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


Fighting a pandemic ‘needs good information’


© Step Communications Ltd, 2021 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.


Earlier this year, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, Full Fact, published a report stating that failures in public data and communication systems “hampered the UK’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic, last year”. The charity, which received funding from the Nuffield Foundation, checked more than 400 claims relating to the Coronavirus in 2020. The report pointed to repeated instances where Government ministers failed to correct their mistakes, or back up public statements with evidence. The report also detailed evidence of how the pandemic exposed dangerous, long-standing gaps in the UK’s information infrastructure, affecting crucial issues from social care to personal protective equipment. The report pointed out that ‘good information’ was needed to reassure concerned citizens and ensure that official guidance was followed. At the same time, good communication was also crucial for transparency and accountability. However, a new Nuffield-funded survey, conducted by researchers from ‘Belong – the Cohesion and Integration Network’ and the University of Kent, has suggested that there is significant mistrust regarding central Government messaging. The survey of 9,000 people from across the UK found that over half (51.6%) of people thought UK Government communication about COVID lacked “honesty and credibility”. The report found that people tended to view local communication as more honest, credible and empathetic than UK Government communication. Respondents also perceived locally based communication to be more directly relevant to the needs of their own communities. l 19.9% of people attributed high honesty and credibility to UK Government communication, compared to 26.3% for local government communication.


l 50.2% thought that UK Government communication lacked empathy.


l 47.9% thought UK Government communication did not meet their community’s needs, compared to 35.9% for local government communication.


In Scotland and Wales there was a stark difference in perception of communications from the UK Government and their own


SEPTEMBER 2021


devolved Governments. 64% of respondents in Scotland and 62% in Wales perceived UK Government communication as lacking honesty and credibility. Whereas only 22% of respondents in Scotland and 26% of respondents in Wales perceived their devolved Government communication as lacking honesty and credibility. The statistics in these reports are startling but will not be a surprise to many. During the height of the pandemic, messages such as ‘stay at home’ were undermined by high profile Government figures, who ignored their own advice and broke the rules. More recently, the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, tried to avoid isolation (after being exposed to COVID-19 via the new health secretary) by saying they were “part of a pilot testing scheme”. This prompted an outcry from members of the public, who felt there was one rule for the public and another for Ministers. This was followed by an immediate U-turn – causing irreparable damage to public confidence and trust. During a pandemic, getting the messaging right and ensuring public trust is crucial – we need this to encourage people to wear masks, to social distance, to take up vaccines and to ensure they wash their hands. All of these things are supported by good evidence. Now that restrictions are being lifted and the emphasis is on ‘personal responsibility’, we need to make sure that the messaging is consistent, that desired behaviours are modelled by those in leadership positions, and public health communications are clear, transparent and trusted. Clearly, there is a ‘credibility gap’ that will need to be addressed. We will need to find ways of re-building trust, when communicating key health messages, and this will need to be delivered at a local level.


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