Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

This rapid review brings together evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected low-paid ethnic minority workers across health and social care. It highlights how existing vulnerabilities were intensified by crisis conditions, particularly in roles with high exposure and limited protection. 

The review shows that experiences of discrimination, insecurity and burnout were not incidental but shaped by structural features of the labour market. Gender, ethnicity and employment status intersected to influence who faced the greatest risks and least support during the pandemic. 

From a care equity point of view, the findings stress how inequities within the workforce translate into unequal burdens. Low-paid ethnic minority workers were more likely to experience poor treatment, limited progression and inadequate recognition, reflecting deeper imbalances in how care work is organised and valued. These conditions have implications for retention, morale and continuity of care. 

Overall, the review reinforces the need to treat workforce equity as a core component of health and social care resilience. Addressing discrimination, improving pay and creating fairer progression pathways are essential steps toward a more equitable and sustainable workforce beyond crisis contexts. 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This paper examines the structural drivers of workforce shortages across the UK health and social care system. It highlights how long-standing issues in workforce planning have left services vulnerable to rising demand and demographic change. Recruitment and retention challenges, combined with workforce ageing and increasing service pressures, contribute to persistent staffing gaps. 

A key theme is the difference between workforce planning in the NHS and social care. While the NHS has national workforce planning mechanisms, social care remains more fragmented, with workforce planning largely shaped by local authority budgets and provider capacity. This creates variation in staffing stability and service provision across the system. 

Financial pressures also influence working conditions and career opportunities. Lower pay and fewer structured progression pathways in social care contribute to high turnover and recruitment difficulties, reinforcing the cycle of workforce shortages. 

In terms of care inequities, the paper highlights how workforce shortages can translate into uneven access to services. Areas with greater financial pressures or fewer available staff may experience more service disruptions and reduced continuity of care. At the same time, inequities within the workforce (particularly around pay and conditions between health and social care) reflect broader financial imbalances across the system. These dynamics demonstrate how funding structures influence both workforce stability and the distribution of care. 

Overall, the report argues that sustainable workforce planning requires coordinated policy across health and social care. Without long-term investment and strategic planning, workforce shortages will continue to affect service availability and contribute to financial and structural inequities in care provision.

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

This commentary explores how the Covid-19 pandemic brought new attention to the role of the home in everyday care. During lockdowns, many people spent far more time at home than usual. This shift made housing conditions more visible as an important factor affecting wellbeing and the ability to provide care. 

Homes are often the main place where people care for themselves and others. Everyday activities such as cooking, resting, maintaining hygiene and supporting family members all take place within the home environment. When housing conditions are inadequate, these basic forms of care become more difficult. 

The pandemic highlighted how housing conditions vary widely across society. Some people had access to larger homes, gardens or nearby green space, which helped them cope with restrictions. Others lived in small or overcrowded homes, sometimes without outdoor space or with limited privacy. These differences shaped people’s experiences of lockdown. 

Housing conditions also interact with wider social factors such as income, gender and employment. For example, many households experienced increased unpaid care responsibilities during the pandemic, particularly childcare and support for relatives. People with fewer financial resources or insecure housing were often less able to manage these pressures. 

Neighbourhood environments also played a role. Access to local services, shops, parks and supportive communities influenced how easily people could maintain social connections and support networks during lockdown. 

From a health and social care equity perspective, the article highlights the importance of recognising housing as part of the wider infrastructure that supports care. Policies that improve housing quality, affordability and neighbourhood conditions may help strengthen people’s ability to care for themselves and others. 

Overall, the pandemic revealed how housing and care are deeply connected. Improving housing conditions and addressing structural housing inequities could play an important role in supporting wellbeing and strengthening care systems in the future. 

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This report examines how housing conditions affect the health, wellbeing and care needs of older people in England, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights the central role that the home plays in supporting health and independence later in life. 

A key finding is that a large number of older people live in homes that do not meet acceptable housing standards. Around two million non-decent homes are occupied by older people, often containing hazards such as excess cold, poor repair or risks of falls. These housing conditions can contribute to a range of health problems including respiratory illness, heart disease and injury from accidents. 

The pandemic reinforced the importance of housing quality. During lockdowns, many older people spent almost all of their time at home, which intensified the effects of living in unsuitable or unhealthy housing. Poor housing conditions were associated with worsening physical health, mental health challenges and greater social isolation. 

Housing conditions also affect how health and social care systems function. For example, unsafe or inaccessible homes can delay hospital discharge, increase the risk of hospital readmission and make it more difficult for people to receive care at home. The report highlights the importance of home adaptations, such as grab rails, stair lifts and accessible bathrooms, which can help older people remain independent and reduce demand on health and social care services. 

Unpaid carers are another important part of this picture. Many carers experienced increased responsibilities during the pandemic as formal services were disrupted. Providing care in homes that are cold, unsafe or unsuitable can create additional strain for carers and increase risks for both carers and those receiving care. 

