Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

Never mind all these second hand sources. The one that matters is:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...quirements.pdf

Bearing in mind that my point is the professional medical staff should have tested transferred patients (expressly for the purpose of freeing up hospital beds):

1/
Nowhere in the requirements does it say that discharged (into care home) patients are not to be CV tested.

2/
It does say in Annex D, Leaflet A:

I've underlined the piece I want to point out.

As this entire requirements document is all about CV, the "health team looking after you" should only have discharged patients who were not CV positive. It was a professional step that they missed out.

From post 446 in this thread, further up the page...

Quote:

Moving patients from hospitals to care homes
On 19 March, NHS guidance said that "unless required to be in hospital, patients must not remain in an NHS bed".

This policy was implemented to free up beds in advance of an expected surge in coronavirus patients.

On 2 April, the rules on discharging to care homes were clarified, saying "negative [coronavirus] tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home".

Chris

08-07-2020 11:29

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36042763)

As this entire requirements document is all about CV, the "health team looking after you" should only have discharged patients who were not CV positive. It was a professional step that they missed out.

Nope, sorry. Does not follow. “No longer need care in hospital” is not synonymous with “No longer Covid-19 positive”, no matter how hard you squint at it.

The simple explanation here is that government could not mandate testing because government knew there weren’t enough testing kits available to do it. The hospital would have rapidly filled with elderly bed blockers, most of whom were Covid-19 negative and safe to discharge but with no means to prove it in law. In a worst case scenario the Nightingale hospitals would have begun to fill not because the regular facilities were overwhelmed by Covid but because they couldn’t discharge people back to nursing homes quickly enough.

In these circumstances government did what its paid to do - take a difficult decision based on a calculated risk. Our democracy allows us to decide whether this speaks to their general competence, next time we go to the polls.

1andrew1

08-07-2020 11:31

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36042763)

But that's a March document whilst FullFact is citing the 2nd April guidance. But having seen Chris's response, he points out the bigger picture very clearly.

Sephiroth

08-07-2020 11:45

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36042764)

From post 446 in this thread, further up the page...

Quote:

Moving patients from hospitals to care homes
On 19 March, NHS guidance said that "unless required to be in hospital, patients must not remain in an NHS bed".

This policy was implemented to free up beds in advance of an expected surge in coronavirus patients.

On 2 April, the rules on discharging to care homes were clarified, saying "negative [coronavirus] tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home".

Well, there you are. Nothing in the April 2 document (which I have fully read) says that tests on patients about to be discharged shall not be performed.

The professionals should have tested patients being chucked out to free beds.

1andrew1

08-07-2020 11:47

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36042771)

What with, bearing in mind there were insufficient kits?

Hugh	08-07-2020 11:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36042771)

Could you point out, please, where it states they should be performed (as nothing in the April 2 document (which I have fully read) says that tests on patients about to be discharged should be performed)...

ianch99

08-07-2020 12:31

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36042714)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? (Of course you are).

The medical professional, in the middle of a killer pandemic, sent patients to care homes without testing them first for the virus. They knew what was going on in their hospitals and were professionally negligent in not testing the ejectees.

It didn't have to be mandatory. You do yourself no credit with your attitude.

The way you reply to my point is as usual disappointing. As you can see from the posts above, it is not just me that thinks that in a national crisis where the Government directs via policy that care home transfers require no testing, then they are ultimately responsible for these deaths.

It will not be the next election where this premise will be tested, it will be in a public enquiry or in the courts.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36042747)

It's amazing the number of things the Government isn't responsible for. It seems everyone else from the NHS to the opposition are to blame for the bad response to this virus. Not having testing in place wasn't their fault, the slow lockdown wasn't their fault, lack of track and trace wasn't their fault, not much PPE wasn't their fault, the advice given to hospitals wasn't their fault and the high death rate in care homes isn't their fault.

So true and even when they patently at fault, there are disturbing numbers of people who will still try and convince you the earth is indeed flat.

Carth

08-07-2020 12:34

Re: Coronavirus

I'd like to jump out of the box if I may:

Question: when did we start extensive testing of care home workers for Covid 19?

Many care home workers are on low pay, and can be temporary/agency which involves working in different care homes to cover shortages.

If just one of these agency workers has the virus, but no symptoms, the amount of people in an enclosed area containing highly vulnerable people that can be infected is quite high . . and widespread considering they may work in 2 or 3 homes in a working week.

Just saying it's not only patients released from hospitals that are a possible (probable) cause.

jfman

08-07-2020 12:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36042782)

A reasonable post, and I 100% agree. The social care sector, rightly or wrongly, is funded to cover 99% of eventualities. Global pandemic unfortunately within that 1% left it horribly exposed.

Sephiroth

08-07-2020 12:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36042774)

You are wriggling and annoyingly so. It was professional negligence not to test them. A medical matter.

Mick	08-07-2020 12:55

Re: Coronavirus

BREAKING: Chancellor says the Government will reward employers who successfully bring staff back from furlough.

"If you bring back someone who was furloughed - and continuously employ them through to January we'll pay you a Job Retention Bonus of £1,000 per person. #PlanForJobs

The total cost if all staff in furlough return, will cost £9 Billion. :eek:

Carth

08-07-2020 13:04

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36042795)

Doesn't seem fair to me.

How about rewarding the businesses that have carried on working, the ones who have had to lay out a great deal of money on preventative measures to ensure they comply with Government rules.

Maybe they should bill the Government for the outlay involved just to ensure some people had jobs and the public had necessities ;)

downquark1

08-07-2020 13:08

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36042798)

How about rewarding the businesses that have carried on working, the ones who have had to lay out a great deal of money on preventative measures to ensure they comply with Government rules.

Because the idea was to stop people working.

Carth

08-07-2020 13:16

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36042799)

Because the idea was to stop people working.

aah, so the Gov't pays employers to lay people off, then pays them again to bring them back.

*back soon, off to shops for another case of Brandy ;)