Blog

  • Categories
  • Category Archives: Wales


    The current business model for social care in Wales, like the rest of the UK, is under extreme pressure. This vulnerability has predated the present Covid-19 pandemic. Care Forum Wales, the main representative body for the private care sector, has claimed that Wales could lose half its care homes within a year unless urgent action is taken. A Care Forum Wales survey also reported that 84% of respondents said low pay made it difficult for the recruitment of staff. Responding to these long standing concerns the Welsh Government commissioned the Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care to study the variation in terms of employment in the social care sector in Wales.

    The study looked at the comparative experience of various social care sectors in Wales including local authorities, independent sector and the NHS. There were (2017) approximately 1350 providers in the independent sector with a workforce of 52,500 and 130 local authority services with a workforce of 11,000. While the study showed variation within sectors there were also important overall differences between the sectors which could account the differing sectoral work experiences.

    The median minimum basic pay for front line independent sector care workers was 18% less that for local authorities (£9.74/hr) and 9% for NHS. The differences for maximum basic pay were 32% less for independent sector workers compared to local authority staff (£11.88) and 18% less for NHS health care support workers. Independent sector care supervisors received 32% less in their median minimum basic pay compared to local authority supervisors (£13.37/hr) and 78% in their median maximum basic pay ( LA supervisors £18.03/hr) . In addition the public sector workers were much more likely to receive pay enhancements for pensions and activities such as weekend shifts, holiday cover and over-time.

    Compared to 55% of independent sector front-line workers about 25% of local authority staff were in permanent full-time employment while 23% in independent sector were permanent part-time posts compared to 51% in public sector. However there were less differences in more senior posts across the sectors. About 20% of front-line care workers across the independent, local authority and NHS had the equivalent of zero hours contracts. There was some evidence that not all staff were unhappy with the relative flexibility these contracts provided.

    The report confirmed that recruitment, retention and staff turnover is a problem for the sector as a whole. While all had concerns about the recruitment and retention of staff this was greatest in the independent sector. These problems were less in more senior staff positions and overall there was a greater problem in recruiting staff compared to retention. While the independent sector felt it was in competition with local authorities for staff, both felt under pressure from the NHS and outside sectors such as retail. As well there were geographical variations with rural areas having less problems that more urban ones.

    While pay was an important factor other issues such as the status of social care, work pressures and responsibilities were felt to barriers to recruitment and retention. On the other hand the caring and pastoral aspects of the work were valued by the staff and contributed to them staying in post in despite the poor levels of pay.

    The Welsh Government has responded to some of the problems in the sector with others more difficult to address due to ongoing austerity policies and the continuing failure of the Westminster Government to live up to its promised on producing a comprehensive set of proposals to deliver a quality, affordable social care service.
    In order to improve the skills and status all all staff care staff will be expected to be registered with Social Care Wales by 2022. Once they have been in employment for more than three months care staff will have the right to choose between a defined hours or “zero hours” contact. And last year (2019) the Welsh Government supported “We Care” a campaign and on-line portal to support social care recruitment.

    In the Covid-19 pandemic care staff were provided with a £500 grant in recognition of their work by the Welsh Government. However despite declaring its commitment to the workers in the sector, the Westminster Government refused to exempt the bonus from stoppages such as taxation and NI contributions.

    It is clear that most of those who work in the sector are committed to their job and value its humanitarian values even above pay. An unemployment fall-out from Covid-19 might provide some easing of recruitment and retention difficulties but this cannot be seen as a sustainable solution. More comprehensive measures are needed.

    For decades social care has been provided on the cheap with the cost, in the first instance, being borne by staff in terms of their pay, work conditions and their opportunities for career progression. This downward pressure was driven by the policies of out-sourcing and tendering and an under-valuing of the public sector. But this policy has more or less come to the end of the road.

    The Welsh Government realises this and has commenced a consultation process on legislation that will require local authorities and health boards to regularly assess the financial sustainability of the care sector in their catchment areas. This should provide important information to inform the future shaping of local social care services.

    But we need to do more. We must start looking for more radical solutions within the overall context of a National Care Service. As a first step domiciliary care services should be brought back into the public service as their contracts lapse. And we then need to see how this option can be extended to all other workers in the sector.

    2 Comments

    At this stage a debate about the post-Brexit UK Internal / Single Market is unlikely to generate much heat or light – expect for possibly amongst a select band of constitutional lawyers and academics and the most committed of political anoraks. And yet the UK government’s July white paper on the subject has the potential to radically re-fashion how public services are delivered across the UK and to finally precipitate the disintegration of the United Kingdom. The implications of the Northern Ireland Backstop will be small beer compared to the possible fallout from these UK Internal / Single Market proposals.

    Already the UK devolved administrations have expressed their alarm and concern at what the white paper proposes and have demanded a total review of the UK Government’s approach. They see it as a naked power grab by Westminster which will put the UK’s devolution settlement into a rapid reverse gear.

    Until the end of the present Brexit Transitional Period the EU Single Market rules will still prevail. They guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour, known collectively as the “four freedoms” and a level regulatory playing field in areas such as  agriculture, fisheries, food standards and environmental policy. This is policed by the EU Commission and the EU Court of Justice. While this external regulation was an unacceptable pill to swallow for hardline Brexiteers, in the main it was judged as fairly objective, detached and objective legal process. But with the end of the Transition Period this framework will disappear.

    The four UK Governments up to now have agreed the need to for a collaborative approach to provide UK citizens and business with high and consistent standards in key areas such as the employment law, movement of good and people, environment and animal welfare. And there seemed to an acceptance to respect the devolution arrangements that have evolved within the UK over the last two decades along with a shared view on the need to develop “Common Frameworks” and dispute resolution procedures which provided for a parity of esteem and safeguards for all parties.

    But the white paper on The UK Internal / Single Market is a very much a “made in Westminster” document reflecting the ideological and policy preferences of the present Tory Government. And this lack of common and shared ground with the devolved administrations  has generated the hostile reception that it has received.

    At its heart the white paper proposals is a Westminster legislative route with the use of the courts as a means of dispute resolution. The lack of a clear process for the participation devolved administrations creates the risk that many areas of devolved policy could find themselves subject to the demands of the UK Internal Market. There is a lack of clarity about which matters should be left to market competition and which matters might be subject to regulation on social, public health or environmental grounds. These are essentially as much political issues as they are technical implementation processes. But where will the judgements lie?

    The risks are even greater as the UK Government itself will remain the final arbiter in international trade and treaties. As these treaties will be binding on all of the UK, the lack of a means to involve the devolved administrations could means – “Westminster rules, like it or lump it”. The track record of the Westminster Government of involving the devolved administrations in the Brexit process or even the response to Covid-19 does not bode well for any set of arrangements that are not copper-fastened by firm commitments to respect the devolution settlement in the UK and which work with the devolved administrations as equal partners.

    Seeking to address these concerns will overlap with the UK’s final departure from the EU regulation at the end of this year and will in turn run into next spring’s elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd. There they are bound to take on additional significance as voters will also be having an opportunity to also cast a judgement on the performance of Boris Johnson’s Tory administration to date.

    3 Comments

    The contact tracing programme in Wales is called “Test, Trace and Protect” (TTP) which emphasises the purpose of the exercise i.e to protect individuals, families and communities. This provides a better focus that “Test, Track and Trace” in England which seems to focus on the process rather than its purpose. The Welsh programme is firmly based on a partnership / public service model.

    The population of Wales is about 3.1 million people ( approx. 55.5 million in England ). The internal market have been abolished in the Welsh NHS over a decade ago. Health care is delivered through seven unitary health boards ( and specialist health trusts for cancer and ambulance service). The health boards are responsible for the planning and delivery of primary and secondary services within their population footprint. There is no “payment by results”.

    The health board geographical footprint is co-terminus with about 2-5 local councils. Partnership working between health boards and local authorities is delivered by Regional Partnership Boards – with improving, but variable, success.

    Public Health Wales covers all of the country. There are public health practitioners attached to each health board though there is some criticism that the service is over-centralised. Local authorities are responsible for Environmental Health.

