COVID-19 resources for Managers and leaders

Results 41 - 50 of 702

Order by    Date Title

The 3 r’s of social care reform: how constructive risk taking, respectful relationships and a sense of reciprocity characterised a positive response to the Covid-19 pandemic

Think Local Act Personal

This paper draws on conversations with people across social care, and including those who draw on care and support, about their experiences during the pandemic. Whilst much has been challenging, many of these conversations also revealed positive responses to the pandemic, or examples where Covid-19 was an opportunity to innovate or accelerate towards a more personalised vision of social care. The paper reflects on these conversations and identifies drivers of the promising examples of practice, marked by changes in behaviour and increased levels of trust. It suggests that positive risk-taking, mutually respectful and two-way relationships and a sense of reciprocity are key ingredients in characterising a positive response to the pandemic. These behaviours and attitudes are brought to life in case studies that explore the impact of Covid-19 on self-directed support, commissioning, and the community response in different places in England. It highlights the value of co-production during the crisis, as a mechanism to quickly ascertain the challenges faced by people receiving care and support and in shaping a targeted response.

Last updated on hub: 07 June 2021

Briefing paper on the Tackling Loneliness Network – Older People’s Task and Finish Group

Independent Age

This briefing provides insight into the resilience of individuals experiencing loneliness and volunteer and organisations tackling loneliness during the pandemic. Coping with bereavement, loss of social contact, increasing anxiety and depression, a reduction in confidence and digital exclusion have all been raised as areas of concern for people in later life and the organisations that support them. The Network also heard from many about the challenges facing third sector organisations and the volunteer workforce that support people in later life who feel lonely. They are dealing with unprecedented demand and situations they could never have predicted, often without the resources to cope. Despite the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, uncertain times lie ahead and many are deeply worried about what will happen over the coming months. The resilience of people in later life, and the volunteers and organisations who support them, is being tested like never before: more than three quarters of the latter have experienced an increase in need for their services. The report provides recommendations for Government, business and the voluntary sector on how to tackle the immediate impacts of COVID and address the structural factors that affect the experience of people in later life.

Last updated on hub: 07 June 2021

COVID-19 Health Inequalities Monitoring for England (CHIME) tool

Public Health England

The CHIME tool brings together data relating to the direct impacts of COVID-19, such as on mortality rates and hospital admissions. By presenting inequality breakdowns, including by age, sex, ethnic group, level of deprivation and region, the tool provides a single point of access in order to: show how inequalities have changed during the course of the pandemic and what the current cumulative picture is; bring together data in one tool to enable users to access and utilise the intelligence more easily; provide indicators with a consistent methodology across different datasets to facilitate understanding; support users to identify and address inequalities within their areas and identify priority areas for recovery.

Last updated on hub: 02 June 2021

See, Hear, Respond: final evaluation report

Cordis Bright

This report presents the findings of the final summative evaluation of the Barnardo’s-led See, Hear, Respond (SHR) programme. The purpose of SHR was to bring together a consortium of national and community-based charities and other partners to work together to provide assistance to vulnerable children, young people, and their families, that have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown measures that have been implemented in response to the crisis. The evaluation included consultation with more than 100 programme stakeholders and delivery partners, consultation with children and young people, parents and carers, an E-survey of children and analysis of needs, activity and outcomes data collected via the charity partners. The evaluation findings included: implementation of SHR – the SHR programme was collaboratively designed and implemented at pace; effective identification of children and families requiring support – between June and November 2020, SHR worked with over 43,000 children, and stakeholders reported that the partnership model was critical to success, with many grass roots organisations providing a critical link to families and communities; effective delivery of support – SHR successfully met or exceeded its targets for the number of packages of support delivered and children supported by each work strand; good quality support – feedback from children and families and delivery partner case closure forms indicates that the support provided by SHR was appropriate and of high quality. Stakeholders reported that SHR’s mixed economy of organisations, work strands and support packages meant that children and families could engage in a variety of ways tailored to their needs.

Last updated on hub: 01 June 2021

Evidence summary: strategies to support uptake of Covid-19 vaccinations among staff working in social care settings

International Long-term Care Policy Network

This evidence summary provides a rapid review of international evidence on measures to increase update of Covid-19 vaccinations among staff working in social care settings, covering evidence available up to May 2021. Key findings include: modelling studies suggest that increasing levels of staff vaccination in care homes may significantly reduce the number of symptomatic cases among care residents, even in scenarios where the majority of residents are already fully vaccinated; around 2 in 5 local authorities in England report staff vaccination rates below the 80% threshold advised by SAGE for older adult care homes; a number of factors are associated with lower uptake of Covid-19 vaccine among long-term care staff, including access barriers, lack of sufficient information and education about the vaccine, mistrust, and sociodemographic factors (age, gender, ethnicity and income); there are live discussions on how to increase uptake of vaccination among people working in social care settings, including, in many countries, a consideration of making Covid-19 vaccination mandatory for specific groups; a recent international overview has shown that very few governments have mandated Covid-19 vaccination of people working in social care settings – to date, evidence of the effectiveness of mandatory policies compared to alternative strategies, in increasing uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among long-term care staff specifically, is limited; other strategies to encourage vaccine take-up and reduce hesitancy, besides mandating, include strategies based on behavioural insights, such as the use of targeted communications, increasing the convenience of being vaccinated, and sufficient time for staff to discuss concerns with peers, managers and trusted professionals.

