learning disability care provider described an unprecedented increase in the number of DNACPR letters it had received. In the Health Service Journal their spokesperson said “making an advance decision not to administer CPR if a person’s heart stops, solely because they have a learning disability, is not only illegal, it is an outrage.

    “We are seeing DNR orders that have not been discussed with the person themselves, the staff who support and care for them, or their families. This is very concerning as it may potentially lead to people being denied life-saving treatment that other patients would be granted”.

    NHS Trusts, GPs and clinical commissioning groups have been told by NHS England they must not send out blanket DNACPR forms.

    The British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and Resuscitation Council UK provide detailed guidance on decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CPR was introduced in the 1960s following recognition that some hearts could be restarted when they had stopped beating, often after a heart attack.

    The probability of CPR being successful in other situations is generally low. It involves compressing the chest, delivering high voltage electric shocks to the heart, attempts to ventilate the lungs and giving intravenous drugs. Injury to ribs and internal organs may occur and some patients survive only to spend long periods in intensive care without full recovery. This is why people talk about the risks and benefits of CPR.

    The heart and lungs stopping is a natural part of dying from any cause. When CPR is used in people who have been gravely ill it is very unlikely to work. Rather than a peaceful death, their lives could end in the context of aggressive but futile attempts to change an irreversible process.

    To prevent this happening patients can be asked well in advance about their wishes, with a full exploration of the issues involved. In normal circumstances, the decision to not attempt CPR is made after a discussion between patient and doctor. An understanding can be reached that because of frailty, and because the heart stopping is the final stage of an irreversible process of multiple organ failure, the potential benefits to the patients are outweighed by the risks of pain and indignity.

    Standardised DNACPR forms were introduced to attempt to ensure patients’ wishes were recorded and would be easily available to healthcare staff. They do not have to be signed by patients. The member of the healthcare team who has discussed CPR with the patient signs the form, as does the responsible senior clinician (this may well be the same person).

    Doctors are told by their professional organisations that “considering explicitly, and whenever possible making specific anticipatory decisions about, whether or not to attempt CPR is an important part of good-quality care for any person who is approaching the end of life and/or is at risk of cardiorespiratory arrest.

    “If cardiorespiratory arrest is not predicted or reasonably foreseeable in the current circumstances or treatment episode, it is not necessary to initiate discussion about CPR with patients.

    “For many people, anticipatory decisions about CPR are best made in the wider context of advance care planning, before a crisis necessitates a hurried decision in an emergency setting.”

    The purpose of advance care planning is to allow each individual to choose in advance what interventions, including CPR, they wish to receive in the event of deterioration in their health. For people with multiple conditions, or those who are severely unwell, the optimal time to undertake advance care planning is when they are relatively stable. Discussions are best had in their home or usual care environment where planning can be supported by the healthcare professionals who know them well. These may include doctors and nurses based in general practice, in the community, in hospices or in hospitals. Making a decision in advance ensures that there is time for all the appropriate people to be involved in a decision. It allows time for reflection and scrutiny.

    Decisions made may be written down, and described variously as a living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive, or advance decision. This is a legally enforceable document in which a person specifies what treatments or interventions they would not wish to undertake in the future if they are unable, due to illness, to give their opinion at that time.

    Nearly one in five people over 80 may need hospitalisation with COVID-19. An estimated 1.28% of people diagnosed with COVID-19 will die. Around half of patients ill enough to be admitted to ICU in the UK for ventilation have died. 95% of UK COVID-19 deaths have occurred in patients with underlying medical conditions.

    Consequently asking people most at risk to decide what they would like to happen in the event of them becoming unwell is sensible, and good medical practice.

    It is however important to distinguish this from a blanket application of DNACPR orders to particular groups. This is discriminatory and illegal. There must be full consultation with the individual concerned. A thorough face-to-face discussion with staff who know the patient well is required. This has clearly not happened in the examples cited in the press.

    Care workers may worry about breaking social isolation rules and potentially infecting patients at home visits. There are ways around this, including video consultations. Poor communication over such sensitive issues breeds mistrust.

