This year’s Summer bulletin has now been published online and is available to view.
Summer Bulletin 20Covid-19 interim guidance on the wider use of face masks in health & social care
Please see below for letter from the Chief Nursing Officer and the Interim Chief Medical Officer on the Covid-19 Interim Guidance on the wider use of face masks and face coverings in health and social care.
The guidance can be found here.
2020-06-16 COVID19 CNO CMO letter re use of face masks and face coverings Health Boards and Scottish Care FINALScottish Care responds to Scottish Parliament statement on the use of face masks
Today (23 June), the Cabinet Secretary for Health & Sport made the following statement in the Scottish Parliament regarding the use of face masks:
“Face masks will now be worn in hospitals and care homes for adults by all staff who have contact with patients or residents.
“Outpatient, day case attendances and visitors will be asked to wear a face covering.
“This new measure is designed to reduce the risk of transmission from the person wearing the mask or face covering.
“Guidance on this for Health Boards and employers will issue this week and be effective from 29 June.”
In line with existing PPE guidance, staff will be expected to wear medical grade masks for this wider use. For visitors to care homes, this should be face coverings along the lines of what has been recommended more recently for transport and for entering other areas where physical distancing is more difficult (e.g. supermarkets).
Scottish Care welcomes this announcement, which we first called for on 29 April. We consider it to be one of a number of important measures in protecting residents and care home workers from Coronavirus infection and spread and one which will be increasingly important as lockdown measures are eased.
We look forward to the issuing of guidance around this extended use of face masks in health and care settings. It will be important to consider how professional judgment can be exercised around the wearing of masks when supporting individuals with dementia, those who lip read or who are experiencing significant distress. It will also be important to ensure that care homes can continue to access the number of masks required at a sustainable cost as demands on the supply chain are likely to increase, and we continue to be grateful to the Scottish Government for their PPE support to care services through the triage and hub system.
Scottish Care wants to see the extension of this announcement to health and care staff in the community, including in care at home settings. These individuals are also at greater risk of infection transmission and spread, not least as visiting restrictions across the population ease. They require recognition and consistency in PPE use between themselves and colleagues in other health and care settings and sectors.
Being the midwives of care in a pandemic: reflections on authentic leadership
The history of any battle is often the narrative of those who are victorious and those who are the powerful. As a result, most of the history which has been written and taught has been at the cost of remembering and recognising those who have really led the struggle and achieved the victory.
The remembrance and story of Coronavirus in Scotland in the last few months should be one about leadership – but not the leadership of the loud and visible, not the narrative of the strident and self-advocating, not even with respect about the decisions of politicians and scientists, but of those who have rolled up their sleeves to do the work of care, those who have sat with the dying and those who have spent themselves in the giving of life and love to stranger and friend alike. They have been the real leaders of this hour.
There has been true and remarkable leadership during Covid19 in Scotland and in my blog this week I want to reflect on that leadership both to recognise it and treasure it.
A long time ago I used to teach theories of leadership in a vain and I fear forlorn attempt to try to teach people about how to better manage group dynamics and inter-personal relationships. I have forgotten most of what I taught – as doubtless my listeners have – but one or two things have stuck with me. One was the concept of maieutic leadership.
Maieutic comes from “maieutikos,” the Greek word for “of midwifery.” It is a style of leadership which strikes me as entirely apposite for the current times.
A midwife is someone who is immensely important during a birth. S/he is someone who provides support, comfort and assurance. Through encouraging word, by physical presence of a holding hand or wept brow, she enables the mother to bring her baby to birth. Despite all the advances in the technology of birthing it is still this essential human accompanying that is the midwife’s greatest gift and capacity. It is not she who does the work, but she who enables life to happen. She is present at all times, like the support of a bridge that enables you to cross from one side of a river to the other, she is the enabler of fulfilment, the supporter of new beginnings, but she leaves the work and autonomy to the individual mother.
A maieutic leader is someone who is such an enabler. She is present to provide structure and support. The task to be achieved is not one that she as a leader needs to do for personal fulfilment but she creates the conditions, through word, action and presence to enable it to happen. Her knowledge rests quietly, her creativity sits silently, her intervention only necessary if it is needed, but throughout she gives assurance by presence and skill.
Who have been the leaders in these past few months?
