Skip to main content

A plan for PPE?

The UK government has now published its plan for Personal Protective Equipment) for frontline health workers.


The plan incorporates 3 strands for guidance, distribution and future supply.  It seems to follow the kind of line adopted by the Health Secretary when he urged doctors and nurses to treat PPE as a 'precious resource' and not to misuse it.  

This wasn't well-received by bodies representing the various strands of Health Care workers, not least the Royal College of Nurses. 



The plan instead restates the obvious.  

1) guidance: being clear who needs PPE and when, and who does not, based on UK clinical expertise and WHO standards. This will ensure workers on the frontline are able to do their jobs safely, while making sure PPE is only used when clinically necessary and isn’t wasted or stockpiled

2) distribution: making sure those who need PPE can get it and at the right time. The government will ensure those who need critical PPE receive it as quickly as possible by setting up a new national supply system

3) future supply: taking action to secure enough PPE to see us through the crisis. The actions are being taken to ensure we have enough critical PPE to last the UK through the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, working alongside industry to boost future supply

Rather than presenting a plan, it is more a statement of reality. 

It says 
The UK was well prepared with a national stockpile of PPE which had been reserved for our preparations for an outbreak of pandemic influenza and no-deal Brexit.

If that was the case, then it begs the question of why so many nurses have been without them.

In England we held circa. 50,000 pallets of medicines and consumables (including PPE) to be able to respond to a future UK pandemic with the Devolved Administrations holding stockpiles separately for each of their nations. Circa. 25,000 of those pallets held PPE and hygiene products.
So what went wrong?

In all 761 million items of PPE have been distributed across the UK since 25th February.  Yet, the BMA found that many doctors and nurses were reporting shortages.



The problem is said to be logistics.  Which is why the government have brought the army in to help distribute supplies to the 58,000 healthcare settings including GPs, pharmacies and social care providers.

The problem also lies in the 'just in time' manufacturing, where huge stockpiles are not kept in warehouses.  

The new system has started by operating a ‘push’ model, with essential equipment being issued to NHS Trusts based on the expected number of COVID-19 patients. 

"Once the flow of PPE stabilises, we anticipate returning to a more systematic approach based on the demand signals from each Trust."The government say they have introduced a system that can rapidly respond to areas of need.  The new policy requires a lot of joined-up work between various agencies.

Thus, the plan appears to be to make the distribution more responsive to need by increased coordination of agencies involved.   The take-home message is "we have the supplies, but we need to get it distributed more efficiently."

Yet the story often peddled is that the shortages of PPE are worldwide and we have to compete for the kit on that market.

The third part of the plan is to identify sources of PPE and enhance the purchasing of supplies.

At least we now have a published plan.  It does more to tell us what went wrong that it does to give confidence that these problems are being corrected.

If preparation had been made in logistics, many of the shortages could have been avoided.  Let us hope the plan works.  It is not so much a plan as a response, but let's not quibble.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …