search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Follow us on twitter: @csjmagazine


COMMENT


CSJ THE CLINICAL SERVICES JOURNAL Editor


Louise Frampton louiseframpton@stepcomms.com


Technical Editor Kate Woodhead Business Manager


Dean Walford deanwalford@stepcomms.com


Sales Executive Holly Goldring hollygoldring@stepcomms.com


Journal Administration


Katy Cockle katycockle@stepcomms.com


Design Steven Dillon Publisher


Geoff King geoffking@stepcomms.com


Publishing Director Trevor Moon trevormoon@stepcomms.com


THE CLINICAL SERVICES JOURNAL is published in January, February, March, April, May, June, August, September, October and November by Step Communications Ltd, Step House, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN2 3DR, UK. Tel: +44 (0)1892 779999 Fax: +44 (0)1892 616177 Email: info@clinicalservicesjournal.com Web: www.clinicalservicesjournal.com


Re-inventing the wheel


It appears Public Health England has become a scapegoat for failings in the UK’s response to the pandemic and is now to be axed. The announcement prompted criticism among healthcare leaders, including the chief executive of NHS Providers, Chris Hopson, who commented that “years of underfunding for Public Health England, and public health work more widely, has resulted in the UK not being properly prepared to tackle a pandemic such as COVID-19.” He pointed out that the local authority public health grant had been cut by 25% in real terms over the last five years. Hopson added that, unlike other health bodies such as NHS England, NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission, Public Health England has always been an executive agency of the Department. This gives Ministers direct control of its activities. “While it might be convenient to seek to blame PHE’s leadership team, it is important that the Government reflects on its responsibilities as well,” commented Hopson.


The decision also came under fire


© Step Communications Ltd, 2020 Single copy: £19.00 per issue. Annual journal subscription: UK £114.00 Overseas: £150.00


ISSN No. 1478-5641


The Publisher is unable to take any responsibility for views expressed by contributors. Editorial views are not necessarily shared by the journal. Readers are expressly advised that while the contents of this publication are believed to be accurate, correct and complete, no reliance should be placed upon its contents as being applicable to any particular circumstances. This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the International Copyright Convention. All rights reserved, apart from any copying under the UK Copyright Act 1956, part 1, section 7. Multiple copies of the contents of the publication without permission is always illegal.


from Dr. Jennifer Dixon, chief executive of the Health Foundation. She described the reorganisation of the nation’s public health agency in the middle of a pandemic as ‘highly risky’: “It makes sense to boost PHE’s focus on infection and control and link this more fully to the NHS test and trace programme, and the work of the Joint Biosecurity Centre. But PHE employs 5,500 people, covering a huge range of public health functions across the country – a reorganisation will be a distraction at the worst possible time.” She added that if the Government wants a longer term focus on health protection in an agency, it must “examine its own actions in reducing the stability and resilience of national public bodies over the years.” Furthemore, she pointed out that PHE’s responsibilities also include addressing equally major public health challenges, such as growing obesity and avoidable inequalities in health. This is important in the context of the pandemic as those in poorest health are at greatest risk of COVID-19.


It appears none of the blame for


mistakes during the pandemic has been laid at the door of ministers, however, and the Government continues to point the finger


SEPTEMBER 2020


elsewhere, whether it is test-and-trace or shortages of PPE.


In a surprising development that has raised many eyebrows, Dido Harding is reported to be in the frame for the position of chair of the new National Institute for Health Protection (which replaces the axed PHE). Dido Harding is the Conservative peer who led England’s widely criticised test-and-trace system. Equally suprising is a report in the Guardian that Duncan Selbie – PHE’s chief executive – will become an adviser to the Department of Health and Social Care. If the Government actually believes its own hype that the PHE has failed in its duties under Selbie’s leadership, the decision to appoint him in an advisory role appears at odds with its own position on who is to ‘blame’.


PHE employs 5,500 people, covering a huge range of public health functions across the country – a reorganisation will be a distraction at the worst possible time.


Ultimately, vital lessons need to be learned. Instead, the blame game is set to create more disruption and uncertainty as we give public health yet another make-over and ‘re-brand’. By reinventing public health bodies under different names, from the Health Protection Agency, to PHE and now the National Institute for Health Protection, the UK has missed the point; what we need is investment and continuity; not to re-invent the wheel.


Louise Frampton l Editor louiseframpton@stepcomms.com


Follow the CSJ LinkedIn page Search for ‘Clinical Services Journal’


Follow us on twitter: @csjmagazine


WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM l 5


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