    The care sector operates on a similar basis as England though means testing for services is more generous in Wales

    With the outbreak of Covid-19, the Welsh Government supported a four nations UK response. Along with all the administrations across the UK it went into “lockdown” at the same time. But has time has gone on it has taken a more cautious and distinctive approach compared to the Westminster. This approach has fairly substantial support in Wales.

    From the start the Welsh Government sought to mobilise a co-ordinated public sector response to the pandemic along with the voluntary sector. Support from the private sector was sought in the supply chain in areas such as PPE but otherwise scarcely involved in direct clinical or health roles.

    Public Health Wales, along with some health board and university capacity, was responsible for the initial testing regime. At first the Welsh Government chose not to avail of the private sector led Lighthouse Testing programme that was being launched in England until it could guarantee the results of the testing was made available.

    Like the rest of the UK, Wales had a hesitant start to the TTP process but things have now settled down. The service delivered on a three tier basis – national, regional and local.

    The Welsh Government and Public Health Wales are main players at a national level. They set out the broad framework, set standards and provide professional advice. There is a single national IT platform which felicitates the TTP programme. This allows a national overview and more coherent understanding of what is happening.

    Public Health Wales also provides the main testing facilities with some use being made of health board capacity and the Lighthouse laboratories. The present testing capacity is about 20,000 tests per day with about 5k being sourced via the Lighthouse capacity. However this capacity has never come close to being called upon with 3-5,000 tests typically done daily. About 50% of test results are available in 24 hours and 85% in 48 hours. The delays mainly arise in tests being undertaken in north Wales but this should be addressed as new capacity is being put in place to locally serve north Wales.

    The regional tier is co-terminus with health board boundaries and involves the health board and its partner local authorities along with input from Public Health Wales. The region supports and co-ordinates the local delivery of the programme. It also provides step-up and advice and support for front line workers.

    The health boards are now responsible for the setting up the testing services across their patch. These samples are taken and transferred on to Public Health Wales ( or the other involved laboratories) to undertake the tests. The test results are usually texted to patients. There in on-line access to the test service.

    The local tier provides the front-line contact tracing service through local government Environmental Health officers and local government employees who have been transferred from other duties due to the pandemic. Some teams will also have some health authority staff. The tracing teams operate roughly at a Upper Super Output Area level (about 30-50,000 population). There are about 600 workers involved at the moment but is possible that 1,600 may be required depending on the level of demand.

    In Wales, during the period from 1st June to 21 June, 1,905 positive cases were referred to local and regional contact tracing teams. This is now down to about 100 referrals per week.

    At the moment over 85% of index cases have been contacted by these local contact teams with over 90% of contacts have been reached and advised. The local knowledge of the contact tracers is felt to be an important advantage in delivering the programme. As well, local government’s involvement allows for the provision a range of local support services where needed.

    Prior to the launch of the main contact tracing programme the Welsh Government undertook a pilot exercise to across different parts of the Wales to identify potential problems. This has allowed the main programme be launched fairly smoothly.

    To the middle of July the number of fatalities in Wales is in lower single figures with no deaths on some days – down from a daily peak of 43 in early April. There are less than 30 new cases daily a reduction from a peak of 391.

    Plans are also being developed to boost the Welsh GP viral surveillance programme with the target of covering 20% of the population. This should provide improved sero-surveillance across Wales to provide an early alert system as we face the risk of a second wave of Covid-19.

    Compared to some other parts of the UK, the Welsh Test, Trace and Protect scheme has attracted public confidence and support. The Welsh Government aspires to eradicating the virus as far as is possible but it recognises that its long, much used border with England means that not all the necessary levers are at its disposal. It also acknowledges that the lack of adequate welfare benefit support from Westminster for those who have to isolate due to Covid-19 infection or through being contacts is an avoidable vulnerability in the campaign to contain and eradicate the virus.

    2 Comments

     

    1.   Background

     

    1. SHA Cymru Wales is pleased to take the opportunity to help shape Welsh Labour’s policies in regard to health and social care in Wales. Our submission is the product of discussions among SHA members in Wales facilitated via several Zoom sessions and exchanges between members of drafts of the emerging response. The contents reflect the views of our membership. Our membership consists of past and current NHS and care staff from a wide variety of health and care backgrounds and also others who have interests as both citizens and users of different parts of the health and care system in Wales, or who are interested in the politics of health and care, and in political discussion.
    2. The Party explained that the consultation document was finalised before Covid-19 arrived. It is clear that the pandemic has altered significantly the context in which Labour’s policy process now sits. Even though Covid-19 is still a major challenge at the time of writing this submission, SHA Cymru Wales believes that many of the issues arising from it are already clear (and are described in the “Independent Sage Report”). These are addressed in section B below which deliberately adopts a broader “emerging futures” perspective.
    3. Not only has the pandemic impacted on the way the care system now works and is likely to work in the future, it has also impacted more widely on society in terms of altered work patterns, the wider use of technology both inside and outside the care system, and of course upon the ability of the economy to resource public services to the level needed.
    4. Adding further to this new uncertainty is a pre-existing one of the consequences of the U.K withdrawal from the E.U. with probable changes to trade terms. Further the extent to which migrant labour will be available to support the health and care sector in Wales is already being adversely affected by the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The withdrawal – in particular its impact on food security, medicines safety and existing supply chains – must be fully assessed.
    5. Section C deals with the content of the Policy Document itself. Here members sense a persisting lack of momentum and capacity to deliver the key objectives outlined in “A Healthier Wales”. SHA Cymru Wales accept that a decade of austerity has been a major brake on improvements. Some progress has been made in terms of improved co-operation between health and social care at a local level with the establishment of the Transformation and Integrated Care Funds and increased training posts for a number of professions.
    6. Transformational change however is not taking place in terms of promoting public health and rebalancing the care system towards prevention, anticipatory care and a community/primary care based service.
    7. There have been a number of concerns expressed by the public about the quality, resilience, or consistency, of some clinical services in some parts of Wales. For example, hospital emergency services cherished by local populations are under threat and the reasons advanced for changes have not proved persuasive with the public. NHS in-house elective services struggled to treat patients within the target times set by Welsh Government before Covid-19. One Health Board depends heavily on the private hospital sector to undertake its elective work and is responsible for about 70% of all those referred by the Welsh NHS to private hospitals. Response times of emergency ambulances – often for reasons outside the control of the ambulance service itself -are sometimes longer than the service or ill patients would like. More widely there are some concerns about the resilience of the wider primary care services (including dentistry and pharmacy) in some parts of Wales. Finally there have also been a number of concerns about the quality, resilience or consistency of some clinical services in different parts of Wales.
    8. These concerns suggest an enduring problem either with the way that NHS Wales is resourced to meet the requirements laid upon it, or with the managerial linkages between the Senedd and the different care settings in which: i) the maintenance of good health is pursued; ii) early diagnoses of likely ill health are made; iii) treatment is given to restore people to a state of good health and iv) ongoing care and support is provided.
    9. In particular, SHA Cymru Wales feels that the care system in Wales is unbalanced in that anticipatory care and preventive work – in primary care and through public health measures -remains under-resourced despite the recent initiatives cited in the policy document.
    10. Added to public unease about patient services, are worries about financial control in the Welsh NHS. The abolition of the internal market and it’s replacement with a model based on partnership and co-operation ought to provide Wales with a unique advantage compared with an England system driven by competition, outsourcing of work to the private sector, and debts caused by P.F.I. schemes still needing to be serviced. The strengths of the Welsh NHS need to be more effectively exploited. There are worries too about the effectiveness of the special measures regime that is intended to improve both the immediate management of the Welsh NHS, and the way that changes to services that cross Board boundaries are planned and implemented.
    11. Underlying these concerns is an unease that there is no shared and unifying vision of what the Welsh NHS -with its local government and other partners- is being tasked to achieve for the Welsh public. “Healthier Wales” was intended to be the policy statement providing that radical vision. In our view it has been largely ignored and we return to this later in section C where SHA Cymru Wales suggest that NHS Wales builds upon past Welsh achievements in this regard, puts in place the political and managerial mechanisms to agree evidence-driven national policy objectives to be attained locally, and devises the mechanisms by which improved service delivery on the ground is assured.
    12. There is little detail about true co-production of health by both citizens and care professionals and how this can be moved from rhetoric to reality. This too would be a powerful engine for transformation.