    The risks and benefits of CPR may change in the context of coronavirus. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who then have a cardiac arrest, not only is there little likelihood of CPR restarting the heart, there is the potential for health personnel to become infected as a consequence of attempted resuscitation.

    Professional guidelines are however quite clear. “A decision not to attempt CPR applies only to CPR. All other appropriate treatment and care for that person should continue. It is important that this is widely understood by healthcare professionals and that it is made clear to patients and those close to them.

    This is essential as it is a common fear amongst members of the public that a ‘DNACPR’ decision will lead to withholding of other elements of treatment.”

    For example, if someone in a care home agrees to a DNACPR, it does not mean they cannot be admitted to hospital if appropriate, or that they cannot be considered for intensive care. It only means that if their heart stops, resuscitation would not be attempted.

    There is an anxiety about the availability of resources if the number of patients overwhelms the amount of life saving equipment available. The COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge for a weakened NHS. The elderly, care home residents and those with disabilities are being marginalised. The government mantra of “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” led people with acute medical conditions to avoid medical attention when they needed it, and encouraged some ill with COVID-19 to stay out of hospital, dying at home when they may have survived.

    The idea of rationing life saving care is anathema to healthcare staff, but it may be on the horizon. In Italy, which has twice as many ventilators per 100,000 population as the UK, there were age cut-offs applied for admission to intensive care. Ventilator treatment was withdrawn from some patients expected to do badly in favour of younger patients with a better prognosis.

    If rationing does become a reality, front line teams will try and work in accordance with accepted ethical principles. This will unfortunately not provide perfect answers.

    Ethicist and barrister Daniel Sokol described the dilemma on April 7th. “It is no secret that intensive care unit (ICU) capacity may be overwhelmed if the pandemic worsens. Why then is there so little published guidance on ICU triage from the UK government and NHS Trusts? The Royal College of Physicians’ ethical guidance on covid-19, published on 2nd April 2020, stated that ‘any guidance should be accountable, inclusive, transparent, reasonable and responsive.’ The British Medical Association’s ethical guidance, published the next day, emphasised the need for decisions to be made ‘openly, transparently, by appropriate bodies and with full public participation’.”

    Sokol asked, “Where are the protocols setting out the triage criteria?” He suggested that senior officials in the government and NHS England may be reluctant to publish anything that might clash with the current messaging that the NHS is managing present demand and is likely to continue to cope. “The official message is that with continued communal efforts the NHS can be protected, ICU need not be overwhelmed, and tragic choices will be avoided. Publishing a document that contemplates an NHS in chaos and tragic choices aplenty sits awkwardly with that message”.

    He also wondered if fear of legal challenge was a factor. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was threatened with judicial review on publishing its COVID-19 guideline for clinical care. This advice was subsequently amended due to concerns about unlawful discrimination against people with long-term conditions including autism and learning disabilities.

    The 2019 National Security Risk Assessment also highlighted the potential for public outrage if health and care systems were seen to struggle, especially if provision of the remaining services was unevenly distributed.

    There are no ethical guidelines from the Department of Health or NHS England for front line staff and senior managers relating specifically to COVID-19, but the British Medical Association (BMA), Royal Colleges and specialist medical bodies have produced their own.

    The BMA suggests, “All patients should be given compassionate and dedicated medical care including symptom management and, where patients are dying, the best available end-of-life care. Nevertheless, it is legal and ethical to prioritise treatment among patients. This applies where there are more patients with needs than available resources can meet.”

    To help decide which patients to treat, they ask doctors to “follow your organisation’s guidelines and protocols, including relevant procedures for making complex ethical decisions. The speed of patient’s anticipated benefit will be critical. Other relevant factors include: severity of acute illness; presence and severity of co-morbidity; frailty or, where clinically relevant, age.

    “Managers and senior clinicians will set thresholds for admission to intensive care or the use of highly limited treatments such as mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation based on the above factors. Patients whose probability of dying, or requiring prolonged intensive support, exceeds this set threshold would not be considered for intensive treatment. They should still receive other forms of medical care. Prioritisation decisions must be based on the best available clinical evidence, including clinical triage advice from clinical bodies. These criteria must be applied to all presenting patients, not only those with COVID-19.”