Last updated on hub: 01 June 2021

Adult social care and COVID-19 after the first wave: assessing the policy response in England

The Health Foundation

This briefing analyses policies to support adult social care during the height of the second wave of the pandemic in January and February 2021, and in the months leading up to it. It provides a narrative summary of central government policies related to adult social care in different areas, such as policies on testing and support for the workforce. It also offers a summary of the latest publicly available data on the impacts of COVID-19 on adult social care. In the final part, the paper makes an assessment of the policy response since June 2020, considers how policies changed over time, and identifies priorities for the future. Overall, we found a mixed picture. Support in some areas improved, such as access to testing and PPE, and the priority given to social care appeared to increase. Groups using and providing social care were prioritised for COVID-19 vaccines, alongside the NHS. This is likely to have offered much greater protection to care home residents and others. However, major challenges remained. Government policy on social care was often fragmented and short-term, creating uncertainty for the sector and making it harder to plan ahead. There have also been persistent gaps in the national policy response, including support for social care staff and people providing unpaid care. Major structural issues in social care have shaped the policy response and effects of COVID-19 on the sector, including chronic underfunding, workforce issues, system fragmentation, and more. COVID-19 also appears to have made some longstanding problems worse, such as unmet need for care and the burden on unpaid carers.

Last updated on hub: 01 June 2021

Covid-19 Insight: issue 10

Care Quality Commission

This monthly report looks at the impact of the pandemic on access to dental services, and gives examples of the innovative ways that local services have collaborated to care for people with cancer, or suspected cancer. The report examines the findings from CQC analysis of how dental practices have managed and supported people to access appropriate treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples of the innovation and positive ways in which services in local areas have worked collaboratively to care for people with cancer, or suspected cancer, focus on: engaging with local communities; innovation and collaboration in the community; and recovery. The report also provides up to date data on: the number of deaths of people in care homes; and the number of deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Act.

Last updated on hub: 01 June 2021

Updating ethnic contrasts in deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19), England: 24 January 2020 to 31 March 2021

The Office for National Statistics

Estimates of differences in COVID-19 mortality risk by ethnic group for deaths occurring up to 31 March 2021, using linked data from the 2011 Census, death registrations, and primary care and hospital records. Risk of COVID-19 mortality is compared between the first and second waves of the pandemic. During the first wave of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (24 January 2020 to 11 September 2020), people from all ethnic minority groups (except for women in the Chinese or "White Other" ethnic groups) had higher rates of death involving the coronavirus compared with the White British population. The rate of death involving COVID-19 was highest for the Black African group (3.7 times greater than for the White British group for males, and 2.6 greater for females), followed by the Bangladeshi (3.0 for males, 1.9 for females), Black Caribbean (2.7 for males, 1.8 for females) and Pakistani (2.2 for males, 2.0 for females) ethnic groups. In the second wave of the pandemic (from 12 September 2020 onwards), the differences in COVID-19 mortality compared with the White British population increased for people of Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic backgrounds; the Bangladeshi group had the highest rates, 5.0 and 4.1 times greater than for White British males and females respectively. Whilst males and females of Black Caribbean and Black African background remained at elevated risk in the second wave, the relative risk compared with White British people was reduced compared with the first wave. Adjusting for location, measures of disadvantage, occupation, living arrangements and pre-existing health conditions accounted for a large proportion of the excess COVID-19 mortality risk in most ethnic minority groups; however, most Black and South Asian groups remained at higher risk than White British people in the second wave even after adjustments.

Last updated on hub: 31 May 2021

A data linkage approach to assessing the contribution of hospital-associated SARS-CoV-2 infection to care home outbreaks in England, 30 January to 12 October 2020

Public Health England

This study investigated care homes that received coronavirus (COVID-19) positive patients discharged from hospital, and subsequently experienced an outbreaks (herein referred to as hospital associated seeding of care home outbreaks). Hospital discharge records were linked to laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases to identify care home residents who may have acquired their COVID-19 infection whilst in hospital and subsequent to their discharge, their care homes experienced an outbreak of COVID-19. In summary: from 30 January to 12 October 2020, there were a total of 43,398 care home residents identified with a laboratory confirmed positive COVID-19 test result; of these, 35,760 (82.4%) were involved in an outbreak, equivalent to a total of 5,882 outbreaks; 1.6% (n=97) of outbreaks were identified as potentially seeded from hospital associated COVID-19 infection, with a total of 806 (1.2%) care home residents with confirmed infection associated with these outbreaks; the majority of these potentially hospital-seeded care home outbreaks were identified in March to mid-April 2020, with none identified from the end of July until September where a few recent cases have emerged.

Last updated on hub: 31 May 2021

COVID-19 and subjective well-being: separating the effects of lockdowns from the pandemic

University of Cambridge

Scholars, journalists, and policymakers have raised concerns that lockdown policies implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic may be damaging to mental health. However, existing evidence for this claim is confounded by an inability to separate the mental health effects of lockdowns from those of the pandemic. We address this issue using one year of weekly mood surveys from Great Britain, together with weekly cross-country data from Google Trends. While we find a clear negative impact on mental health from the pandemic, lockdown measures are mostly associated with improvements in subjective well-being. Multilevel models, which estimate the changing effects among demographics by survey week, suggest the largest relative gains occurred among lower socioeconomic status groups.

Last updated on hub: 31 May 2021

Order by    Date Title