     

    1. Covid 19 and its legacy

     

      1. At the time of writing, members believe that Covid-19 will shape the context in which the management and development of the health and care system in Wales sits. The pandemic vindicates many of the policies and approaches of the Welsh Government. The Welsh public service model stands in stark contrast to the fragmented cocktail of private sector provision and procurement which characterises much of the response in England. The time and effort that has been spent over many years in Wales to build better working relationships between the NHS, local government and the third sector has facilitated a more coherent and coordinated response to the pandemic than appears to have been the case in England.
      1. This public service approach allowed for partnerships at a local level which both responded to the leadership provided by the Welsh Government and to the local challenges faced by front line services. These partnerships should be maintained and refined as important community assets to promote local well -being.

    Proposal 1: SHA Cymru Wales propose that Wales considers creating a permanent “Wales Health and Care Reserve” (WHACR) comprising ex-health and social care staff and other volunteers with a wide variety of skills that can be refreshed through updating training on a regular basis, and who can be called upon in an emergency to assist full- time staff. This reserve should be organised on a neighbourhood or Cluster basis to support community clinical and care networks. It should be supported by schemes such as the Duke of Edinburgh award and the Welsh Baccalaureate. Established voluntary bodies with a relevant skill base should be encouraged to become involved.

      1. Welsh Government was correct to seek and encourage a “four nation response” to the pandemic even if it has not always come to the correct conclusion. It is regrettable that this was not always reciprocated by the U.K Government. The devolution settlement came under great strain as the four parts of the U.K. felt it necessary to respond to events as they saw fit. Different approaches to “lock down”, to testing, tracking and protecting across the U.K., and confusion about the purchasing of protective equipment and testing materials, exposed inadequacies in any U.K. wide arrangements meant to deliver a coordinated management to the effects of the virus.

    Proposal 2: SHA Cymru Wales requests that Welsh Labour commit to seek to join with its Scottish and Northern Ireland partners, to pursue revisions to the arrangements that govern these matters with the U.K. Government so that a “four nation” response to any  surge in this pandemic or in future pandemics is maintained. However, we do acknowledge that there will be times when it is necessary for the Welsh Government to take a Wales specific approach and we fully support its right to do so.

      1. SHA Cymru Wales welcomes the Senedd’s early work to review the Welsh experience to date. This is important work in the event of a failure to fully eradicate the Covid-19 virus and if further waves of mass infection have to be faced.

    Proposal 3: SHA Cymru Wales welcomes the First Minister’s support for a public enquiry  to review these events. Its terms of reference should be agreed by all four nations. Further we believe that all advice given to Welsh Government in relation to the options for managing this crisis should be made available to the public.

      1. SHA Cymru Wales recognises the pressure the Welsh Government faced in creating extra health provision as the Covid-19 pandemic began. This meant that the distinction between the health and social care systems became blurred as hospital patients were moved from acute beds to care homes in order to deal with an expected influx of patients with Covid-19. The result was that care homes were put at risk from viral transmission from hospital to care home settings. Further, people receiving domiciliary care services were also exposed to risks from itinerant care staff. Quickly the care system– comprising a range of privately run businesses of different sizes and types– required a degree of state support and guidance to sustain its operations. These took time to put in place. In this context SHA Cymru Wales congratulate the Welsh Government for ensuring a consistent supply of PPE to the care sector, for its extension of the testing regime in line with professional advice, and for the financial support provided to front line social care workers and others.

    Proposal 4: The Covid-19 pandemic highlights the integrated nature of health and social care and the need for quarantine facilities, equity of equipment, training, pay and quality facilities for the social care sector as well as for the NHS.These arrangements should be put in place as soon as possible.

      1. This scale of public service support needed for the social care sector must raise fundamental questions as to the long-term resilience of the current private sector business model.

    Proposal 5: As part of a process of major reform SHA Cymru Wales urge that the social care workforce in Wales is immediately transferred to the public service and that the Welsh Government brings the management of the care sector back under public control and leadership.

      1. Covid-19 has made it clear that the care system is fragmented – relying on multiple contracts with private sector providers especially those driven by commercial aims. Covid-19 exposed the inherent vulnerabilities in the present social care business model.

    Proposal 6: SHA Cymru Wales believes that the time has come for the main components of adult social care in Wales to be brought under public control, stewardship, or ownership and funded broadly on the same basis as the NHS. Domiciliary care services should be brought under the purview of local authorities first.

      1. “Personal care”, whether given at home or in a residential care setting, should be accepted as requiring oversight from the nursing profession and be delivered free under the NHS by staff trained to support individuals needing such care.

    Proposal 7: SHA Cymru Wales recommend that work commences as soon as possible on assessing at what speed, and in what way, the transfer of selected services from the private sector in Wales to the public sector can best be achieved to forge a new and equal partnership of health and social care services in Wales. SHA Cymru Wales asks that work be done to assess the costs, benefits, and problems that would arise from such a change.

      1. Room should be left for selected services to be operated by bona fide charities, co-operatives, and other voluntary groups where they have the skills and / or a reputation that resonates with the public. For example, Marie Curie Cancer Care, services supporting people affected by substance misuse, and charities supporting people through physical disabilities and mental ill health would meet this criteria. Here grants should be considered as an alternative to the formal contracts of a commercial relationship.
      1. While the present pandemic is unprecedented in its extent it does highlight the problems that the NHS and social care face when placed under excess demand, as frequently happens with the regular “winter bed crises”.
      1. The current DGH model combining elective and urgent surgery with emergency medical admissions alongside obstetric and paediatric services may need to be re-thought so that acute hospitals no longer operate consistently at very high levels of bed occupancy providing little head room for seasonal variations in demand. Elective capacity should be maintained in a protected environment by “built in” physical and engineering design and by so managing the protection and deployment of care staff so that transmission of any contagious infection is minimised. Similar considerations need to apply to ambulance services, primary care, community nursing, mental health and other health services, and indeed adult and children’s social care.
      1. 12. In England changes made to the public health function by transferring it to local government and then subjecting it (and other services) to reduced financial allocations have impaired its ability to react quickly and decisively to effect the necessary public health shut down testing and tracking arrangements long associated with controlling such diseases. The use of private sector contractors adds to fragmentation of the service. SHA Cymru Wales supports the current  arrangements in Wales whereby a strong public health tradition set within a public service model has been preserved and is able to serve both Welsh Government, Welsh local government, the Welsh NHS, and the wider public interest. However, SHA Cymru Wales share the concerns of those who feel that the Welsh Public Health function has become too concentrated at its centre and has insufficient presence in or influence within local authorities, health boards, and their partners at a community and neighbourhood level.

    Proposal 8: SHA Cymru Wales propose that Directors of Public Health should simultaneously hold statutory posts both in their local Health Board and in their local authority. This draws on past practice where medical officers of public health had a “proper officer“ function in local government with appropriate links with Environmental Health, Education, Community Development, and social care colleagues. Post holders should provide for both bodies an annual report describing local health status and how challenges of health inequalities should be, or are being met. The report should be taken in the public part of the agenda and drawn to the attention of community councils.This topic must feature highly in the performance regime linking Welsh Government, Local Government, and health Boards.

      1. The pandemic has facilitated, or required, new ways of delivering patient services, managing organisations, and connecting communities. Many people have now experienced remote consultations with their GP or hospital services via video conferencing. Diagnostic results have been shared via the internet between clinicians. Engagement of staff and the wider public in remote discussions have brought into question the traditional ways of linking patients and their relatives. New ways of managing organisations have also emerged as “working from home” has expanded.

    Proposal 9: Welsh Government should ensure that all citizens have reliable access to easy- to- use internet technology so that new forms of “ digital inequality” do not arise. Part of the work of WHACR cited above (Proposal 1) could be to assist people whose abilities or technical skills are not commensurate with relying on complicated technology.    

