Policies on social care during COVID-19

 

Government policies affecting social care in England have evolved over the course of the pandemic. The key national policies on adult social care are summarised in Table 1. In this section of the briefing, we describe the main national policy changes related to social care in England throughout the first stage of the COVID-19 response. We examine policies on funding, testing, infection prevention and control, workforce, and oversight – as well as the role of social care in the overall policy and political narrative. In each of these areas, we describe the policy timeline and available data on how these policies have been implemented.

Table 1: Summary timeline of key events and social care policies, up to 31 May 2020

Summary

Date

Cases of pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China, first picked up by WHO

31 December 2019

First confirmed UK COVID-19 cases

31 January 2020

Public Health England guidance states it is ‘very unlikely’ people in care homes will become infected

25 February 2020

Coronavirus action plan published by government

3 March 2020

First reported UK COVID-19 death

5 March 2020

WHO declares COVID-19 pandemic

11 March 2020

Budget 2020 COVID-19 response fund: £1.6bn for local authorities to help deal with pressures on services, including adult social care, and £1.3bn to support the NHS discharge process including social care costs (both announced 19/03/20)

11 March 2020

New guidance for social care settings includes advice to review care home visiting policies

13 March 2020

CQC suspends routine inspections

16 March 2020

NHS England asks hospitals to urgently discharge patients who are medically fit to leave, including into social care settings

17 March 2020

Prime Minister introduces lockdown

23 March 2020

Coronavirus Act 2020 (including Care Act easements)

25 March 2020

Guidance for care homes includes that negative tests are not required prior to admissions. Advises against visitors except in exceptional situations. Advises ‘care as normal’ for people without symptoms

2 April 2020

Five pillar plan for testing

2 April 2020

National PPE plan authorises the distribution of 34 million items of PPE for social care providers

10 April 2020

COVID-19 adult social care action plan. Commits to testing all symptomatic care home residents and social care workers, and all residents prior to admission to care homes. Commits to a recruitment drive, and establishing a new CARE branded website and app for the social care workforce

15 April 2020

£1.6bn for councils including for social care services

18 April 2020

National adult social care recruitment campaign

23 April 2020

Testing expanded to asymptomatic care home staff and residents

28 April 2020

UK government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy includes ‘protecting care homes’ – every care home for those aged 65 and older to be ‘offered’ testing by 6 June. Asks care homes to limit staff movement between homes

11 May 2020

First steps to ‘reopening society’ from lockdown

13 May 2020

Ringfenced £600m infection control fund for local authorities to cover costs of measures to reduce COVID-19 transmission in care homes, alongside a broader package of support

15 May 2020

Source: COVID-19 policy tracker: a timeline of national policy and health system responses to COVID-19 in England.

Funding

Government has provided additional funding for NHS and social care services during the COVID-19 response. Extraordinary measures have also been taken to provide financial support for businesses and households. The NHS was promised ‘whatever it needs, whatever it costs’ to deal with COVID-19. Local authorities have received funding for the COVID-19 response in stages, but only some of this funding has been ringfenced for social care services.

Policy timeline

On 11 March 2020, the Chancellor used the Budget to announce an initial £5bn emergency response fund for the NHS, local authorities, and other public services to help deal with COVID-19 pressures. On 19 March, it was announced that £1.6bn from the fund would be allocated to local authorities – allocated based on a mix of the social care relative needs formula and the settlement funding assessment, and not ringfenced for spending on any particular service. £1.3bn was also allocated to the NHS to help discharge patients from hospitals, including to pay for the care and support they may need from social care services.

A further £1.6bn additional funding for local authorities was announced on 18 April. Allocations were confirmed on 28 April, on a per capita basis, with a 65:35 split between county and district authorities. Again, the funding was not ringfenced for social care – covering spending on children’s services, public health, fire and rescue, shielding, homelessness, and other services alongside adult social care. Earlier in April, £850m in social care grant payments to councils was also brought forward by government to help provide immediate support for services. At the daily briefing on 18 April, the Communities Secretary said that government was ‘backing councils to ensure vital services such as adult social care, children’s services, support for vulnerable people and waste collection continue despite the increased pressures’.