The women and men who get up every day and leave their families to go to a care home or to work in the homes of others during this pandemic have surely been the real leaders of these times. They may not recognise themselves as such, they may indeed be uncomfortable both with the concept and the recognition, but it is true, nevertheless. I hope we have all of us come to a better sense of appreciation of the human skills, technical abilities and personal humanity of the thousands who work in social care. Before all this they were described as ‘low-skilled’. This demeans their abilities and capacities and it equates knowledge with that which is possessed through academia alone, rather than affirming the emotional intelligence and human capacity of thousands. The work of care is not easy and should not be romanticised. It is raw, dirty, physical and often upsetting. But these women and men have been in the forefront of the struggle against the pernicious virus we have all faced. That is true leadership, often working autonomously, beyond personal energy and frequently without appropriate recognition. They deserve to be known as the true frontline leaders against Covid19.
There is another group of people whose story might often be forgotten, and they are the managers and supervisors of our health and care services. This last week I received messages from quite a few managers which made me aware of the sheer exhaustion these individuals have been working under, especially in care homes. They have been there from the beginning. At the start they dealt with the upset of starting lockdown, they have struggled with the issues of PPE, of infection control, of testing, of staff absence. They have met head on the need to reassure, encourage and enable others despite all the challenges including in many instances the real grief of dealing with multiple deaths. They have worked long hours with colleagues to keep morale up and to ensure that despite the inhumanity of what was expected, that residents were kept positive and as healthy as they could be. They have dealt with the increasing and at times overwhelming demands put upon them by the system through scrutiny, from constant reporting and increased paperwork, from multiple sets of guidance and new requirements. In recent days they have had to manage the very real desire and pain of families to reconnect and to start the preparations for the restoration of visits and contact. These women and men have been amazing and deserve to be seen as leaders against Covid19.
And my last group of people who have been leaders at this time and who might be too easily forgotten are the residents in care homes and people living in their own home, the families and relatives of all who have had to be isolated and sheltered. This has been hell on earth for so many because no matter how we dress it up the response to the virus has effectively meant that people have been shut away from those they love the most. This is changing for many outside our care homes, but the threat and prevalence of the virus has still not led to the decision to formally open up visiting. Every day I speak to someone or read messages from someone who is enduring the agony of separation and becoming more and more frightened about what they might find when they see their relative again. This is achingly hard but the strength of character and resolve, the determination of those families to see change which is safe and speedy, the advocacy of family to uphold the human rights and dignity of their loved ones at a time when policy appears cold and disinterested in the personal, is and has been an act of courageous leadership. This is not an easy time and it has and is taking astonishing strength of resolve and character for residents and families to keep going. I only hope that the end of that particular pain is coming very close. This has been real leadership.
So the true leaders in the fight against coronavirus are not those keyboard warriors who use words to show superiority or to prove a point; they are not those who seek personal advance or popular esteem; not those who score political points but are distant from decision-making; not those who point fingers at those who really are out there fighting. The true leaders over the last few weeks are the same folks who are still today fighting the presence of this virus. They are the frontline workers who are bringing compassion and solace, comfort and assurance, doing their hardest despite all that is hurtful and hard. They are the managers and supervisors encouraging yet more from a drained group of staff and showing their own willingness to muck in and show the way. They are the families and residents who are pulling us all to that point in the horizon of hope which we want to reach soon.
I hope that when the story of this virus is told in months and years to come that we will remember the maieutic leadership of those who care and are cared for. It has been and is leadership of true authenticity, nothing false but completely real. Not loud and brash, but strong and tender; not talking but doing, not draining but affirming.
I hope we can shape leadership in the rest of society and in all our relationships. It will be a future worth living in and working towards if it is one where those who uphold others, who wipe tears away in aloneness, who use a word of quiet to encourage, an arm to uphold a weakened spirit, where their maieutic skills become the norm.
To all who lead today. Thank you
Donald Macaskill
The need for a Human Rights Inquiry: coronavirus and older people
Yesterday saw the publication of sad statistics illustrating the level of hatred in Scotland. We read in the Crown Office data that all categories of hate crime in Scotland are increasing. Racial hatred is still the most common with over 3,038 charges in 2019-20. There was also an increase of 24% on the previous 12 months for incidents aggravated by religious hatred and sexual orientation. Disability aggravated charges showed an increase of 29%. These are shameful statistics. They paint a depressing picture of a society increasingly comfortable with intolerance, at home with bigotry and welcoming of discrimination.
In April the Scottish Government launched a Bill which includes the consideration of extending hate legislation to include age. I have already stated elsewhere how critically important it is that age receives equal protection.
Whether we accept it or not age discrimination is part and parcel of Scottish society. It is the wallpaper against which so much social discourse takes place and its acceptance has become almost a cultural norm whether through being the source of comedic jokes or the automatic assumption that older people’s services should be resourced less than others.
I am reminded of all this as I note that on Tuesday 15th June we will recognise World Elder Abuse Day. This annual United Nations observance day highlights the extent to which cultural, systemic and political abuse against older people is an increasing and serious problem across the world and has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of older people. As people grow older they become more at risk and vulnerable to abuse (and sadly most of this is at the hands of family members) because they are unable to defend themselves or to get help as a result of infirmity and fear. But the abuse of the old is also at the hands of the systems and policies, the governments and practices under which they live. This year there is a particular focus on the human rights of older people.
Reflecting on harms against older people, whether consciously as a result of hatred or ‘collaterally’ as a result of pervasive age discrimination, is an important challenge during this Covbid19 pandemic.
I have to confess to a personal sense of disappointment at the extent to which there has been relatively little consideration of the human rights of older people in our collective national, political and media responses to Coronavirus. There have been exceptions. The Equality and Human Rights Commission have suggested the need for an Inquiry into the discharge policies into care homes in the UK and the Welsh Older People’s Commissioner has been critical of a whole range of potential human rights abuses around testing and support for care homes. In Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has been vocal in its critique of the Chief Medical Officer’s early Ethical Framework for Decision Making.
So, what does it look like if we hold up a human rights mirror to what has happened over the last few months and what is now occurring?
The perniciousness of this virus is the invisible way in which it has targeted our older citizens. It is they who in Scotland have borne the brunt of the trauma and death with over 76% of those dying in Scotland, regardless of location, being aged 75 and older. It is our most frail and vulnerable, the population of our care homes and mainly those with dementia, who have been especially hit by the disease and who will doubtless continue to be most vulnerable as the pandemic continues. Have we upheld their human rights?
I have always thought that our international human rights Charters and Conventions are a barometer of the way in which we can judge ourselves as a society. Part of the reason for my enthusiasm is that human rights practice and jurisprudence appreciates that we do not live in a black and white world, but that any decision and action is usually the result of layers of motives and consideration, policy and practice. The world is complex and responding to an issue in one way means that your actions may result in many unintended consequences. The language of human rights is about proportionality – is what you are intending to do a reasonable and proportionate action or is it too much or too little. Human rights are about recognising that some of our rights have to be limited or curtailed – within reason – in order for the greater aim to be achieved. Human rights are about collectively agreeing what are the legitimate aims of any action and whether what you plan to do is a reasonable action in achieving those agreed objectives or whether it is misplaced and misguided.
Although there are a good number of Articles within our current Human Rights legal protections, perhaps the ones that most resonate in the current pandemic are
Article 2 – the right to life; article 3 – the right not to be treated in a manner which is inhumane, degrading and equivalent to torture, and Article 8 the right to family life, privacy and association, to psychological and physical integrity – all my paraphrasing I should add.
So, against these three core human rights Articles in our response to Coronavirus have we in Scotland acted appropriately and proportionately to achieve the legitimate aim of preserving life or have we mis-stepped?
The right to life is a human right which no Government or body can seek to limit. In the pandemic it was the number one priority – to save as many lives as possible and protect as many people as possible. Clearly we need to consider whether actions which sought to prioritise the acute NHS were undertaken at the cost of the social care sector. A hard question but a necessary one especially when the global evidence showed that social care supports especially care homes were the primary weakness in the support of the old and most vulnerable. Were our actions in Scotland in discharging patients from hospital into care homes proportionate and reasonable or risky and utilitarian? Does the data show that there was equal opportunity to preserve life given to residents in care homes through their access to acute treatment and care or was there a presumptive bias against admitting residents into hospitals? Is the continuous lockdown of older people in isolation within care homes enabling of the fulfilment of the right to life or does it put at risk that right through psychological and physiological harms being given less attention than the desire for infection control and prevention?
Article 3 is another human rights article against which no State or body can seek to take actions which limits the right not to be treated in a manner which is inhumane and degrading. How have we done on this front? Is it justifiable to confine one whole section of the population in a manner which is more restrictive than another, ostensibly for their protection but which whilst reasonable for a defined early period of time, becomes disproportionate, unreasonable and potentially inhumane when we are talking about 14 weeks of such restriction?
Article 8 is about the protection of interaction and relationship, the right to privacy and family life, to association and belonging. Clearly we have all of us as citizens had to endure the restriction of our normal engagement with family and friends. Such restrictions have been judged to have been appropriate in order to achieve the legitimate aim of protection against the virus and the devastating impacts that failing to protect would have resulted in. But have we treated some in a manner which is disproportionate and unreasonable? Are we now at risk of failing our older citizens and their human rights by continuing to restrict their ability to relate and interact, to have visitors and company? Is it epidemiologically reasonable to have calculated the risk to be so high that we have failed to recognise the wastage of life as a result of loss of relationship and encounter? Have the legitimate initial aims of Infection Prevention and Control now become imbalanced and there is as I have contended a greater risk which is loss of life through physiological, emotional and psychological deterioration and loss? Is the removing of autonomy, individual choice and ability to act, associate and have discourse a restriction too far? Have we presumptively failed individual rights by collectively treating all residents in a care home or all individuals shielding in their own home or a care home as equivalent to the other?
I think there are a significant number of human rights questions which need to be aired and heard in any consideration of the response to the pandemic. There has been much chatter and talk about Inquiries and reviews of the actions of both the UK and Scottish Government, and of health and care providers, in response to the pandemic. All of these will happen. But I also hope that there will be a robust and serious human rights Inquiry into the pandemic and specifically on the experience of older people at this time, in care homes and in the community.
Part of such a review could utilise the human rights PANEL model. Has there been real Participation and involvement of older people in decisions made about and for them? Have actions been sufficient to hold Accountable all those responsible for the care and support of older citizens? Have actions of intervention during Covid19 been Non-discrimination in nature or did they serve to perpetuate and further embed discrimination? Did our response to Covid19 Empower individuals to achieve and retain their human rights or did we disempower and limit the ability of citizens to fulfil their human rights? Lastly did we have at all times undertake appropriate actions that upheld human rights obligations and Law?
We delude ourselves as a nation and as individual citizens if we fail to recognise that we live in an age discriminatory society in the UK. This was true before Covid19 and is unlikely to have changed in our response to the pandemic. Only witness some of the narrative we have seen this week which has been desperate to re-hash the views that Coronavirus was after all only something which affects ‘older people’ and that a ‘Boomer harvest’ was not entirely inappropriate.
We owe it to all those who have suffered and died from the pandemic to use the maturity of a human rights analysis to understand whether our actions, for the best motivations, were ones which we should repeat or ones from which we require to repent.
Donald Macaskill
Scottish Care responds to Covid-19 Committee Inquiry on easing lockdown
The Scottish Parliament’s COVID-19 Committee recently sought written and oral evidence on possible options for the Scottish Government’s “exit strategy” from the lockdown restrictions and the extent to which this could involve a phased approach across different localities within Scotland.
Scottish Care submitted written evidence to the Committee regarding the ways in which lockdown and its easing impacts the social care sector. Our submission focused on how the sector must be supported and engaged with around four main areas:
- Impact on vulnerable groups
- Impact on wellbeing
- Easing visiting restrictions
- Testing
Scottish Care’s submission can be read here: https://scottishcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/COVID-Lockdown-Arrangements-Scottish-Care-29-May-2020.pdf
Dr Donald Macaskill also provided oral evidence to the Committee on 10 June 2020.
The pain of isolation – thoughts for Dementia Awareness Week
This has been Dementia Awareness Week and it has been another unusual week in lockdown. Normally every year I would have been attending events, conferences or meetings learning and exploring with others about the nature of Alzheimer’s Disease. For countless thousands it is also a week when we remember those in our own families who have died from dementia. It is a time when I picture and recall my own grand-mother and mother’s journeys into the lostness of dementia.
This year, however, faced with Covid19 I have spent days thinking and working on practical steps so that we might be able to restore visiting into our care homes to re-establish connection and belonging. But as I have done so I have grown even more acutely aware and concerned about the impact that lockdown is having upon the psychological and physiological health of care home residents as well as people in the community who are living with dementia.
Like many others over the last few weeks I have been moved to a real depth of awakened understanding by the reporting of Lewis Goodall on BBC Newsnight. On Thursday night his input was on the effect of Covid19 on people living with dementia. He reflected on the disproportionate impact of isolation on people with dementia and informed his viewers that in England 42% of Covid deaths in care homes were from those living with dementia. I suspect in Scotland the figure is significantly higher given that 90% plus of people in Scottish care homes have dementia. He also suggested that many were not dying from Covid19 but from the effects of isolation.
At the start of the pandemic as care homes went into lockdown the advice from Government and public health experts was that individual residents should be confined to their own rooms and that communal areas and activities should be ended or reduced. Normal activities such as socialising and eating together should be halted and that social distancing should be introduced. That is now 12 weeks ago.
So, for 12 long and painful weeks thousands of individuals who are not aware of what is happening and who do not understand why family faces have disappeared have had their lives turned upside down. Critical routines which give a pattern of familiarity and comfort have been upended. Activities to stimulate and keep both physical and mental capacity going have been reduced or have simply disappeared as staff have struggled to deal with real desperate clinical care needs of others. Perhaps most importantly the affirmation of touch and stroke, of smile and hugs, have not been offered or have been hidden behind a scary PPE mask. Staff have struggled with those whose dementia meant they would not remain in their rooms, for whom masks, and shields have been simply terrifying, whose behaviour has become challenging in all the confusion.
I simply cannot conceive what life must feel like to someone with dementia in a care home today. It must surely be terrifying. I cannot imagine how disempowered and frustrated care staff are feeling right now. A nurse on the frontline this week described it to me as “seeing people silently screaming inside and not being able to do what you want to do – to touch and to soothe.”
I know the why, the importance of preventing infection spread and the imperative of protection, but how long can we continue to isolate individuals in the way that we are now doing? This enforced confinement is destroying and damaging just as many lives as the virus is. People are losing their physical body mass; they are losing the physical and mental abilities which they once had, and they are at real risk of deep depression. We urgently need to now find a better balance between infection control and the enabling of life. We need to think about how we can use volunteers and supplementary staffing to allow people the freedom of protected space and place. We have rightly stressed the importance of scrutiny and inspection on infection control practice, but have we given as much attention to the quality of life that is now that of those with dementia in our care homes? For too many there is existence and safety, but life and purpose is disappearing.
Kate Lee, CEO of the Alzheimer Society in the Newsnight programme said that “if this was our children being affected we would be screaming from the rooftops.” Sadly, as she also stated this is further evidence of the way we treat people differentially because of their age or because they have dementia and not some other condition such as cancer.
On this Dementia Awareness Week it is the urgent imperative on all of us involved in the care of citizens to search out new ways so that we can open the doors of confinement, so that we can begin to restore relationship and interaction; start to again give meaning and purpose, fulfilment and enjoyment to those living with dementia.
We have to find better ways to protect than we currently have in practice. There is little purpose in having infection free environments if the process of achieving them is the effective loss of life and meaning. This is the challenge for us all. If we do not then we have lost our own sense of direction as a society. Lockdown in our care homes is harming too many.
Donald Macaskill
Balancing the scales: Covid19 discrimination and future promise
In early March at the beginning of the Covid19 pandemic I wrote an opinion piece for The National which I concluded with the words:
‘Coronavirus will be a test not just of the infrastructures of health and care, of business and commerce, it will be a test which will determine the nature of our nation. Will we be a Scotland that cares for the old or will our compassion be limited by discrimination?’
That piece was written on the back of statements which suggested that we did not need to worry about the disease because it would only kill the old. Both social media and some wider media comment at the time was full of comments which articulated a view that Coronavirus was a ‘boomer harvest’, one of the many sickening references to the baby-boomer generation. The public health message across the United Kingdom at the time was ‘wash your hands and catch your cough.’
Twelve weeks on the truth is that this pernicious virus has indeed taken a devastating toll of the older age population with nearly three quarters of all deaths in Scotland and worldwide amongst those over the age of 75. It is also the sad truth that those who were most vulnerable as a result of age, frailty, dementia and other conditions, and who have been residents in our care homes, have been the hardest hit. This is the story of this pandemic as it has crossed the face of the world, its hurt has taken away from us our memory and soul, its scars have left a mark which will take long to heal.
So has our response been one of inclusiveness, of valuing all, of non-discrimination or has the pervasiveness of age discrimination and bias, subjects I have often written about, been evidenced in our pandemic response as a Scottish society, as a political, health and care system?
I will leave you to make your own mind up on that. But …
In recognising the evidence, we were getting from China in January, South Korea and Singapore, Italy and Spain in February, France and Germany in March, did we sufficiently protect our older citizens? Did we ‘contain’ for too long out of a desire to ‘bring people with us’ and lessen harm to the economy which meant that the entry into lockdown made our older population all the more vulnerable?
In noting the relative success of a strict test, trace and isolate model in some parts of the world with the continual echo of the World Health Organisation stating ‘Test, test, test’ to anyone who would listen, did we as part of a Four Nation collective response abandon that safeguard too early?
In our desire to prevent our acute NHS system from being over-run did we so encourage the discharge of hundreds of older people from hospitals into the community and care homes where they were to be at greater risk or was staying in hospital an even higher threat?
In our requirement to protect the NHS at all costs did we fail to recognise the importance of ensuring that social care providers and their staff were to be an equal frontline so that requisitioning PPE supplies for the NHS would make their battle all the harder to fight?
In our desire to be prepared for an overflow did the indiscriminate phone-calls and letters about the importance of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ orders serve to put older and vulnerable citizens into a state of real fear, leaving them with the feeling that they were of lesser worth or value?
In our requirement to support frontline clinicians to make hard treatment decisions if we should face resource constraints and run out of equipment did our ethical framework not give the impression that age would be used as a primary proxy for decision-making?
In our desire to reduce unnecessary admissions into hospitals in order to prevent the anticipated surge did our official Guidance give older people in care homes the impression that they were not to be admitted but were to be cared for and die in situ?
In our withdrawal of packages of care and support from some of the most elderly in our communities did we not place them at even greater harm not just from the virus but from dying alone, without contact, potentially hungry and disconnected?
I have my own views on each of the above but one thing I am clear of is that the attitudes of age discrimination which existed in Scotland before this pandemic have not been wiped away with its pain rather they have been magnified and lit large.
For years I have written about the way in which we have failed to value our older citizens in many disparate ways. But I see very little point in recounting these. Rather as we leave lockdown we have an opportunity to leave behind systems, models and approaches which have not worked and have failed our older citizens. We have the opportunity to cast off attitudes and behaviours which have served only to limit our humanity by dressing ourselves up into a pretence of equality.
Social care is still fighting this virus. It has not gone away and there is much more still to be done. But this is also a time for re-formation and reflection, renewal and re-orientation.
We have the opportunity to finally have honest discussions about how we will value and celebrate the reality that we have one of the fastest ageing populations in Europe. Faced with the gift of longevity and a growing life expectancy, how are we to enable those living longer even with conditions such as dementia to live until the end in the fullest and richest way possible?
We have the chance to change the way in which we value social care and those who work in it. It is not acceptable that we consider that being paid the minimum or living wage should somehow be the summit of our collective aspiration. It is not acceptable that there should be such disparity in what the State funds and what we expect citizens to pay. It is not acceptable that if you are struck down by cancer your care is largely paid for but if you live with dementia you and your family end up being charged.
We have the chance to take some really hard decisions about how as a society we pay for the potential of age which is in our midst. We need to have these grown up national discussions which we have all shied away from especially the closer we get to an election season.
We have the chance to challenge the gender segregation which equates care as being a woman’s work and thus accords it less status where the reality is that care should be the challenge of all, for all and by all. A society that does not care is not a community but a collective assortment of individual egos.
We have the chance to see those who are old as vital contributive individuals. Life does not end until you take your final breath. Let us stop viewing our humanity as if it has a use by date. Let us seriously work at inter-generational levels so that we harvest the knowledge, creativity, skill and ingenuity of all our citizens.
We have the chance to create a system which enables real choice rather than blanket solutions, gives respect and autonomy to our citizens and which takes seriously the human rights and dignity of everyone.
There will be many legacies left by this pandemic. Tragically for many of us there has been raw pain and loss at the heart of the last few weeks. But we owe it to everyone today and tomorrow to make sure that we seize the opportunities we have been given and to really build a social care system and a Scottish society where all are valued and included regardless of chronological age. This will not be achieved by point-scoring, by political fundamentalism, by defensiveness or entrenchment, but by real collaboration, honest humility, and a shared passion that we can and must do better.
Donald Macaskill
A New Taboo – latest nursing blog
Working within the care sector dealing with death, dying and bereavement is intrinsic to the role. However, every episode of care that results in a death will have a different impact on individual staff.
The ability to cope with death in this way is managed by taking comfort in the fact that the person received the best care possible, did not suffer, and that their death was not as a result of neglect or poor delivery of care.
In my early nursing days, I worked in an Oncology ward. I remember the difficulty in trying to care for people newly diagnosed, alongside those receiving chemotherapy and those being nursed at end of life, all within the same unit. I decided to undertake a Death, Dying and Bereavement course to help me cope.
It certainly wasn’t the most upbeat course I ever undertook but it definitely opened my mind and my ability to think beyond what was simply happening. It referred to death as taboo, the subject that no one wanted to talk about and challenged me to ensure that talking about death and dying should be something that needs to happen alongside caring and compassion, to ensure good care.
Everyone who has nursed anyone can always remember someone that had a good death, and sadly someone who did not. Getting the time and the opportunity to go through the grieving process and reach a point of acceptance is what is considered by many as a good death. This allows decisions to be made which enables things to be planned as the person would’ve liked, wishes to be exercised and also lessens the burden on their family by preparing a will, and/or creating an advanced care plan. We all grieve differently and it is important to understand the stages of grief to help ourselves and others. The stages can be interchangeable and in time become less intense. On realising that death is imminent, most people initially experience shock and fleet between denial, fear, anger, bargaining and finally resulting in acceptance, if they can. This process can be typical for both the person dying and those close to them.
Loss due to Covid 19 has however presented different challenges. The rapidness in the deterioration for some people has resulted in the same depth of grief as that felt in a traumatic death.
Traumatic deaths due to accidents, suicide or murder often leave people feeling emotionally detached as they struggle to come to terms with a sudden loss. Guilt in relation to an untimely death is very common and can result in some people never accepting the loss for many years, if at all, with some holding themselves responsible. Not getting the opportunity to say goodbye, not expecting the death or feeling helpless to change anything or intervene, all play a part in extending grief, loss and acceptance.
Initially in managing Covid 19 there is a move between active treatment and recognition that recovery is a potential, whilst at the same time an acceptance that death may be the likely outcome. The two extremes over a short space of time in itself is difficult to prepare for. Although we saw a number of Covid positive people within the care homes improve and recover, sadly a greater number did not, with care homes accounting for approx. 40+ % of Covid deaths.
For staff it has been difficult. In normal circumstances families would have the option to be present throughout the days leading up to someone dying or when acutely unwell, and it is recognised that families require this support in coming to terms with losing someone, as part of the ongoing bereavement process which allows questions to be asked.
Not witnessing the person receiving care to know they were comfortable, without pain and see first-hand the expert care they received can result in families not being able to process what has happened and why. Not having answers to questions or conflicting responses can negatively affect the behaviours of individual family members after the death. Restricting visits in the last few days of someone’s life or not being allowed to be present within the care homes directly contributes to profound feelings of resentment for not being present at the moment when their loved one passed. This enforced estrangement prevents normal healing. All these scenarios have unfortunately taken place as a result of the necessary lockdown restrictions.
Staff within the care home sector unlike other frontline staff know their residents. They have built up relationships with them and those close to them and therefore the pressures of decision making and communicating bad news is somewhat more poignant and difficult.
The lack of political prioritisation of the care sector and delayed staff guidance at this time has without question heightened the effects of caring for someone who is dying of Covid19 or other causes.
The inability to say goodbye in a way they would normally have been able to, to hold a hand or to simply kiss them goodbye are natural responses that have been taken away, would ordinarily directly impact an individual’s ability to cope with the grieving process. Not to be able to act out someone’s wishes is particularly difficult to accept. Funeral arrangement restrictions, the need for recognition of someone’s life, the adherence to support them through their religious and spiritual beliefs and the bringing together of mourners has been particularly upsetting. Covid19 has taken this away from so many, the individual person, the family and the caregiver.
The increasing volume of deaths experienced by staff working within care homes have been particularly traumatic. The residents have lost their lives due to their susceptibility to the virus as approximately 75% of all deaths have been in the 75 years and above age group.
This has been it extremely difficult for staff to accept and to safeguard residents. The management of the protective factors, access to PPE, lack and delays in testing and frontline response to the care home sector has undoubtably resulted in a significant number of deaths, which may have been preventable.
This has left many staff experiencing feelings of guilt as a result, despite them having no real control. Reflecting and debriefing under such circumstances has been considered as not psychologically beneficial as it may make someone replay a situation that could not have been changed.
Staff followed guidance as it was issued alongside the frontline response which should have supported staff initially as they were aware that care homes had a concentrated population from the most vulnerable group and therefore had the highest risk of spread and transmission.
This accumulation of deaths and the pressures around this, alongside negative press coverage at times has impacted on staff wellbeing and psychological ability to remain resilient, resulting in compassionate fatigue. Many staff left their own homes during lockdown to protect their residents, with approximately 40% of care homes having no Covid cases, which is remarkable and should be recognised.
People are experiencing loss in so many ways out width the work environment, also. Loss of physical contact, psychological, social, emotional and spiritual support. The rituals of everyday life have all been on lockdown.
Very few people have not been touched by the impact of COVID19 as we have all had restricted contact with our families and the constant daily reminder of the devastation and loss of lives.
Let’s not forget that staff have to also come to work aware of the potential for them to become unwell from this virus and also the need to protect others, as well as their families, in the knowledge that sadly eight social care staff have lost their lives to this virus, alongside a significant number of other health staff.
The ability to share grief with peers can go a long way to support staff and to find a way to remotely support residents families who are bereaved is also helpful, as it allows the channels of communication to remain open and support people with their loss to heal through this complicated bereavement.
As we move out of this peak into the uncertainty of when this virus will be controlled the only real certainty is that life will never fully return to what we previously viewed as normal.
The taboo of talking about death and dying has certainly been tested with daily updates on death constantly broadcast into our living rooms over the last 10 weeks. Our ability to feel untouched regardless of age has been taken away from us, we learn more of how this virus turned into a global pandemic and how difficult it may be to eradicate.
With anything in life there is learning which will support us to cope as we move forward in our professional and personal lives. Strength will come from adversity and it’s important that we self- care and support the wellbeing of others.
The use of a safe place to take time out, to recharge and reflect has been highlighted as a useful way to reduce the potential of burnout. Leave needs to be taken and built in to also prevent this. It is important that staff don’t view this as a weakness but a necessary requirement to be kind to yourself, otherwise you will simply not continue to function.
Promis.scot is The National Wellbeing hub which pulls together fantastic resources highlighting the use of different available techniques to ensure staff are supported from the appropriate use of counselling, to the use of mindfulness.
An already challenging job has just reached new heights, but we must remember that whatever we are faced with we can simply only do our best with the resources we have available, nothing more, nothing less.
We are only human.
“There is some kind of a sweet innocence in being human- in not having to be just happy or just sad- in the nature of being able to be both broken and whole, at the same time.” ― C. JoyBell C.
Jacqui Neil
Transforming Workforce Lead for Nursing
Job Opportunity – Human Rights Project Worker (Maternity Cover)
Do you have human rights knowledge and experience?
Are you passionate about protecting and promoting the rights of older people?
Do you want to improve the experiences of those living with dementia?
Scottish Care, in partnership with Life Changes Trust and the University of the West of Scotland, wishes to appoint a Human Rights Project Worker (Maternity cover) to support Rights Made Real: a three-year funded project focused on actively promoting the human rights of care home residents living with dementia.
The project has already been running for eighteen months and a range of creative and innovative projects are being funded which will benefit people living with dementia and show others how to make rights real in care homes. The arrival of COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on the care home sector and there has never been a more important time to embed a human-rights based approach to the care and support of older persons. All partners in this project are committed to ensuring that older people, including those living with dementia, have a right to maintain strong connections with family and friends, with their communities and with the things that matter to them regardless of where they live. This has been very challenging during the pandemic. We believe that people of all ages, circumstances and conditions have a life to live, the right to thrive and hopes and dreams to achieve.
We are looking for someone with a strong understanding/interest in human rights who shares our passion to join us.
This is a full-time post for 9 months, hosted by Scottish Care and based in Scottish Care’s offices in Ayr. However, it is anticipated that the post-holder may have to travel throughout Scotland supporting the care homes involved in the project.
For an application pack please contact: [email protected]
SALARY – £25,000 FTE
CLOSING DATE – FRIDAY 19TH JUNE 2020 – 12 NOON
INTERVIEW DATE (BY VIDEO CALL) – FRIDAY 26TH JUNE 2020