      1. SHA Cymru Wales believes, along with the Independent Sage Report, that these experiences have increased the desire and ability of communities and people to take an active part in debates about how their care services and indeed other facets of life – need to be re-fashioned “from the bottom up”. This sits alongside the ongoing development of GP clusters with a stronger community or neighbourhood focus.
      1. Covid-19 will leave a harsh legacy and a massive workload in terms of both physical and mental health rehabilitation for patients. This will be in addition to the NHS and social care catching up with deferred elective care delayed due to the pandemic. There is clear evidence that the excess death rate experienced over recent months is not solely due to Covid-19. While it is not fully understood why this is the case, it is probable that a significant proportion is due to the failure to seek, or obtain, health care in a timely way. Also, Welsh Government must prepare for what has been described as a tsunami of rehabilitation care as patients recover from severe episodes of Covid-19 infections and the impact upon their mental health. It must also anticipate – and plan to deal with – a legacy of stress experienced by care staff in Wales.

    Proposal 10: The Welsh Government should establish an urgent working group to plan how health and social care in Wales can recover from the longer-term consequences of Covid-19 on our country to both address the backlog in deferred need and the increased demand for physical and mental health rehabilitation. This should include consideration of making best use of recently commissioned health and care capacity.

     

    1. A critique of the Stage 2 document

     

      1. The Parliamentary Review on Health and Social Care in Wales concluded that there was an urgent need for rapid transformational change in Welsh health and social care services. This has been acknowledged by the Welsh Government. Welsh Labour’s consultation document however neither develops nor furthers this vision, nor does it convey an appropriate sense of urgency about the timing and nature of such change. It is a “steady as she goes” approach with “more of the same”. There is no clear set of priorities, sense of direction, or a picture of what the future of health and social care service in Wales ought to look like for service users, their families and carers.
      1. The stand-still in life expectancy in Wales over the last decade with the persisting health inequalities scarcely merits a mention – again with no policy proposals as to how to respond. The Covid-19 pandemic highlights these inequalities where the most socially disadvantaged communities carried the heaviest illness burden.
      1. Concerns remain about the failure to transform service delivery in line with both the Parliamentary Review and A Healthier Wales. This is exemplified by the tolerance of low levels of investment in primary care and a failure to recruit sufficient clinical staff.

    Proposal 11: GP numbers should be increased to produce an average list size of 1,400 patients per GP. Starting in those clinical network areas with the poorest health profile and least health and social care inputs. Where the traditional GP contractor model is failing to deliver these numbers, health boards need to take the lead in directly employing multi- professional primary care team members, including well supported salaried GPs.

      1. By reducing list sizes, patients will have easier access to, and more time with, their health care professionals so that a long-term caring relationship can be built biased towards prevention and anticipatory care. These communities, and other at-risk groups such as vulnerable children, care home residents, people with chronic illness and multiple morbidity etc. must be clearly identified and the outcomes from the care they receive be continually monitored with a view to continuing improvement. Clinical networks need to become a stronger focus for service innovation through a vision of health and well-being stretching far beyond a narrow medical horizon. The tools of public health and community development need to be harnessed to create stronger, healthier, resilient, and more engaged communities.
      1. These networks must be further enabled to lead the shift away from over-dependence on secondary care and towards localised anticipatory and preventive services aimed at maintaining independence. This shift of resource must enable the GP:patient ratio to improve. It must respond to the challenge of “the inverse care law” and must underpin an increase in primary care resources and effort aimed at reversing the unexpectedly stalled improvements in mortality indicators.
      1. General practice must no longer be viewed as a set of tasks carried out in isolation. It must regain its role as family practice committed to understanding local communities and the families that live in them and supporting them in pursuing their own good health. Practitioners in community development, social prescribing, and advocacy on community issues, must sit alongside continuity of care as part of a team of professionals serving the community.

    Proposal 12: Each neighbourhood should have public health input and advice and should be integrated into the work of primary care clusters. This should be marked with a change of name; clusters should become “neighbourhood networks.”

      1. Public health, primary care (including community pharmacies) and its estate should increasingly combine with other community assets such as post offices, food banks and community volunteers to create hubs which mix primary care provision with schools and community and leisure centres. In this way healthy living can be promoted and communities empowered to change the local culture and environment.
      1. SHA Cymru Wales sees neighbourhoods as the basic democratic unit of the NHS where the local community, comprising both professionals and local people, work to bring about beneficial changes and fashion the NHS as a people’s endeavour. As an example, indicators of any local “food poverty” should be devised as a health measure – for Covid-19 has both highlighted the frailties in how people access food and also brought about beneficial changes locally to support vulnerable people and build new partnerships. Nutrition is recognised as a determinant of health. Food poverty drives health inequalities whether caused by low income levels, unavailability or inadequate skills and accommodation. One suggestion that should be explored is the development of a national food service in Wales tasked with removing food poverty in Wales.
      1. SHA Cymru Wales is pleased to note that part of our submission last year urging the development of housing that supports the independence of older people and others with care needs was welcomed by the Party. SHA Cymru Wales looks forward to further work on developing emerging community models of engagement such as the Local Area Co-ordination arrangements operating in Swansea and similar initiatives elsewhere.

    Proposal 13: SHA Cymru Wales request that the consolidation and expansion of initiatives cited above be included in the manifesto along with a prototype “ Resilient Communities fund” to be deployed in a number of challenged localities to underpin and build on existing volunteer / community efforts such as those operating food box schemes and medicine / prescription deliveries.

      1. Further steps should now be taken to utilise technology so that patient medical and social care records can be “jointly owned” by care practitioners and citizens.

    Proposal 14: SHA Cymru Wales supports pilot projects currently exploring how patients can access and “co-own” their medical records as part of the co-production of good health.

      1. Primary care investment must not be at the expense of clearing the backlog that has built up in the mainstream service provision for cancer, stroke, heart disease and re-ablement surgery (e.g. hip and knee replacement). Nor should a current lack of capacity in services for children and young people with learning needs and mental health issues be allowed to continue.
      1. As noted earlier, for years it has become acceptable to attempt to run the hospital sector on a 90%+ occupancy rate. We have seen the problems this creates with perennial winter bed pressure crises but the onset of Covid-19 has shown the other inherent risks from constantly running the service at maximum capacity most of the time.

    Proposal 15: Staff and patient safety requirements must require the acute hospital system always to run with headroom for the predictable, cyclic variation in annual demand.

      1. Another concern of members was an uncertainty about what the 21st century purpose of the Welsh health and care system ought to be. Twenty years ago Wales had a well-deserved reputation for the quality of its strategic planning processes – aimed at achieving a level of health in Wales on a par with the best in Europe – and its ability to make progress. Evidence was gathered about the best preventive programmes, diagnostic techniques, treatment options, and after-care services across Europe and used to counter the main causes of premature death in Wales and the main causes of significant but avoidable morbidity in Wales. Health Boards (then known as health authorities) – with their partners – used the evidence to craft “local protocols for health” that were resource effective, people-centred, and aimed at increasing the length and quality of life in all parts of Wales. Despite, or perhaps because of, the success of this approach, John Redwood’s arrival in Wales saw the end of this work, no doubt in the belief that market forces would do the planning for Wales. In the view of some, since then NHS Wales has struggled to design a clinical and managerial process that systematically tackles health inequalities and improves health status in Wales.
      1. SHA Cymru Wales believes that Wales should draw heavily on that earlier strategic approach. For while SHA Cymru Wales accepts that Welsh Labour has had a strategic vision since the Wanless report in 2003, and “ A Healthier Wales” that has merit, it has not been accompanied by processes that translate strategy into deliverable Health Board and Trust 3 Year Integrated Medium Term Plans (IMTPs) able to be fully implemented by Health Boards, NHS trusts, and their key partners. The chain of accountability is opaque. Boards are, or appear to be, still dominated by secondary care voices

    Proposal 16: Welsh Labour should provide a clear statement of what the Welsh care system is meant to do (and by derivation what it isn’t) using a National Planning framework within which Health Boards and Trusts have to develop and deliver their plans. SHA Cymru Wales suggest that the Health Boards give a stronger voice for primary and community care and citizens in this process. A clear set of evidence- driven political and managerial processes are needed by which the aims of the Welsh NHS, and the resources needed to achieve those aims, are directly linked. Exhortations to “ do something”, on their own, are unlikely to achieve much.

      1. Setting a national direction and strategic intent must be underpinned by effective local delivery mechanisms to deliver the objectives of A Healthier Wales. The abolition of the internal market in Wales provided a unique opportunity to develop an integrated planning and delivery system at a local level to give effect to the national strategic purpose and direction. However, this has proved more than problematic. Some health boards are subject to Welsh Government intervention of varying extent, and varying success. Repeated reviews have expressed concerns at the capacity and governance of local health and social care planning and delivery. SHA Cymru Wales welcomes the partnership working that is taking place at regional partnership boards, but this process has got to mature, be more transparent and be accountable.
      1. In the light of the foregoing, SHA Cymru Wales welcomes the proposal for a “national executive” as outlined in the Final Report of the Parliamentary Review. The Parliamentary Review recommended that this “national executive” should be about strengthening executive functions to help align national strategic priorities with local service changes and innovations. The present slow pace of change suggests that this is urgently needed. It specifically suggested that the “national executive” should be aligned with national social care policy. SHA Cymru Wales recommends that the “national executive” should be the key national agency for integrating and driving forward both a National Health and a National Care service in Wales.
      1. SHA Cymru Wales is concerned that the consultation document chooses to specifically mention “specialist and hospital-based services” when considering the roles of the “national executive”. This is at odds with the core message of both the Parliamentary Review and A Healthier Wales. Both speak of transforming our care services away from an over-reliance on the hospital sector. We also regret that the policy consultation document makes no reference to the Parliamentary Review’s proposal that the work of the “national executive” should be underpinned by an explicit and transparent performance framework by which progress can be measured with particular reference to measuring progress in improving public health and tackling health inequalities.

    Proposal 17: SHA Cymru Wales believes that a National Health and Social Care Executive, tasked with delivering national health and social care in a clear, evidence based, and coherent way could deliver the transformational change needed. However, it must have clear terms of reference and its performance should be underpinned by a clear and transparent performance framework. The terms of reference, and the performance framework should both be subject to consultation with key stakeholders.

      1. There is also a view that the wider public, and local communities, feel excluded from some of the decision making in the care system. Local Government services in principle have a direct line of accountability to their populations through elected councillors and scrutiny committees. If the proposals in 16 and 17 above are implemented, local government should have an increased oversight of the care system as a whole.

    Proposal 18: SHA Cymru Wales recommends that Welsh Government place a legal requirement on Welsh local authorities to institute rigorous oversight and scrutiny arrangements in regard to the work of both Health Boards and the performance of the local care system as a whole. SHA Cymru Wales suggests that these scrutiny committees should have a minimum of three independent (non councillor) members nominated by local interest groups that can provide an informed view of how local service delivery is experienced by citizens and service users and what changes users desire.

      1. The policy document understandably makes little mention of the resources likely to be available the Welsh NHS and its local government partners over the course of the next four years. The damage done to the U.K. and Welsh economy by the pandemic is still to be assessed, as are the uncertainties of leaving the E.U. However, the NHS and social care in Wales already consumes over half of the block grant. Even with these spending levels, the Welsh NHS is under- powered both in primary care and acute secondary care.
      1. SHA Cymru Wales has long held the view that not only is the Barnett formula in need of refinement, but successive Conservative governments have not operated it fairly across the devolved polities. Further, there is limited scope to deploy the (limited) tax-raising powers now available to Wales in a way that can significantly increase the money available to Welsh Government. It is suggested that Welsh Government should adopt a four pronged strategy to address the issue of spending constraints. The first is to seek to increase – by a fair application of the Barnett formula –the funding available to Welsh Government from U.K. Government. The second is via Welsh taxation and growing the Welsh economy. The third is to examine in an ongoing way the operating costs of the Welsh NHS and social care, applying legitimate cost-saving measures where possible. One example is to examine critically the way in which newly licensed medicines are introduced in Wales. The current system requires only that the new product is not inferior to an existing (often cheaper) product rather than requiring either a superior treatment or lower spending. The fourth is to introduce a long term cost avoidance program that is driven by a primary care and public health preventive and anticipatory care approaches outlined in paragraphs C 14-17.
      1. The Welsh Government seeks to allocate its resources to health boards and local authorities on a needs-based formula. However, a thick fog hangs over how these allocations are used once these local organisations receive them. The First Minister correctly said that there are more inequalities within the populations served by health boards and local authorities than there are between the individual organisations Currently there is no obvious way to assess and compare how these inequalities within health boards and local authorities are addressed.

    Proposal 19: Public Health Wales and Stats Wales should develop a methodology by which it will be possible to measure inputs and outcomes in terms of resource allocation to the most vulnerable communities and groups within health boards and local authorities.

     

      1. Finally, it is suggested that the efforts of the NHS (and its local government partners) to contribute to the “green agenda” be welcomed. This aspect of its work should be highlighted and reported publicly as part of the overall performance regime.

     

    1. Conclusion

     

    1. The unexpected arrival of the pandemic, and the havoc and loss of life it has wrought has altered the perspective from which future health and care policy can be assessed. It threw into sharp relief those individuals and communities that are our most vulnerable.
    2. For this reason our response has been crafted in two parts – one to anticipate needed changes in order to make the Welsh care system more resilient to any future virus, and another to address challenges that were obvious prior to the arrival of Covid-19, but have proved resistant to change. SHA Cymru Wales believes that the 19 proposals described above will make a positive contribution to the health status of the people of Wales and it commends these to the Party.

    Labour Stage 2 SHA Cymru Wales final response Health and Social Care

    2 Comments

                      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

    Today the Welsh  First Minister, Mark Drakeford, said that all care workers in Wales will received a £500 payment which will provide recognition for an often “under-valued and overlooked” workforce.The payment will be available to some 64,600 care home workers and domiciliary care workers throughout Wales.

    It comes after the Welsh Government has provided an initial £40m extra funding for adult social care services to help meet the extra costs associated with responding to the coronavirus pandemic. This extra funding was, in the first instance, intended to meet the extra costs to providers for responding to the care needs of their clients but it can now also be used to address a number of the business pressures the sector faces.

    To date the Welsh Government had provided PPE to the residential care sector from its own stocks through twice weekly deliveries and the First Minister confirmed that testing should continue in care homes where   Covid-19  might be present.

    First Minister Mark Drakeford said:
    Tens of thousands of people work in social care in Wales, looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and are doing so with great dedication in often challenging circumstances.
    They are undertaking tasks, which involve a high level of intimate personal care, often accepting a greater degree of risk and responsibility. Many of our social care workers are juggling their own personal caring responsibilities with their professional ones.
    I want our social care workforce know their hard work is both appreciated and recognised. This payment is designed to provide some further recognition of the value we attach to everything they are doing to – it recognises this group of people are providing the invisible scaffolding of services, which support both our NHS and our wider society.
    Further details about the extra payment will be announced shortly. The Welsh Government is working with local authorities, who commission social care services in Wales, and with trade unions and Care Forum Wales, to finalise details.
    The First Minister has called on the UK Government not to tax the extra payment, enabling social care workers to keep the full amount. The Welsh Government is also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure it does not impact on people’s benefit entitlements.

    The First Minister added:
    We are urging the UK Government and the HMRC to make an exception in these truly exceptional circumstances.
    Today’s announcement follows the announcement of the death in service payment for the families of all NHS and social care staff made by Health and Social Services Minister Vaughan Gething on Tuesday.
    This scheme will provide eligible beneficiaries with a one-off sum of £60,000 and will apply to those working in frontline roles and locations where personal care is provided to individuals who may have contracted coronavirus.

    The Welsh Government is also increasing the amount of funding for the Discretionary Assistance Fund (DAF) so it can support the calls for financial help from people across Wales.As the stay-at-home restrictions continue, families have been turning to the fund for additional support to help them with some of the financial pressures and challenges they are facing.