From a care equity perspective, housing conditions are unevenly distributed across society. Poor housing is more common among people with lower incomes and in disadvantaged areas. These housing inequities contribute to wider health inequities by increasing the risk of illness and reducing the ability of people to remain independent in later life. 

Overall, the report argues that improving housing conditions should be considered a core component of health and social care policy. Targeted investment in housing improvements and adaptations could support healthy ageing, reduce pressure on health and social care services and address wider inequities in health outcomes.

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study looks at how access to care homes varies across Wales depending on where people live. The researchers mapped the location of care homes and compared this with the distribution of older people who may need residential care. This helps show whether some areas have better access to care home places than others. 

The results show that care homes are not evenly distributed. More homes tend to be located in urban areas and the post-industrial valleys of south-east Wales. However, these areas also have larger older populations, which means demand for care home places is higher. As a result, the actual availability of places may not be as high as the number of homes suggests. 

Some rural areas appear to have a better balance between the number of places and the number of older residents. However, people in these areas may still face challenges because care homes are further apart and travel distances can be longer. This can make it harder for families to visit relatives and for people to remain close to their communities when they move into residential care. 

The study also highlights how the organisation of the care sector affects access. In Wales, most care homes are run by independent providers rather than local authorities. This means the location of homes is partly shaped by market conditions and business decisions, not just local need. Areas that are less profitable or harder to operate in may therefore have fewer services. 

These patterns matter for care equity. If some communities have fewer nearby care homes, people living there may have fewer choices or may need to move further away from their families and support networks. This can affect wellbeing and continuity of care. 

Overall, the study shows that looking at where services are located, and where people live, can help policymakers understand where gaps in care provision exist. This kind of analysis can support better planning of care home services and help ensure that access to residential care is more evenly distributed across regions.

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This report looks at workforce inequities across health and adult social care and shows that these are not only staff issues. They also affect how care is delivered. The report was commissioned by CQC and combines survey data, interviews, literature review and case studies to understand what workforce inequities look like, what drives them and what helps reduce them. 

A central finding is that race and ethnicity-related inequities were the most commonly reported. Staff also reported inequities linked to sex or gender, disability, mental health conditions and nationality. Many respondents described overlapping forms of discrimination, which matters because people do not experience these issues one at a time in real life. 

The report makes clear that workforce inequities are shaped by both workplace culture and wider systems. Staff most often pointed to managers’ attitudes, colleagues’ attitudes and organisational culture as key drivers. That matters for care equity because staff who are excluded, ignored or treated unfairly may be less able to progress, less likely to stay, and less likely to speak up when something is wrong. 

The findings also show a clear link between workforce inequities and the quality of care. The report says staff experiencing inequities reported negative effects on service quality, care quality and interactions with people using services. In particular, more than 40% of respondents experiencing or observing race or ethnicity-related inequities reported poor interactions with patients or people using services. 

From a care equity perspective, this is important because inequities affecting staff can feed through into inequities affecting people who use services. If some parts of the workforce are more exposed to bullying, poorer progression, low pay or unsafe speaking up cultures, that can affect continuity, trust and service quality. It can also be worse in parts of the system already under pressure, including adult social care, smaller providers and areas facing recruitment and funding problems. 

Another useful finding is that the most common EDI activity was not seen as the most effective. Staff training and celebrating diversity were common, but respondents were more likely to value strong complaints systems, transparent data and visible senior leadership action. This suggests that tackling workforce inequities needs practical follow-through, not just awareness activity. 

Overall, the report shows that workforce inequities are part of wider structural problems in health and adult social care. Improving care equity means paying attention to how staff are treated, who is heard, who progresses, and who feels safe at work. Without that, inequities in the workforce are likely to continue affecting inequities in care. 

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 

This study explores the challenges involved in recruiting and retaining staff in adult social care services in England. The social care workforce is large and diverse, yet the sector continues to experience difficulties attracting and retaining staff. 

Low pay and demanding working conditions are commonly cited reasons why people leave social care roles. Care providers must also compete with other sectors such as the NHS, hospitality and retail, which may offer higher wages or more stable working hours. These labour market pressures can make it difficult for social care employers to recruit and retain staff. 

Geography also influences workforce recruitment. In rural areas, care workers often need to travel between people’s homes to provide support. Where public transport is limited, workers may need access to a personal vehicle to take up these roles. This requirement can limit the pool of potential staff and make recruitment more difficult for rural providers. 

The report also highlights the influence of commissioning and funding arrangements. Social care providers often have limited control over service pricing because fees are set through local authority commissioning processes. When funding levels are constrained, providers may struggle to improve pay, invest in training or create more stable working conditions. 

