Blog

  • Categories
  • Category Archives: Wales

     

    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

    Leave a comment

    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.

    Leave a comment

    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.

    Leave a comment

    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.

    Leave a comment

    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.

    Leave a comment

    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.

    Leave a comment

    It is over 40 years since the Alma-Ata Declaration asserted the crucial role of primary care in the promotion of the health of people world wide. Since then global health policy has attempted to give effect to the Declaration with varying levels of success. The situation has been no different in Wales.

    The Wanless Review in 2003 re-emphasised this message. It stated “ …(t)he current configuration of health services places an insupportable burden on the acute sector and its workforce. This is the most expensive part of the system … (t)he primary care sector in turn is not sufficiently resourced or incentivised to keep patients out of hospital though it is hoped that the new General Medical Services Contract (under discussion at the time of this report) will create such incentives.”

    The publication of the final report by the Welsh Parliamentary Review on health and social care ( January 2018) shows that this still remains the main challenge. In response the Welsh Government has published A Healthier Wales and a Strategic Programme for Primary Care. Both these policy statements will have to be matched by a determined political will if they are to prove successful.

    In 2018 the Wales Audit office stated that “ (b)etween 2010-11 and 2016-17, total health board spending in Wales …. increased from £5.39 billion to £6.32 billion. However, over the same period, recorded spending on primary care as a percentage of total health board spending in Wales ….. reduced from 25% to 22%.This would suggest that the shift in resources towards primary care that has been at the centre of much of the NHS policy in recent years is not being achieved.” No amount of smart or new types of working will be able to make up for this basic deficit. If primary care is to thrive it needs resources and investment.

    This has been highlighted in the number of GPs working in Wales. Between 2004-05 to 2010-11 the number of GPs rose from 1,800 to 2,000. However since then things have been more or less been static until there was a 4% decline between 2016 and 2017. By way of contrast the numbers of hospital consultants has increased by 40% between 2009 and 2017.

    However these headline figures do not tell the full picture. While there are now just under 2,000 GPs listed in Wales. Approximately 1,500 of the listed GPs were contractors with the remaining 400+ being salaried. However there is a concern that the official statistics do not present a fully accurate picture particularly in relation to the number of salaried doctors. And there are, in addition, a further 750 doctors working in system who are classified as locums or sessional GPs . This represents a 10% increase since 2016 when figures were first collected.

    Vocational training is central to securing a future workforce. The RCGP estimates that Wales needs to have 184 positions to be on a par with the rest of the UK. There has been an increase of 15% in posts over recent years with to 90% being filled but the overall numbers have still to reach UK levels.

    The Welsh Government therefore faces a major challenge to increase capacity in its primary care and general practice service. There is abundant evidence that GP workload is increasing both quantitatively and in its complexity. In response there must be an a substantial increase in the workforce as the Welsh Government itself acknowledges the service is not sustainable if it can only survive by the “heroic” efforts of its staff.

    Non-medical practice staffing levels has increased by over 7% in the last half decade with approximately 2,500 clinical and 5,000 administrative staff now being employed. Despite these increases the RCGP reports that there are still 20% of GPs do not have access to a practice nurse, 35% to a practice pharmacist and 50% to a physiotherapist. This is clearly not good enough.

    The challenge in recruiting and retaining GPs also looms large. Both the GPC and RCGP in Wales still insist that “.. (i)t is a fact that the independent contractor model is best for the patients of Wales and is the most cost-effective option for those who hold the purse strings in both Welsh Government and Health Boards. “ But with 20% of GPs already salaried and with almost twice as many more working as locums and sessional doctors there must an urgent need to review the way they work for and with the NHS.

    The Welsh Government acknowledges that the contractor partnerships will continue to be the cornerstone of general practice in Wales. But it also accepts that this model it is no longer a preferred option for many new doctors. They are not attracted to the business ethos, financial risks, administrative demands, inflexibility and investment costs which go with being an independent contractor. So while the concerns of independent contractors must be addressed there is also a need for a more diverse range of career options for future general practitioners.