    The Welsh Government’s Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James, has called on the UK Government to make urgent changes to Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) to help protect more people in hardship and provide faster help to those who need it. It says that the Coronavirus is having a dramatic impact on people’s and family finances with claims for Universal Credit and calls on the DAF at a record high. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves facing a significant change of circumstances. It’s only right that we do all we can to protect them from extreme financial pressure. This additional funding will help the Welsh Government support as many people as we can through this period of financial hardship.

    The DAF provides grant funding to support people experiencing extreme hardship. Many of people will be the most vulnerable in society due to issues relating to poverty, physical and mental health issues and are therefore at greater risk from the impacts of coronavirus. The Welsh Government has written to the UK Government urging it to change Discretionary Housing Payments. These are available to people in receipt of Housing Benefit and Universal Credit, but they have to wait at least five weeks to receive it. People who are not entitled to either of those two benefits, but are on reduced incomes due to coronavirus, have no entitlement to the payments.  


    It says that the UK Government should make a permanent change to give all Universal Credit claimants entitlement to DHP from the date of their claim, rather than waiting for five weeks. The Welsh Government also proposes a temporary change to give those people who are not in receipt of these benefits but are facing difficulties meeting housing-related costs as a result of coronavirus access to DHP.

    1 Comment


    Today the Welsh Government updated its approach to easing of public health measures against the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The framework will help to determine when the strict stay-at-home restrictions can begin to be relaxed in Wales and will help to find a way for people in Wales to live and work alongside coronavirus.

    A Wales-wide programme of surveillance, case identification, and contact tracing is being developed through the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Frank Atherton. This will highlight the importance of community testing and support the containment of emerging coronavirus infections as and when restrictions are eased.

    Launching the framework, the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, said:

    Our approach to date has been one of lockdown. We have taken unprecedented steps to protect everyone, but particularly those most at risk from serious illness.

    This has helped the NHS prepare and cope with coronavirus and, even though we have sadly seen more than 640 people die, it has helped to save many more lives. But this strategy comes with its own costs to people’s wider health and wellbeing and long-term costs to our economy.

    We are keeping these regulations under constant review. We know coronavirus will be with us for a long time yet but we want to see whether there are things we can do while we continue to tackle the virus and while the search for better treatments and a vaccine continue.

    The framework – and the seven questions – will help determine when the time is right to relax some of the stay-at home regulations.

    The seven questions are:

    Would easing a restriction have a negative effect on containing the virus?
    Does a particular measure pose a low risk of further infection?
    How can it be monitored and enforced?
    Can it be reversed quickly if it creates unintended consequences?
    Does it have a positive economic benefit?
    Does it have a positive impact on people’s wellbeing?
    Does it have a positive impact on equality?
    The Chief Medical Officer for Wales’ office has developed the Wales-wide programme of surveillance, case identification, and contact tracing.

    It will have four main strands – improved surveillance of cases of coronavirus; effective identification of cases and contact tracing; learning from international experience and engaging with the public.

    Dr Atherton said:

    Action to ease the lockdown restrictions will need to be supported by a comprehensive public health response, which will need to developed quickly and at scale.

    Across the UK, we have worked and put in place unprecedented measures to contain and delay the spread of coronavirus. We have also worked to reduce the overall impact of the virus by strengthening essential services, including healthcare.

    We are now working towards a new recovery phase to lead us out of the pandemic but only when the conditions are right.

    The First Minister added:

    Coronavirus is not going to disappear – it is likely it will be with us for a long time. We will need to have some sort of restrictions in place for some time yet to continue to control the spread of the virus and reduce community transmission. This framework will help us determine what is right for Wales.

    There is a long road ahead of us towards recovery to pre-pandemic levels, but if we continue to work together, I hope we will be able to make changes to the restrictions and see a gradual return to something resembling normal life.

    The Welsh Government has worked closely with the rest of the UK throughout the pandemic and has shared the development of the framework with the Scottish, Northern Irish and the UK governments.

    Comments Off on WELSH STEPS TO EASE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES – UPDATE

    On April 16th 2020 the First Minister for Wales, Mark Drakeford, confirmed the joint decision of COBRA to continue with the current UK wide restrictions on movement for another three weeks to protect the NHS and so to save lives. He said that while there were some positive signs in the data from the epidemic it was still too soon change course in how Wales was dealing with Covid 19.

    The First Minister said that this three weeks should provide an opportunity to consider the context in which we could consider moving to the next phase of easing the present public health measures.

    There are a number of key elements in this process.

    There needs to be a set of common objective measures to inform any decision. What are the critical numbers that need to be falling and for how long across the UK?  We need to be able to anticipate what impact any action will have on public health and how easily can it be reversed if needed.

    We need to know what how various steps are sequenced with tests and parameters in place at every stage. It will be crucial that public health surveillance is in a position to monitor the changes as measures are eased. This surveillance must to linked to plans to respond particularly if any deterioration occurs. Wales is lucky to retain a national Public Health Service which is a source of strength and confidence.

    But as measures are eased the resilience of the NHS in Wales to respond to the changing situation must be further strengthened.

    Wales must draw on international experience particularly from where restrictions are being lifted. The long participation of Public Health Wales in international networks & relationships is an important asset in this regard.

    The Welsh Government will seek to draw on experience from beyond government to provide challenge, new ideas and to plan for recovery. This input will not just be from Wales but from broader afield. We all need to work together.

    The preferred option is to have a common and shared process across all of the United Kingdom as we emerge from the current public health measures but Wales needs to be sufficiently agile to know if this is not appropriate and to respond appropriately.

    The number of confirmed cases in Wales to date (18/4/2020) is 6,936 ( 224 / 100k population) with 534 deaths ( 17 / 100k ). A total of 24,114 tests ( 778 /100k) have been undertaken. While Wales has an older, sicker and less affluent population that much of the UK it is still too early to come to any definitive conclusion as to the significance of these variances may have from the rest of the UK.

    Overall Wales has largely followed the UK in its response to the epidemic. However it did move to cancel elective admissions before the English NHS and it has placed social distancing at work on a statutory footing through regulations. The Welsh Government, in conjunction with the NHS, local authorities and the third sector, has established local community hubs to support those most affected by the epidemic particularly those who are at greatest risk and who require special shielding.

    Comments Off on THREE WEEKS FOR REFLECTION – COVID 19 WALES

    A Healthier Wales (June 2018) is the Welsh Government’s response to the  Parliamentary Review of the future of Health and Social Care in Wales. It promises a programme of transformative whole system change with a move to a service that focused on health, well-being and prevention – a ‘wellness’ system, which aims to support and anticipate health needs, to prevent illness, and to reduce the impact of poor health and inequality.

    A key part of the this transformation will be delivered through local primary and community care clusters working with both Local Health and Regional Partnership Boards. There will be a shift in services from general hospitals to regional and local centres with primary and community care delivering a expanded range of professionally led services. In October 2019 the Wales Audit Office (WAO) published Primary Care Services in Wales which evaluated progress with a particular focus. on strategic planning, investment, workforce, oversight and leadership, and performance.

    The WAO report acknowledges the work that the Welsh Government and NHS Cymru is doing to achieve the level of transformation that is needed. A National Primary Care Board and a National Director has been appointed to provide a focus and impetus to drive this agenda forward. A Primary and Community Care Development and Innovation Hub has been formed with the support of Public Health Wales which is also providing guidance to improve clinical network governance. And at health board level designated directors or senior operating officers provide a lead for primary care with work being undertaken to develop a national evaluation framework which can be used to measure progress at a local level.

    These initiatives have been supported by a number of funding streams that operate at all levels in Wales from the National Transformation Fund and the Integrated Care Fund to a National Primary Care Fund. These resources are allocated in a variety of ways including to clinical networks and practices to promote change and innovation including “pathfinder” and “pacesetter” projects operating at a grass roots level.
    But despite all of this the WAO concludes that change has not happened as quickly or as widely as intended and has outlined a number of reasons why this has not happened. This is acknowledged in the Welsh Government’s own National Integrated Medium Term Plan (2020-23)

    A key component of the Healthier Wales approach is The Strategic Programme for Primary Care was launched in November 2018. It is based on the new “Primary Care Model for Wales”. This outlines what it  regards as the main components of a good primary care system. These key components include informed and empowered citizens, self-care, stronger community services, new first points of contact for patients including triage to ensure they are seen by the appropriate healthcare professional, better urgent care arrangements and stronger multi-disciplinary working.