From a health and social care equity perspective, workforce shortages can affect the availability and quality of care services. Areas that face greater recruitment challenges may experience reduced service capacity or higher staff turnover, which can affect continuity of care for people receiving support. 

Overall, the report suggests that improving recruitment and retention will require coordinated action across workforce policy, funding arrangements and labour market conditions. Addressing these issues is important for building a sustainable social care workforce and ensuring equitable access to care services across different regions. 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study sheds light on how low-paid health and social care workers interpreted their place within the UK’s pandemic response. Participants described feeling overshadowed by a dominant focus on the NHS, with social care framed as secondary despite its central role. 

The rapid and repeated changes to guidance intensified workplace stress. For many workers, the lack of stability compounded existing frustrations linked to low pay and insecure conditions, shaping how they understood government priorities. 

In terms of care equity, the findings point to structural imbalances within the workforce. When social care workers are consistently positioned as lower priority, this reinforces inequalities between sectors and undermines the status of roles that are disproportionately occupied by women and people from marginalised backgrounds. These dynamics have implications not only for workers’ wellbeing, but also for the quality and continuity of care. 

Overall, the paper highlights how crises can magnify longstanding workforce inequities. Addressing pay, recognition and inclusion in decision-making is essential if social care workers are to be treated as equal partners within the health and care system, rather than an afterthought during periods of national pressure. 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study provides a detailed account of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the working lives of health and social care staff. It documents high levels of burnout, declining mental wellbeing and the cumulative impact of sustained pressure during crisis conditions. Participants described how staffing shortages and job insecurity intensified workloads and reduced the capacity of services to meet demand. These pressures also affected morale and the ability of workers to provide the quality of care they aspired to deliver. 

From a care equity perspective, the findings highlight how workforce strain can deepen inequities within care systems. Workers in lower-paid or less secure roles faced greater exposure to stress and burnout, while service users experienced variable support depending on staffing levels and workforce stability. These dynamics risk reinforcing uneven experiences of care across settings. 

Overall, the study stresses the importance of workforce wellbeing as a foundation for equitable care. Addressing mental health, pay and staffing issues is essential not only for supporting workers, but for sustaining fair and reliable health and social care services in the longer term.

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study highlights the relationship between perceived staffing adequacy, wellbeing and retention among social workers. Many participants described feeling unable to meet the needs of people they support due to insufficient staffing, alongside growing administrative demands. 

The findings show how workload pressures translate into sickness absence and intentions to leave, particularly among mid-career workers. Dependence on agency staff was described as both a symptom and a driver of instability, adding complexity to team functioning and continuity. 

From a care equity point of view, the study illustrates how workforce shortages affect both workers and service users. Where staffing levels are inadequate, social workers have less capacity to provide timely and consistent support, increasing the risk of uneven access and outcomes for people drawing on care and support. At the same time, burnout and poor wellbeing disproportionately affect those in high-pressure roles. 

Overall, the paper highlights that safe staffing is not only a workforce issue but a care quality issue. Improving staffing levels and working conditions is essential to sustaining an equitable social care system that supports both practitioners and the people they serve. 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This study highlights the complex reasons why social care staff choose to remain in or leave roles, within intellectual disability services. While pay emerged as an important consideration, the quality of relationships with individuals receiving support was equally influential in shaping job satisfaction. 

Participants described care work as meaningful when they felt able to build trusting relationships and provide consistent support. Where organisational pressures limited this relational aspect, motivation to stay diminished, even when staff valued the work itself. 

Considering care equity, the findings point to how workforce instability can disproportionately affect people with intellectual disabilities. High turnover and staffing instability disrupts relationships that are central to continuity and quality of care, potentially leading to uneven experiences. At the same time, low pay and poor conditions reflect broader inequities faced by a workforce that is often undervalued. 

Overall, the study suggests that improving retention requires attention to both material conditions and the relational nature of care. Supporting staff to remain in post is essential not only for workforce sustainability, but for delivering equitable and person-centred support to people with intellectual disabilities. 

Key statistics 

Key messages 

Policy implications 

Gaps 

Commentary 
This report provides a comprehensive snapshot of the adult social care workforce in England, highlighting the scale and persistence of recruitment and retention challenges. High turnover and continued reliance on international recruitment underscore the fragility of workforce supply. 

The demographic profile of the workforce is striking. A predominantly female workforce, combined with variations in pay and progression, points to long-standing structural issues in how care work is valued and rewarded. These patterns shape both workforce stability and career sustainability. 

From a care equity perspective, the findings raise questions about who bears the burden of workforce instability. Low pay, high turnover and limited progression disproportionately affect groups already overrepresented in the sector, including women and migrant workers. These have consequences for continuity, quality and fairness of care for people who rely on services. 

Overall, the report highlights that addressing workforce shortages is not only about numbers. Improving equity in pay, conditions and opportunity is central to building a stable adult social care workforce and ensuring that care is delivered consistently and fairly across England.