    There are some interesting innovations taking place seeks to address this need. The Primary Care Support Unit in the Cwm Taf Health Board has been in existence since 2002. Social enterprise models for care delivery have been adopted in Bridgend and south Powys. But overall they are still too few to achieve the critical mass that is needed to achieve transformational change.

    Somewhat strangely the “GP establishment” seems to fear that health boards and the Welsh Government are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of becoming direct providers of primary care services. The reality is almost totally the opposite. There are now over 30 directly managed GP practices in Wales but in virtually every case local health boards have found themselves reluctantly obliged to get involved. This lack of enthusiasm for a public service general practice option must be urgently addressed.

    The Strategic Programme for Primary Care confirms the Welsh Government’s commitment to delivering primary care services through 64 primary care or clinical networks based on populations of 50-100,000. These networks are tasked with bringing primary and social care services together along with the third sector to cater for the needs of their populations. There is a widespread support for this model both politically and across the professions. The Welsh Government has channelled much of its recent primary care investment through the networks to stimulate local innovation and service improvement. Their success to date is a bit mixed and in some cases they have an uneasy relationship with their local health boards.

    Innovation in primary care is also being actively promoted though the £4m Pacesetter / Pathfinder programme which began in 2015 with 24 distinct projects. The objective was to either develop new ways of working or to promote the wider dissemination of new ways of working. The programme received support from Public Health Wales and it is hoped that health boards would mainstream the practice of the successful projects. As these projects come towards the end of their initial phase this is recognised as being critically important. But it has also been appreciated that those areas where services are under the greatest stress are least likely to engage with the exercise.

    The Welsh Government has prioritised tacking health inequalities and asserts “..the fundamental Bevan principle that it is clinical need which matters when it comes to deciding treatment by NHS Wales.” In his annual report 2015-16 the Welsh Chief Medical Officer, Dr Frank Atherton, recognised this in stating “ … we make the case that one-size-fits-all health and care services in the traditional sense may not always be the best approach, as they can maintain, and sometimes increase, health inequalities. Instead we argue for an approach which is proportionate to the level of disadvantage which is often referred to as proportionate universalism.” But Welsh Government policy  is at its weakest it comes to outlining how this is to be achieved.

    Public Health Wales (PHW) has done a lot of work in identifying health inequalities across Wales and profiling populations to clinical network level. It shows that the difference in prevalence of good health between people living in the least and most deprived areas is already apparent at age 0-15. This gap then grows as age increases, peaking in males at age 65-74 (79% in least deprived vs 52% in most deprived) and in females at age 55-64 (84% vs 56%). And it is in these disadvantaged areas where we also find the greatest prevalence of patients with complex multi-morbidity.

    This work by PHW provides an excellent stepping stone for planning the promotion of health and well-being and the delivery of primary care services. But there is little evidence that this is happening on any scale. The Strategic Programme for Primary Care provides a lot of important one-size-fits-all advice for primary care but it only makes the most cursory of references as to how the new, transformed Welsh NHS will address health inequalities on the front line where 90% of health service contacts take place. This is its fundamental weakness.

    Welsh health and social care policy strongly argues for a new approach that will put a focus on prevention, which promotes a social model of health and well-being, seeks to address the social determinants of poor health and which will tackle the stubborn continuation of health inequalities. In many policy areas concrete proposals have been put forward to address this agenda. But there in health and social care the details still need to be outlined and put in place.

    Leave a comment

    DELIVERED AT JULIAN HART’S FUNERAL — JUNE 16th 2018

     

    Julian and I were chatting once about heaven and hell, as you do. He didn’t believe in either, but supposing he was wrong, he thought he might be allowed into heaven, not as a believer, you understand, but for good behaviour.

    Julian always wanted to be a doctor in a mining village, partly because his father had been a colliery doctor in Llanelli; partly it was the romance of mining practice as popularised in AJ Cronin ‘s novel The Citadel; but mainly it was the sort of community to which he wanted to belong.

