Covid-19
Care after Covid-19 - an honest assessment
Nick Bruce, founder and non- executive chairman of family-owned, Kent-based care provider Nightingales, explores the impact of Covid-19 on the sector
The coronavirus crisis has already brought significant short-term changes to the care industry, particularly in the areas of risk assessment and hygiene, but there are bound to be pressures for longer-term change. This article explores four possible
areas where these might happen. In addressing these issues, I am acutely aware of the risk of inciting emotional responses while the rawness of Covid-19 is still with us and continues to grow with each new death. While making judgements about what
we have done well and what we can learn from is an essential part of doing better in the future, being judgmental is not. I therefore want to start by saying that, on a national level, it is hard to find any individual, company or institution who has not done their utmost to fight the Covid-19. The efforts of everyone within the NHS have been truly Herculean, and their fight continues. However, it is clearly important to
explore learning opportunities around some of the decisions made to protect the NHS, and how they were and still are being implemented, including the underlying tensions they have exposed. It is also useful to recognise when we undervalue people, industries and particularly ourselves.
One team or two For many of those working within the residential care sector, the consequence of placing untested and Covid-positive patients into care homes was obvious. The impact on Italian care homes was already known before the Coronavirus took hold in the UK, with high rates of transmission within hospitals also apparent, again first in Italy and then the UK.
14 The elderly in particular were
identified as vulnerable to Covid-19, and residential institutions were also known to be poorly equipped to control infectious disease. Whilst what was obvious to those within the care industry from the start is now more widely accepted, the system allowed a poor decision to not only be made but also carried out with determination. Despite many homes stating why they
would not accept new residents without a negative Covid test, rather than pausing for thought, those carrying out the decision continued to place many homes under pressure to accept both untested patients and those who were known to be positive.
A great many homes reliant on
government funding and already under severe financial strain were unable to resist this pressure, with tragic consequences. Those who did resist would typically be subject to follow-up calls suggesting they were ‘not playing their part’ or be threatened with being reported to the Care Quality Commission. In addition to also being put under
pressure to accept Covid-positive clients, domiciliary care had further challenges to manage. Where a client tested positive, Public Health England doctors were required to follow the General Medical Council’s guidelines, which meant telling the family of the
www.thecarehomeenvironment.com• August 2020
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