    The Royal College of Physicians says, “Any decisions made to begin, withdraw or withhold care must also comply with the shared decision-making policies of the NHS. This means that these decisions should include the patient and their wishes (as much as is feasible for the given situation) and, if appropriate, the patient’s carers. This is true regardless of whether the patient has COVID-19.

    “Front-line staff, policymakers, management and government have a responsibility to patients to ensure that any system used to assess patients for escalation or de-escalation of care does not disadvantage any one group disproportionately. Treatment should be provided, irrespective of the individual’s background (e.g. disability) where it is considered that it will help the patient survive and not harm their long-term health and wellbeing.

    “Many front-line staff will already be caring for patients for whom any escalation of care, regardless of the current pandemic, would be inappropriate, and must be properly managed. We strongly encourage that all front-line staff have discussions with those relevant patients for whom an advance care plan is appropriate, so as to be clear in advance the wishes of their patients should their condition deteriorate during the pandemic.”

    There is an urgent need for national guidance from the Department of Health and NHS England on how to manage if resources run out. In the absence of such guidance, individual clinicians will be using the available evidence to assist in making extremely challenging decisions.

    This will not be an easy task, as illustrated by one Italian doctor speaking to the New York Times. “If you admit an 82-year-old with hypertension, in a situation where you have two or three patients waiting outside your I.C.U. who have many more chances of survival that you cannot admit because your I.C.U. is full, then it becomes really inappropriate, or I would say, immoral”.

    It is outrageous that UK medical staff may be put in this position due to the government’s incompetence.

    Dr John Puntis is the co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public

    Comments Off on Blanket DNACPRs are not the solution for panicked healthcare rationing

    The UK has been in lockdown since March 23rd 2020 in an attempt to slow down the spread of the Covid 19 virus. Six weeks on the number of new cases per day has begun to decrease and government and business are clamouring to restart the UK economy. We believe that people’s health should come before profit and that there should be no return to work until it is safe to do so.

    The UK has the highest death toll from Covid 19 in Europe and the data does not to support that it is yet safe to relax physical distancing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-above-32000-to-highest-in-europe

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/02/coronavirus-uk-how-many-confirmed-cases-are-there-in-my-area

    We may have reached the peak but there were still nearly five thousand new cases diagnosed on 3rd May 2020 and because access to testing has been so poor it is impossible to know how many other people in the community are infectious.

    We cannot undertake any meaningful planning for an exit strategy from the current lockdown without an understanding of COVID-19’s prevalence and our current levels of immunity.

    On April 2nd Health Secretary Matt Hancock promised to test 100,000 people daily by the end of the month. The government claim to have reached their target though there are allegations that the tally was artificially boosted.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/ministers-accused-of-changing-covid-19-test-tally-to-hit-100000-goal

    Testing must be safe, freely available and reliable and must be accompanied by rigorous contact tracing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/uk-turned-down-offer-of-10000-coronavirus-tests-a-day-four-weeks-ago

    True prevalence is proving hard to predict. Where one study suggests 75% of people infected may be asymptomatic, another reports a very low rate of current infection – less than 1% of the tested population.

    The only way out of this is to gather data and learn the truth.

    Epidemiological studies of appropriately sized, randomised cohorts repeated every few weeks would chart the progress of the disease.

    Cuts to Public Health have made it virtually impossible to mount coordinated local responses to Covid 19 with testing, isolating and contact tracing. Restoring and updating local communicable disease control is an integral part of properly funded, publicly provided health and social care.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/to-tackle-this-virus-local-public-health-teams-need-to-take-back-control

    The lack of appropriate PPE is an ongoing problem in public facing jobs and this will only be exacerbated as more people return to work. Industry must be immediately repurposed to produce appropriate PPE in sufficient quantities.

    If people are to return to work it must be safe for them to do so, including their commute.