    And belong he did. As Gerald Davies, one of his patients, said in a BBC documentary , Julian wasn’t aloof like the other doctors, the headmaster and the colliery manager. He lived in the village and shared the common experience.

    He wrote about it for medical students, “No one is a stranger; they are not only patients but fellow citizens. From many direct and indirect contacts, in schools, shops and gossip, I have come to understand how ignorant I would be if I knew them only as a doctor seeing them when they were ill.”

    Julian loved his patients – not romantically, of course. The opposite of love in this context is indifference and Julian was never indifferent. He hated when bad things happened to his patients, especially when they could have been prevented. In his last 28 years at Glyncorrwg, there wasn’t a single death in women from cervical cancer.

    In his book A New Kind of Doctor, he described a man, invalided out of the steel industry after a leg fracture, aged 42. With no further use for his big muscular body, he had become obese, had high blood pressure and cholesterol, got gout and was drinking too much. 25 years later, Julian described how, after 310 consultations and 41 hours of work, initially face to face, eventually side by side, the most satisfying and exciting things had been the events that had not happened: no strokes, no heart attacks, no complications of diabetes. He described this as the real stuff of primary medical care.

    At a seminar in Glasgow, we asked Julian what happened next. The man had died, of something else, a late-onset cancer I think, but when Julian told us this, there was a tear in his eye. His patient had become his friend.

    This was Dr ‘art, without an “H”, as known to his Glyncorrwg patients. None of this explains why Dr Julian Tudor Hart became the most famous general practitioner in the history of the NHS.

    In 1961 with large numbers of very sick people, huge visiting lists and a nearby colliery that was still working, the Glyncorrwg practice was extremely busy. His initial base was a wooden hut. It took five years to reach a stable position.

    He was the first doctor in the world to measure the blood pressures of all his patients. Famously, Charlie Dixon was the last man to take part, had the highest blood pressure in the village but was still alive 25 years later. Julian became an international authority on blood pressure control in general practice and wrote a book about it which went to three editions and was translated into several languages, with a companion book for patients.

    What he did for patients with high blood pressure, he did for other patients, delivering unconditional, personalised continuity of care. After 25 years he showed that premature mortality was almost 30% lower than in a neighbouring village – the only evidence we have of what a general practitioner could achieve in a lifetime of practice.

    It’s said that behind every great man there is an astonished woman. Behind Julian, was a great woman. When Deborah Perkin was planning her BBC documentary, the Good Doctor, (which we keep showing to medical students and young doctors), I said to her, there is something you have to understand. There’s two of them. Mary was his partner and anchor every step of the way.

    Glyncorrwg was the first general practice in the UK to receive research funding from the Medical Research Council. Mary and Julian had both worked with Archie Cochrane and his team at the MRC Epidemiology Unit in Cardiff where they learned a democratic type of research in which everyone’s contribution was important and the study wasn’t complete until everyone had taken part. And so, in Glyncorrwg, there was the Shit Study, the Pee Study, the Salt Studies and the Rat Poison Study, all with astonishing high response rates.

    Julian counted as a scientist anyone who measured or audited what they did and was honest with the results. Brecht’s The Life of Galileo was his favourite play and he often quoted Brecht’s line, “The figures compel us.” Julian didn’t pursue scientific knowledge for its own sake. His research always had the direct purpose of helping to improve people’s lives.

    He had a talent for the telling phrase. His Inverse Care Law stated that the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served, or more simply, People without shoes are clearly the ones who need shoes the most.

    When Sir Keith Joseph, a Conservative Secretary for Social Services, announced that
    “Increased dental charges would give a financial incentive to patients to look after their teeth,” Julian commented, “The government has not yet raised the tax on coffins to reduce mortality, but Sir Keith is assured of a place in the history of preventive medicine.”

