Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
McKee’s editorial describes the unseemly chaos that hallmarked PPE supplies and highlights Care Homes, but it is disappointing that PPE use is not discussed. The rationale for front line NHS staff exposed to C-19 patients is and was clear, but in care homes that was not the case. Arguably PPE would have been primarily to protect residents from being exposed to C-19 not staff and the thankfully relatively low mortality of care workers (compared to apparent risk) would support this.
The distinguished members both of official and independent Sage groups seem to lack risk management expertise in care homes and their residents and surely it is not entirely coincidental that the dystopian (as opposed to Kafkaesque) world of care homes and their residents fared so badly.
Had Sage been “on point” with regard to care homes and ministers more aware of the vulnerability of care home residents mortality may have been significantly reduced but it would have been through a combination of early lockdown, testing and enhanced infection control of which relatively simple PPE may have played a part.
To be clear, Care home responsibilities are the safety and well-being of their residents and staff, they lacked clear, coherent and timely guidance as C-19 hit the UK’s shores, as well as PPE.
Very disappointed the author mentions outsourcing several times but avoids the fact the NHS Procurement & Logistics have both been outsourced
This has exacerbated the PPE problems
Re: England’s PPE procurement failures must never happen again
Dear Editor
McKee’s editorial describes the unseemly chaos that hallmarked PPE supplies and highlights Care Homes, but it is disappointing that PPE use is not discussed. The rationale for front line NHS staff exposed to C-19 patients is and was clear, but in care homes that was not the case. Arguably PPE would have been primarily to protect residents from being exposed to C-19 not staff and the thankfully relatively low mortality of care workers (compared to apparent risk) would support this.
The distinguished members both of official and independent Sage groups seem to lack risk management expertise in care homes and their residents and surely it is not entirely coincidental that the dystopian (as opposed to Kafkaesque) world of care homes and their residents fared so badly.
Had Sage been “on point” with regard to care homes and ministers more aware of the vulnerability of care home residents mortality may have been significantly reduced but it would have been through a combination of early lockdown, testing and enhanced infection control of which relatively simple PPE may have played a part.
To be clear, Care home responsibilities are the safety and well-being of their residents and staff, they lacked clear, coherent and timely guidance as C-19 hit the UK’s shores, as well as PPE.
Competing interests: No competing interests