Skip to main content

Half of UK doctors have to source own PPE

In a major survey of frontline NHS doctors since the Coronavirus crisis began, over 16,000 UK doctors1 have responded to a BMA survey, answering questions on PPE provision, their well-being and drug shortages.

The survey shows that overall, nearly half the doctors say they had to source their own Personal Protective Equipment, PPE,  for personal or departmental use, or they have relied upon donations.



Breaking it down by profession, the majority, at 55%, are GPs with 38% being hospital doctors.

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA Council Chair said:

“In what is the biggest survey of frontline NHS staff during this crisis, thousands of doctors have told the BMA that they have had to personally buy PPE for themselves or their department or rely on donations. 55% of GPs told us they sourced their own PPE or relied on donations and 38% of hospital doctors."

While it shows how resourceful doctors have been and how much support there has been from the general public in providing kit, it is a damning indictment of the Government’s abject failure to make sure healthcare workers across the country are being supplied with the life-saving kit.

Repeated promises from the government just do not seem to have materialised, although there has been some improvement.

If almost half of all doctors report that they had to resort to purchasing PPE themselves or rely on donations, then there is still a lot for the Government to do to protect its frontline.

Doctors are still reporting shortages in gowns, with one in three not having enough gowns in settings where they are most at risk with the most poorly of Covid patients.

The survey also revealed that one in four doctors either failed or had not been fit tested for an FFP3 mask at all – a mask of this type is used when performing highly infectious medical procedures and which if not properly fitted means a healthcare worker remains at significant risk of becoming infected.

As one doctor commented,

“the PPE situation is an outrage for all staff. Lives lost for want of plastic visors, masks, and eye protection.”
 Another told the survey:
“Adequate PPE supply in terms of gowns and visors would reduce stress within the team as almost all of our patients are Covid positive”

According to Dr Nagpaul,  thirty per cent of doctors told the BMA they wouldn’t bother to speak up about an issue such as PPE or drug shortages4, as they didn’t think anything would be done about it. 


But perhaps the most telling and troubling of all the responses is the one in which 65% of doctors told the BMA they felt only partly, or not at all protected from coronavirus, in their workplace. And one in four reports worsening mental distress during the pandemic including depression, anxiety and burnout6.

Dr Nagpaul said:

“The Government has five tests it has said must be met to ease lockdown – the first of which is ‘making sure the NHS can cope’. Six weeks into this crisis, how can the Government be confident that this condition is anywhere near being met, or that the pandemic is under control, when the very people on the frontline are not being made safe?”

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 ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As