    Each workplace should undergo appropriate risk assessment to prevent unnecessary transmission of the virus. We do not believe that the Government can be trusted to do this. Trade Unions must have oversight. For example it should be up to the education trade unions to determine whether it is safe to open schools and the criteria that will need to be met. Schools must not be seen by Government and business as convenient childcare to enable kickstarting the economy. We support the NEU’s demands that schools should only be opened when it is safe to do so.

    https://actionnetwork.org/forms/open-schools-when-it-is-safe/

    Covid 19 has highlighted the importance of a nationally coordinated, publicly provided health and social care service. The NHS has excelled itself in coping with the crisis whereas the largely privatised, for profit, care home sector, which has no central coordination, has been tragically unable to prevent Covid 19 from taking a huge toll on it’s residents.

    https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1465.full.pdf

    It is well known that there is a spike in morbidity and mortality from all causes when a pandemic hits and services focus on the crisis in hand.

    https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/369/bmj.m1607.full.pdf

    The private health sector must not be allowed to profit from this. The private sector should be requisitioned if they are needed to help to clear the backlog. Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care promised “We’ll give the NHS whatever it needs and we’ll do whatever it takes.”

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2020/march/covid-19-statement/

    The NHS needs investment to deal in house with the waiting lists inevitably generated by the crisis, and investment must be ongoing to preserve NHS resilience. One of the lessons from Covid 19, and most winter flu epidemics, is that the NHS cannot be run flat out all year round without headroom and spare capacity to cope with peaks in demand.

    New infrastructure, such as software for arranging work rotas, is increasingly outsourced to the private sector. This is unnecessary and could easily be managed within the NHS.

    Neither must health care be rationed to cope with the back log. We reject the blanket use of the term Procedures of Limited Clinical Value (POLCV). Patients care must be decided individually on clinical need and not restricted due to financial pressures.

    Deprived populations have very high death rates and the effects of societies’ response to Covid 19 disproportionately affects those from BAME communities, the poor and vulnerable.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/01/covid-19-coronavirus-newham-london-uk-worst-affected-area

    The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the world, while the more affluent are able to isolate in comfortable homes with plenty of outside space the poorest often have to share beds and go without food, for them physical distancing is impossible. Many epidemiologists, including Sir Michael Marmot, have demonstrated that the more unequal a society is the less healthy it is for everyone, including the richest. The Health Foundation Report published only two months ago “ The Marmot review ten years on” is a damning indictment of Government policy.

    https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10-years-on

    Many other commentators suggest ways to redress the imbalance, they have largely been ignored by the Tory Governments. We contend that if these measures had been introduced it would have been much easier to contain Covid 19. We demand that Marmot’s original recommendations to be fully implemented.

    http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review

    In conclusion we believe that people’s health must not be sacrificed in the interests of profits. There should be no return to work until it is safe to do so and ordinary people must not be made to pay for the crisis, there must be no return to austerity. The UK is a rich country and there is plenty of money in society to ensure that everyone’s needs are met. If the banks could be bailed out in 2008 the people can be supported properly now. A Green New Deal would help to provide a more sustainable economy and a Universal Basic Income would help orientate us towards a fairer society based on need not profit.

    In summary before lock down ends there must be:

    • Testing which is freely available with contact tracing which is rigorously followed up and restoration and updating of local communicable disease control as an integral part of properly funded, publicly provided health and social care.
    • Frequent epidemiological studies of appropriately sized, randomised community cohorts to determine the prevalence of Covid 19.
    • Appropriate PPE for all public facing workers.
    • Repurposing of industry to produce sufficient supply of appropriate PPE.
    • Universal Basic Income and a Green New Deal with an economy based on need not profit.
    • Trade Union oversight on the safety of return to a particular workplace and trade union control of the safety aspects such as physical distancing
    • No exploitation of the backlog in care by the private sector to boost their profits.
    • A comprehensive National Health and Social Care Service, publicly funded, publicly provided and free at the point of delivery for all in the UK with adequate investment and an end to outsourcing, privatisation and fragmentation.

    Posted by Jean Smith on behalf of Doctors in Unite 5.5.20

    2 Comments