PERSONAL P ROT ECT ION EQUI PMENT
Legal implications of PPE shortages
Legal expert, Amy Clarke, discusses the legal implications of the current PPE shortages and what the provision will mean in the long term.
Before the pandemic, the acronym ‘PPE’ would not have meant a great deal to the general public. Now, it is established in the national consciousness, as not only a familiar term, but as the embodiment of the much more complex question of the adequacy of the State’s response to COVID-19. The powerful imagery of healthcare professionals around the globe, doing their utmost to fulfil their professional duties in the most strained of circumstances, has captured the public’s attention and played a significant part in the widespread, vocal recognition of their service. It has also been the lynchpin of commentary and criticism of the Government. The pressure created by such criticism is perhaps evident from the formal complaint to the BBC by the Culture Secretary following on from a Panorama programme about the PPE shortage broadcast at the end of April, and the tense media appearances from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in recent weeks.
It is abundantly clear that PPE has become a core focus of those responsible for the provision of healthcare and it will be a key feature of the retrospective scrutiny of the handling of the pandemic and the true impact of it. There are already calls for a Public Inquiry about it, but in an era where current Public Inquiries already cost the tax-payer many millions of pounds every month and the Treasury has been funding the employment of six million people through its furlough scheme, it remains to be seen whether one will be established. Either way, the mere promise of a Public Inquiry at an indeterminable point in the future would not solve anything for frontline health and social care staff who are immersed in treating COVID-19 patients now, nor would it provide solutions for those tasked with ensuring their Trusts have adequate supplies.
The endless coverage about the provision of PPE appears to raise more questions than answers, those questions will not be answered for some time. Assessing
OCTOBER 2020 Healthcare workers face the prospect of working in conditions that place them at risk
whether the reports throughout the media accurately reflect the experience of frontline staff is difficult but plenty have spoken out. For example, two doctors have launched legal action1
against Public Health England
and the President of the Royal College of Physicians has described the lack of PPE as the factor that will most significantly limit the ability to combat COVID-19. He has also commented that the guidance from Public Health England about reusing PPE was simply a sticking plaster.2 A survey conducted over Easter weekend
by the Royal College of Nursing revealed that of those treating possible or confirmed COVID-19 patients in high risk areas, 51% were being asked to reuse items of single- use PPE, almost 33% of nursing staff treating COVID-19 positive patients not on ventilators said there was an immediate lack of PPE and one in ten nurses surveyed were
relying on face or eye protection they had bought or made themselves.3
Occupational
risk faced by nurses, and all other health and social care professionals, appears to be significant.
The link between the degree of risk professionals are facing, and their geographical location, is also likely to be an issue for future scrutiny and reform. A survey published on 12 April by the Royal College of Surgeons also gave some insight into the experience of those on the frontline, and shed some light on geographical variation in experience.4
A third of surgeons and trainees surveyed across the UK said they did not believe that they had an adequate supply of PPE in their Trust and more than 57% said that there had been shortages in the preceding 30 days. Of those surveyed, 52% of those in the Thames Valley said that they now
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM l 17
▲
©Maridav -
stock.adobe.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