    There is much to commend in this New Model but the WAO points out that it has emerged with little public consultation. This lack of debate and discussion means that in many respects there is a lack of clarity as to the purpose and direction of the New Model.

    In the “old model” GPs were the initial point of contact and gatekeepers for virtually all other health services. In the New Model the GP will continue to provide the first port of call for some patients but many patients will also be able to directly access many alternative community based professionals, thus freeing up GP time to see the sickest patients and those with complex chronic conditions. These alternative practitioners will include pharmacists, physiotherapists, opticians, dentists and members of mental health teams.

    The emergence of this New Model seems to be driven by necessity and is a pragmatic response to the sustainability challenges facing general practice rather than an evidence based evaluation of the key elements that a holistic general practice and primary care service would require . This sustainability challenge is caused by the combination of the growing workload in general practice, changing work and contractual patterns as well as signficant recruitment difficulties.

    This New Model is intended to provide improved access “to services”. This is bound to be seen as preferable to having no access at all but of itself it may not be the most optimal configuration or care pathway. This range of “front doors” into the health service will inevitably lead to discontinuity of care, fragmentation and a lack of co-ordination.

    Continuity of care is a key characteristic of quality primary care. It has two mail elements, horizontal continuity as a patient / service user utilises a range of services as part of a holistic response to their needs and longitudinal continuity based on ongoing personal care is delivered over time. Both are important but the former seems to have primacy in the current articulation of the New Model.

    Delivering horizontal continuity depends on having good team work supported by an infrastructure that goes with the grain of seamless care across professional and organisational boundaries. This will require health and regional partnership boards as well as local clinical networks working more effectively together supported by shared personal care records and a robust IT system.

    Longitudinal continuity and quality care is built on long term personal relationships. But these relationships will struggle to develop and mature if patients and service users face a variety of diverse professionals whenever they attempt to use the service. “Time” is at the heart of these relationships both in terms of having the time to listen and work with patients in line with their needs and also it is only over time that a continuing personal,professional relationships can be built.

    General practice is under continuing and unsustainable pressure but despite this the workforce is not increasing in line with need and list sizes are static. This, in part, explains the pressure to promote the New Model of primary care but that will never be an adequate solution without a substantial increase in crucial front line workers particularly GPs. The Welsh Government has launched a number of initiatives to increase GP numbers including a welcome increase in training posts  but neither it or the WAO seem to be willing to move much beyond the traditional parameters of the solutions being offered by the medical “establishment” such as GPC Wales or the RCGP.

    There are between two to three dozen health board managed practices in Wales as well as 778 sessional / “locum” GPs working alongside 1,964 GPs principles. But despite this large salaried GP workforce there is no overall strategic policy in place to promote their professional development or retain them in clinical practice. Initiatives such as the establishment of a GP Locum Register are a step forward but much more needs to be done in the face of the evidence that the independent contractor option is no longer the preferred model of work by very many GPs.

    Already the Auditor General for Wales pointed out that the shift in resources towards primary care that has been at the centre of much of the NHS policy in recent years has not being achieved. If the changes that the Welsh Government and NHS Cymru have put in place do not achieve a  rebalance in resource allocation then little new will happen. In addition the WAO also expressed concern at the lack of transparency in the way that primary and community care is funded. This makes it very difficult to monitor any real shifts in resources is taking place with is a precondition to achieving transformational change.

    Apart from the reasons outlined in the WAO report there are additional problems in monitoring where NHS resources are actually allocated. The creation of larger health boards in Wales in 2009 has meant that a certain level of sensitivity has been lost allocating resources. The Welsh Government’s commitment to clinical networks, which cover about 50,000 people, is an opportunity to address this loss of sensitivity as well as providing a more meaningful population size to monitor health inputs and outcomes.

    Over recent recent years health and social care spending has has increased between 4.5 – 6% which is generous compared to the pressures on the overall Welsh Government budgets. These increases must be used to provide the headroom for a meaningful transfer of resources towards primary and community care. As the WAO suggests a transparent framework is needed to monitor this transfer.

    This framework should include a rapid move towards a 10% allocation of NHS resources to primary care services. This should be linked to the creation of at least an additional 200 GPs in post in Wales as a matter of urgency so that average list sizes will be reduced to Scottish levels with more easily accessible time being available for patients.

    Health boards and clinical networks, working with Public Health Wales, must monitor where these resources go locally to ensure that there is a clear focus on addressing health inequalities and the Inverse Care Law.

    Primary health and community care teams must be strengthened both address current health and care needs both at the individual and wider community level. And where traditional models of delivery, such as the independent GP contract, are failing to deliver, health boards must take direct responsibility. Progress cannot be held back by the speed of the slowest.

    The latest NHS Planning Framework (2019-22) specifically asks that health boards should place a particular emphasis on prevention, reducing health inequalities, the new Primary Care Model for Wales, timely access to care and mental health. However it does so at a fairly high level and only give very broad indications as to what it expects it health boards to deliver. In this context, the WAO report’s recommendation of a more explicit accountability framework should provide for greater focus and accountability.

    In a Healthier Wales the Welsh Government expected to demonstrate early impacts over three years. We are already half way though this time frame and, as the WAO report shows, much more now needs to be done to deliver against that ambition.

    5 Comments

    The life long member of the Socialist Health Association, Dr Julian Tudor Hart died on July 1st 2018. The following is the funeral tribute paid to him by Dr Brian Gibbons who worked with Julian in the Upper Afan Valley Group Practice  in south Wales.

    =========================================================================================

    There is no great forest that is made up of a single tree, no great river made from a single tributary or no great mountain range with single peak.

    And as we come here to remember and commemorate the life of Julian Tudor Hart—we realise what a multi-faceted individual he was.

    He embraced and embodies such a broad range and depth of
    subjects, knowledge and skills, accomplishments and life experiences

     

    To say that Julian was interested in politics and the life of the community that he served for almost three decades would be like saying that Gareth Bale was known to be able to kick a football.

    Julian’s politics were principled, passionate and undiminishing right up to the final months and weeks of his life.

    Even then he was involved in the Labour Party, Swansea Labour Left and in the affairs of the Upper Afan Valley — in campaigns to keep the key community facilities open such as Cymer Swimming Pool open.

    And he was revived and renewed with Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour leadership election and the outcome of the last year’s general elections which showed that British elections no longer had to be won from the middle ground of politics.  And that it was possible to offer people, and particularly the young, a radical alternative for change

    And, I’m sure, Julian was not only pleased to see a leader from the left at the helm of the Labour Party.
    But he would have also been pleased that that leader shared another of Julian’s great passions — gardening.

    If Julian had a chance to speak to Jeremy Corbyn he would have talked not only about politics but also runner beans, carrots, radishes and lettuce.

    And those discussions would have given a new meaning to the idea of “organising a left wing plot “ !!!!

     

    Julian’s politics came from the heart

    But it found expression in the head and in the hand.

    He investigated and analysed and applied the scientific method to his political beliefs.

    And Julian respected all those who did the same even those who took a diametrically different point of view from him.

    It was all the more than painful for him, therefore, to see over recent years to see that ignorance, prejudice and bigotry is too often used as evidence in much of the present political debate.

    Karl Marx said, and I am sure that to quote him here this morning at a humanist funeral for Julian Hart is in order.
    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

    And this is what exactly what Julian did.

    Yes he used the scientific method to interpret the world but not with some sort of detached view of the ivory tower academic or to provide frothy intellectual fodder for the chattering classes.

    But to intervene to make a difference, to make society a fairer and more equal place for us all to live, a place where we can all work together for our own mutual benefit and the common good, where we all live a more enriching and enjoyable life.

    Where all would contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need.