    Julian’s friend and fellow GP, John Coope from Bollington in Lancashire, admired Julian’s nose for what mattered in the published literature. In his book The Political Economy of Health, that magpie tendency was on display, the footnotes comprising one third of the book and worth reading on their own. A Google search could never assemble such a mix. Goodness knows what readers made of it in the Chinese translation.

    He lectured all over the world – in the US, Australia, Kazakhstan, Italy and Spain in particular. Julian could deliver formal lectures but for brilliance and exhilarating an audience he was at his best in impromptu, unscripted exchange.

    When principles were at stake, Julian could argue until the cows came home. In his younger years he took no prisoners. A famous medical professor reflected that he had been called many things, but never a snail.

    Dr Miriam Stoppard arrived in the village to interview Julian for her TV programme, determined to cast him in the role of a doctor who made life or death decisions concerning his patient’s access to renal dialysis and transplant. They battled for a whole afternoon, Stoppard trying to get Julian to say things on camera that fitted her script. He defied her, ending every sentence by mentioning how much dialysis and transplant surgery the cost of a single Trident missile could buy. She went away defeated and empty-handed.

    I was surprised once at Paddington station to see him with a copy of the London Times. He was no fan of the Murdoch press. On boarding the 125 for South Wales, he laid out the newspaper as a tablecloth and over it spread a messy, aromatic Indian carry-out meal. If businessmen in their smart suits wanted to sit next to us, they were very welcome.

    Standing for election to the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Julian topped the poll. What he offered GPs was a credible image of themselves as important members of the medical profession – alongside specialists, not beneath them.

    Julian was humble in himself but ambitious for his ideas. He accepted with ambivalence the honours and sentimental treatment that came with age but he never lost his edge, and if we are to celebrate his life it should be by holding to the principles he held dear.

    The work of a general practitioner is immeasurably enhanced by working in, with and for a local community, for long enough to make a difference.

    Everyone is important, the last person as important as the first, and the work isn’t done until everyone is on board.

    Julian was the “worried doctor”, anticipating patients’ problems, not waiting for them to happen, and then avoiding them by joint endeavour.

    Drawing on his reading of Marx, he saw health care as a form of production, producing not profits but social value, shared knowledge, confidence, the ability to live better with conditions, achieved not by the doctor alone but by doctors and patients working together. Patients were partners, not customers or consumers.

    The NHS should never be a business to make money but a social institution based on mutuality and trust – the ultimate gift economy, getting what you need, giving what you can, a model for how society might run as a whole. In re-building society, co-operation would trump competition, not marginally, but as steam once surpassed horsepower. The Glyncorrwg research studies showed glimpses of that social power.

    My daughter Nuala met Julian many times. Losing him as a person, she said, was like the Mackintosh Building at Glasgow School of Art, burning down. We lost someone dear, a big part of our lives, an institution, a one man “School of ‘Art”, full of life, light and creativity.

    Julian’s gift to us today is not the example he worked out in the microcosm of a Welsh mining village over 25 years ago; it is the present challenge of how we follow and give practical expression to his values in local communities in the future. In honouring his memory, there is work for all of us do.

     

    Professor Graham Watt
    MD FRCGP FRSE FMedSci CBE
    Emeritus Professor
    General Practice and Primary Care
    University of Glasgow

    2 Comments

    In the two decades since the publication of the Sutherland Royal Commission report on long-term care the issues around the cost of caring for an ageing population remains one of the major issues in public policy. And we remain no nearer to its resolution.

    While varying elements of catering for long-term care remain the responsibility of the UK Government, devolution has allowed a fair level innovation and diversity in approach including the introduction of free personal care in Scotland which was one of the main recommendations of the Sutherland Commission.

    In Wales the National Assembly’s Finance Committee has recently published a useful report on the matter from a Welsh perspective.

    In very broad terms the report looked at two inter-related issues i) delivering quality care and ii) how that care will be accessed and paid for.

    The report highlighted that while social care in under considerable financial pressure in Wales the level of spend has remained broadly flat in real terms between 2009-10 and 2015-16 compared to a 6.4% decline in England. None the less with an increasingly older population the per capita spending has reduced by 12%.

    In responding to this pressure, and despite the increase in numbers, there was evidence that fewer older adults were receiving care. It was suggested that this was in part a reflection of the Welsh Government’s policy to promote more self-reliance and a better matching of service to need but concerns was also expressed that eligibility criteria were being tightened which means that it is more difficult to access care.

    There is a greater proportion of unpaid carers in Wales compared to other parts of the UK and Europe representing 12% of the population. They are responsible for 96% of the care that is given in the community even though 65% of older carers have health problems of their own. The Social Services and Well-being Act (2014) in Wales was intended to increase support for carers but of the 370,000 carers only about 6,200 / year had an assessment with less than 20% receiving an offer of care. In response the Welsh Government has said that it is preparing a major publicity drive to make the carers more aware of their rights and to better equip social workers in their assessment of carers’ needs.

    In Wales the means testing for care services is more generous that in England with the Welsh Government committed to increasing the capital eligibility thresholds for residential care to £50,000 by the end of it present term. In addition there is a cap on the level of payments for domiciliary packages. There were concerns that these thresholds could deprive social services departments of vital resources but the Welsh Government grant support has prevented that from happening.

    The social care sector remains in a fragile state.. There are many instances in which private domiciliary care companies have handed back contracts to local authorities who have, in some instances, been obliged to in-source the service. The residential care sector is also under pressure particularly smaller more community based care homes. In part this is down to the fees that it is able to agree with social services departments. The rates vary across Wales, often inexplicably, and the Welsh Government has committed itself to introducing a new assessment methodology to bring greater transparency and consistency in the fee structure. In addition it is hoped that this new process will address the concerns where self-funding care home residents are paying fee levels which are, in effect, cross subsidising the public sector.

    These problems are compounded by the difficulties in the recruitment and retention of staff with some providers reporting turnover levels of 25-33% every year. There are real issues of pay, status and training that need to be addressed. The Welsh Government has been promoting the voluntary registration of domiciliary care workers from 2018 with the target of compulsory registration by 2020. As well it is committed to reducing the use of zero hours contracts and to requiring a delineation between travel and work time in the working day. However it is still difficult to keep care staff when faced with better pay and conditions in other parts of the public and private sector. And all of this is likely to be exacerbated by the UK’s departure from the EU.

    The report also looked at future funding models. The Welsh Government believes that a UK wide solution would be preferable but the continuing postponement of the UK Government’s green paper on social care means that other options will have to be looked at including the use of Welsh income tax powers which will be available from April 2019.

    In addition a lot of consideration was given to the social care levy which has been advanced by Prof Gerry Holtham and Tegid Roberts.. Their proposal involves the HMRC to collect a levy between 1-3% depending on a person’s age. This sum would be lodged in an investment fund and used to pay for an enhanced social care package. However the report strongly believed that there needed to be a wider public debate on what the public could expect to receive in return for their contributions. The Welsh Government has established an Inter-Ministerial Group on Paying for Social Care with five separate work streams to consider the the full range of the implications of such a social care levy.

    The Welsh Government’s policy statement A Healthier Wales (2018) confirmed its intent to support closer collaboration between health and social care in Wales using regional partnership boards as their main instrument to achieve this. Concerns were expressed that Wales lacked a sufficiently robust evidence base to inform social care planning thought the Welsh Government was not convinced about this. There was also a recognition of the very useful role that the Intermediate Care Fund has played in facilitating joint working between health and local government bodies.

    Overall this is a useful report which highlights many of the key challenges facing social care in Wales. However there is little evidence that the Welsh Government is in a position to move toward an fully integrated “health and care service” free at the point of use or that it is likely to seek the devolution of the administration welfare benefits service which could allow for a more innovative proposals for the paying for the care of older people in Wales.

    3 Comments