     

    Julian was a man of action.
    From campaigning side by side with the people who lived in Glyncorrwg and the Upper Afan Valley, through writing papers, pamphlets and books, giving interviews and partaking in debate, peaking and organising meetings,

    He was an active, conscientious and creative member of many organisations as diverse as the Socialist Health Association of which he was the first honorary president and the Royal College of General Practitioners of which he was a council member for many years – where he constantly took the view that high professional and clinical standards, particularly for those with the greatest health care needs, were the natural ally of a thriving NHS.
    He advised national political parties and governments in various parts of the world.
    And he had a particularly important role in the development of health policies in the run up to and in the early years of Welsh devolution.

    In short he walked the streets with the people of Glyncorrwg in their campaigns and he also walked on an international stage.

    And in mentioning all of this, we do need to remember the support he received from his wife Mary and his children whose home was often a cross between a Heathrow terminal and Piccadilly Circus as people dropped in from far and near from the Afan Valley to the Appalachian Mountains and even further afield.

    He also brought his activism and creative thinking to many local campaigns.And we can see the physical legacy of that in the Upper Afan Valley – the South Wales Miners Museum, Glyncorrwg Ponds and Glyncorrwg Mountain Biking Centre.

    Of course Julian would agree that none of this would have been achieved without the co-operation in local community efforts and a massive amount of hard work and effort by many local people.
    But equally I am sure that there are few who would disagree that none of these projects would have achieved what they did without Julian Hart.

     

    Julian Hart was an unrepentant socialist …but he was most particularly committed to promoting and protecting the NHS.

    He saw the NHS as being the embodiment of the values of a socialist society, where people contribute, through their taxes, according to their ability to pay – unless you are Google or Amazon, of course — and you receive according to your need.

    Nye Bevan was, apparently, once asked how long he thought the National Health Service would last and he is reported as saying “ The NHS will last as long as there’s folk with faith left to fight for it.”

    But one of our most resolute fighters for the NHS has left us.

    Already many people have started to consider what sort of monument or memorial would be fitting to commemorate Julian Hart’s life work.

    But I am sure that Julian would be first to say – the greatest of all memorials would be the continuing campaign to protect the NHS and the work to allow it to innovate and expand, to develop and to flourish as an even greater public service than it is now.

    One of Julian’s favourite singers was Paul Robson, who was once one of his patients, and one of Paul Robson’s most popular songs was Joe Hill which you will hear later.

    Joe Hill was a Swedish immigrant and trade union organiser in the USA who was framed for murder and executed in Salt Lake City.

    The song reminds us that even though Joe Hill did die, his spirit lived on wherever there was a the struggle for trade union rights and a campaign for social justice

    And Julian’s spirit will live on to be a similar source of
    inspiration though he is no longer with us.

    Joe Hill said is his last letter – “Don’t mourn, organise!”

    Julian would have repeated that message

    Organise to protect and build the NHS.
    Organise to build a better, more caring and equal society.

    That must the first and enduring monument and then we can get on with the rest.

    Comments Off on REMEMBERING DR JULIAN TUDOR HART.

    The Welsh Government has announced its intention to increase Welsh GP training positions by  a further 18%. This follows a significant increase in the fill rate for training posts, which this year has already seen 155 places already filled against the target of 136.g

    The Health Minister, Vaughan Gething, has now asked Health Education and Improvement Wales (HEIW) to review the number of places in Wales to ensure a skilled workforce is in place to meet the aims of A Healthier Wales to provide care closer to home and reduce pressure on hospitals.

    The target fill rate for GP training places is set to increase from 136 to 160, starting this autumn. This figure will be kept under review with a view to increasing it further in the coming years.

    Mr Gething said:

    We have made excellent progress since launching our Train, Work, Live campaign in 2016 to attract GP trainees to Wales. In 2 of the last 3 years we have over-filled our target number of training places so now is good time to look at increasing the target.

    I have asked HEIW to review our GP training places to ensure we have the skilled workforce we need to meet our long term ambitions for the NHS, set out in A Healthier Wales. I want to increase the number of places to 160 in time for the next round of recruitment in 2019 and I hope we can move towards an even higher target in the near future. I have also agreed where there are further opportunities to take on more GP trainees than the 160, HEIW can proceed if there is capacity to do so.

    The Train, Work, Live GP trainee campaign includes 2 financial incentives schemes: a targeted scheme offering a £20,000 incentive to GP trainees taking up posts in specified areas with a trend of low fill rates, and a universal scheme offering a one off payment for all GP trainees to cover the cost of one sitting of their final examinations.

    HEIW Medical Director Professor Push Mangat, said:

    We are absolutely delighted the Welsh Government have agreed to fund our plan to increase GP training numbers in Wales. This will have a positive impact on local healthcare services and the health and wellbeing of residents. Wales has a lot to offer and we look forward to welcoming more doctors to train as GPs in Wales.

     

    SHA Cymru has also welcomed the increase in line with its vision to see a significant increase in front line primary health care staff as outlined in its recent submission the Welsh Labour Policy Forum.

    Comments Off on WELSH GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES INCREASED GP TRAINING PLACES

    Further investment in Welsh general practice  has been promised  following negotiations for the 2019-20 General Medical Services (GMS) contract – which is worth over £536.6m. Additional funding will also be made available this year to cover the rising costs of pensions, following changes made by the UK government according to the press released from the Welsh Government.

    The funding will mean an increase per patient in Wales from the current contract, from £86.75 to £90. The new value per patient is also more than offered in England.

    The contract reforms the way in which services operate with a much stronger emphasis placed on clusters working together to plan and deliver services locally to enable patients to access care at or close to home – one of the key aims of A Healthier Wales.

    As part of the additional £25m the GMS contract for 2019-20 will deliver:

    An uplift of 3% to the general expenses element of the contract for general expenses.

    Investment of £9.2 million for the implementation of the Access to In-hours GP Services Standards published on 20 March 2019.

    A further £3.765 million going into Global Sum this year, to fund the infrastructure needs of practices in working towards achievement of the in hours access standards.

    An investment of up to £5 million will be made available to incentivise partnership working as the preferred model for GMS and to encourage new GPs to take up partner roles though the introduction of a new Partnership Premium available to all GP partners regardless of length of service.
    Health Minister Vaughan Gething, said:

    Over the last 18 months we have continued with our ambitious programme of reform to the GMS contract. I acknowledge that negotiations have taken longer than preferred, but this reinforces our commitment to fully engage with the Health Service and General Practitioners Committee on contract reform – with Wales being the only nation in the UK to fully engage the Health Service in this way.

    This agreement provides an additional boost to GMS services and once again represents a better deal than that being offered in England. The new contract delivers the much needed investment into services to improve sustainability and to meet the aims set out in a Healthier Wales, including an increased focus on cluster working and seamless provision of services.”

    Dr Charlotte Jones, chair of the BMA’s Welsh GPs committee said:

    I am pleased that GPC Wales and the Welsh Government have been able to reach an agreement for hardworking GPs across Wales.

    The introduction of the partnership premium, an increase in the Global Sum and the additional funding to address the rising costs of employer pension contributions, are a clear commitment by the Welsh Government that they intend to secure the independent contractor model for GPs into the future.

    The move to addressing last person standing issues will also ensure that those who have dedicated their careers to improving the health and wellbeing of the communities of Wales do not face the risk of bankruptcy.

    This contract will provide reassurance for GPs and ensure that patients continue to receive services in the community and as close to home as possible.

    Judith Paget, Chief Executive of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, said:

    I welcome this agreement which has been reached between the General Practice Committee, Welsh Government and the Health Boards in Wales.

    The changes to the GP contract and the additional investment will underpin the sustainability of local GP services, which we know patients value so much. We look forward to supporting the local implementation of this agreement so that patients, GPs and the wider community will benefit from the improvement in both the quality of services and the access to services that this agreement supports.

    Alongside the financial changes, a number of other commitments have been agreed as part of the reformed contract. Including:

    A stronger emphasis on cluster working to plan and deliver local services with improved cluster planning, engagement and activity indicators and a shift of some activity to delivery at cluster level

    A streamlined Quality Assurance and Improvement Framework (QAIF) with a focus on Quality Improvement activity.

    An agreed scope of the approach LHBs will take in providing support to our most vulnerable GPs who find themselves at risk due to Last Person Standing issues.

    Comments Off on WELSH GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN GENERAL PRACTICE