A third announcement of additional funding came in May – this time ringfenced for adult social care. After being announced at Prime Minister’s questions on 13 May, government confirmed a £600m ‘infection control fund’ to tackle the spread of COVID-19 in care homes and other settings on 15 May. The funding was allocated to local authorities based on the number of care home beds and costs of operating in different areas. Government requested that 75% of the funding is passed directly to care homes and used to fund a set of infection control measures (relating primarily to staff-related costs). The remaining 25% must also be spent on infection control, but can be allocated by local authorities based on need – for example, to support domiciliary care services. The fund will be paid in two installments. The second installment is contingent on the first being used for infection control.

An additional £500m funding package for councils was announced in early July to help with spending pressures and cover lost income.

Policy implementation

Government has said that 90% of the £3.2bn non-ringfenced funding was allocated to local authorities that provide adult social care. In June, the Director General for adult social care at the Department of Health and Social Care said that local authorities had spent £1.25bn of the £3.2bn so far, and that £500m of this had been spent on social care.

COVID-19 has created additional costs across a wide range of services as well as reducing income from charges and business rates. Local authorities have been clear that the additional funding so far is not enough to cover the financial implications of COVID-19.,, Unlike the NHS, local government has a duty to balance its budgets. Only 4% of directors of adult social services surveyed by ADASS think they can do this while meeting their statutory duties – including safeguarding adults and providing care for vulnerable people.

It is also not clear how additional funding for social care has been spent. Local authorities have reported that they are providing extra financial support to care providers – for example, by providing upfront funding to cover costs, increasing fees paid, and setting aside funding for providers to claim back for additional costs – but some providers appear to disagree. In late April, several care provider leaders said that money allocated to local authorities for COVID-19 was not being passed on and warned that this could lead to provider failure. The Department of Health and Social Care asked local authorities to publish information on their websites with the financial support they have made available to social care providers in their area, and published links to these web pages in July. The level of detail provided varies.

Age UK has reported that some self-funded care home residents have been asked to pay an excess charge on top of normal fees to cover COVID-19 costs (for example, for PPE). But there are limited data to understand the financial impact of COVID-19 on different care users.

The impact of COVID-19 on broader local authority finances varies widely. Local authorities in more affluent areas are likely to be exposed to greater risk of losing revenue (for example, from local taxes and fees), while local authorities in more deprived areas are likely to be exposed to increased costs and service pressures over the medium to long term. The IFS have warned that the government’s use of ‘out-of-date and overly-general’ approaches to allocate COVID-19 funds may mean that funding will not end up where it is most needed.

Testing

The Health Secretary has described the government’s work on COVID-19 testing as ‘world-beating’. But the availability of COVID-19 diagnostic tests has been a major issue during the pandemic so far. Testing capacity has increased over time, allowing the government to expand testing eligibility to different settings and groups. The NHS has been prioritised for testing expansions, and testing policy in social care has largely focused on care homes.

Policy timeline

COVID-19 testing was largely unavailable to social care at the start of the pandemic. The government initially stopped community testing on 12 March, with testing prioritised for critically ill patients in hospitals. On 17 March, national NHS bodies instructed hospitals to rapidly discharge all patients who were medically fit to leave, to free up capacity for COVID-19 cases. This included discharging patients to care homes and other settings. There was no national policy requirement to test patients before being discharged. Testing in care homes was initially restricted to five symptomatic residents per care home to identify outbreaks.

On 27 March, government announced a ‘new drive’ on testing for front-line NHS staff. And the government’s testing strategy, published at the beginning of April, committed to ‘working with partners to expand swab testing to critical NHS and social care staff and their families’. A week later, the Health Secretary announced that there was enough capacity for all ‘key’ social care and NHS staff who needed a test to have one – in part delivered by 15 drive-through testing centres established across the country. Testing for the social care sector was coordinated by CQC.

Government published a social care action plan on 15 April, which committed to making testing more widely available. The plan confirmed that there was now capacity for ‘every social care worker who needs a test to have one’ and that tests would now be available for all symptomatic residents in care homes, and all residents prior to admission to care homes. The NHS was given responsibility for testing patients prior to discharge from hospital.

COVID-19 testing was expanded to ‘all essential workers in England’ with symptoms on 23 April. Personal care assistants and unpaid carers were not added to the list of essential workers until the beginning of May. Anyone with symptoms aged 65 and older and those unable to work from home became eligible for testing from 28 April. Alongside this, government announced that testing would be ‘rolled out’ for asymptomatic care home staff and residents, as well as NHS patients and staff. A ‘whole care home’ testing programme – led by Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care, working with CQC and ADASS – was piloted, with packages of ‘satellite’ testing kits sent directly to care homes. Care homes for those aged 65 and older and caring for people with dementia could register for testing through a new digital portal from 11 May. The number of tests was capped nationally at 30,000 test kits per day (including for staff and residents). By 18 May, testing eligibility had expanded to anyone with symptoms.

The government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy, published on 11 May, stated that every care home for those aged 65 and older would be ‘offered testing’ by 6 June. On 7 June, government announced that this target had been met and that whole care home testing was being expanded to all adult care homes, including for adults with learning disabilities or mental health issues, physical disabilities, and other homes for younger adults. People in supported living settings, extra care, and domiciliary care were not eligible. Regular testing in care homes – weekly testing of staff and monthly testing of residents – was introduced on 6 July, starting with homes caring for those aged 65 and older and those with dementia. Enhanced outbreak testing for care homes was rolled out from 13 July.

In addition to diagnostic tests, a programme of antibody testing – used to identify whether someone has had the virus – began at the end of May. These tests were made available ‘in a phased way’, beginning with health and social care staff, patients, and residents. Official guidance stated that NHS and care home staff who would like to be tested were being prioritised. But the announcement gave little detail on how the testing programme would work in social care, stating that government ‘will agree with local leaders the best place in the country to start’ and will ‘work with them to decide how this is implemented.’

The NHS Test and Trace system was introduced at the end of May. This means that anyone who has been in ‘close recent contact’ with someone with COVID-19 needs to self-isolate if the Test and Trace service advises them to. Government guidance for health and social care states that ‘close contact’ excludes circumstances where PPE is worn in line with current guidelines. The contact tracing process involves local public health teams if the person testing positive works in or has recently visited a care home.

Policy implementation

There are currently no regular data published on the number of tests delivered in different social care settings – either for care users or staff. Press releases and other government announcements often include high-level figures on testing. For example, the government’s press release describing the expansion of whole care home testing on 7 June stated that, since the launch of the programme, government had provided 1,071,103 test kits to 8,984 care homes – and that they were now able to send out over 50,000 test kits a day. High-level statistics on the number of tests carried out among care home residents and staff up to 8 July were published on 16 July. But these data do little to tell us how far the government’s testing programme is meeting the social care system’s need for testing.

Social care leaders have reported major gaps in testing throughout the pandemic., An ADASS survey, carried out in May, found that the majority (78%) of social care leaders surveyed were not, or not at all, confident that there was an adequate supply of tests for people receiving care and support. Around half were confident that enough tests were available for staff. And there were major concerns about the availability of testing for unpaid carers and personal assistants. When testing has been made available, social care staff have reported challenges accessing testing centres.

The ADASS president, James Bullion, told the Health and Social Care Select Committee on 19 May that ‘we are nowhere near the level of testing required’. Other expert witnesses told the committee that, while testing was improving, various issues remained – including tests arriving late, long delays between tests and receiving results, a lack of repeat testing, a lag between policy announcements and delivery of testing programmes, and more. The CQC has identified issues with communication on testing policy in social care, saying ‘there is an ongoing need for clarity about who is leading on testing and where to go for it’.

PPE and infection prevention and control

Usually, care providers are responsible for sourcing their own PPE to keep staff safe. But during the pandemic, government has provided some help for social care services to access PPE and guidance on how to prevent and control COVID-19 infections. The array of different infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance has focused mostly on PPE, but providers have had problems sourcing adequate supplies.

Policy timeline

Initial Public Health England guidance on COVID-19 infection prevention and control, published in January, focused on measures in hospitals. On 25 February, Public Health England issued COVID-19 guidance for social care settings. The guidance advised that – based on the data available at the time – ‘it is […] very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected’, and ‘there is no need to do anything differently in any care setting at present’.

This initial guidance was superseded on 13 March by guidance for residential care, home care and supported living services. The residential care guidance (now unavailable) advised providers to review their visiting policy ‘by asking no one to visit who has suspected COVID-19 or is generally unwell, and by emphasising good hand hygiene for visitors.’ All the guidance advised staff to wear PPE when caring for people with COVID-19 symptoms. To support this, Public Health England advised that there would be a free issue of PPE for residential and domiciliary care providers from the pandemic influenza stockpile, in addition to social care providers procuring their own PPE as normal.

On 18 March, the government announced that every care home and home care provider would automatically receive at least 300 facemasks. It anticipated complete distribution of these facemasks by 24 March. The government advised providers to order from their usual suppliers for future PPE requirements and stated that it was working with wholesalers to ensure sufficient supplies in the longer term. A ‘National Supply Disruption Response’ (NSDR) with a 24/7 helpline would support providers with urgent requirements.

A letter from Department of Health and Social Care on 1 April said that problems accessing PPE were due to ‘capacity constraints’ rather than insufficient stocks. The department announced the development of a new ‘parallel supply chain’ for core PPE products for COVID-19. Until this was ‘fully operational’, the NSDR would provide support.

On 2 April, Public Health England added tables of PPE recommendations for different settings to its COVID-19: infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance – a table on PPE for primary, outpatient and community care was later renamed to cover social care. New guidance for care homes was published on the same day. This continued to advise ‘care as normal’ for asymptomatic residents. It recommended against visitors except in exceptional situations.

The government published a national PPE plan to get ‘NHS and care staff […] the kit they need to protect themselves’ on 10 April. For social care providers, the government authorised the distribution of 34 million items of PPE. The plan said that local authorities would manage and distribute further national PPE stocks, prioritising health and social care.

On 15 April, the social care action plan included advice on controlling the spread of infection. Among other measures, the plan asked local authorities to make alternative arrangements to isolate patients with COVID-19 being discharged from the NHS into social care in cases where care providers were unable to isolate or ‘cohort’ people (grouping them depending on their infection status) in their usual place of residence.

On 17 April, the main guidance on IPC measures was updated to reflect PPE shortages, recommending staff reuse single use PPE items ‘if in extremely short supply’. Guidance on ‘how to work safely in care homes’ was also published, applying the main PPE guidance to care home settings. It recognised asymptomatic transmission and recommended using PPE when caring for all residents – including those without symptoms – during sustained COVID-19 transmission. It referred to (but gave limited detail on) the need for IPC beyond PPE. Similar guidance for domiciliary care was published on 27 April. From 1 May, government applied a zero-rate of VAT to PPE sales to reduce costs for care homes and others. This originally applied until 31 July but was later extended to the end of October.

The government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy, published on 11 May, asked care homes to ‘restrict all routine and nonessential healthcare visits and reduce staff movement between homes.’ Later that week, government announced a care home support package backed by a £600m Infection Control Fund for measures to reduce transmission in and between care homes (see section on funding). The fund was intended to cover extra staffing costs incurred as a result of infection control measures – for example, to compensate for people working fewer hours because they have reduced the number of locations in which they work. The support package also asked local authorities to implement a care home support plan.

In late May, government announced additional funding for local authorities to develop local outbreak control plans. These plans focus on identifying and containing local outbreaks in different areas, including in health and care settings.

Policy implementation

The social care sector required government support to meet increased demand for PPE. But Public Health England’s central stockpile was prepared for a flu pandemic and, according to the Department of Health and Social Care, manufacturing and supply had long followed ‘just in time’ principles. Gowns and visors were not added to the stockpile, despite independent advice in 2019, nor in early 2020.

According to the National Audit Office, the government provided 60 million items of PPE to adult social care wholesalers from this central supply between 20 March and 9 May. And providers were able to access some through local resilience forums – 38 local partnerships in England made up of emergency services, government agencies, health bodies and local authorities that help coordinate how public services respond to emergencies at a local level. Providers could also order emergency stock via the NSDR system, which provided around 3,000 packs of PPE between 16 March and 9 April. But centrally distributed PPE to social care represented 15%, at most, of the modelled requirement for most items between 20 March and 9 May. Most councils have provided PPE to residential and domiciliary care providers. CQC inspectors have organised for providers to loan PPE to others in urgent situations.

Distribution challenges also caused problems accessing PPE. In March, Clipper Logistics was selected to manage the parallel supply chain (announced on 1 April). But the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government told a select committee at the start of May that it could be a further 3 weeks before the service was widely available. Small domiciliary and residential care providers could use the service to order PPE from 5 June.

There has been sustained concern about PPE in the sector. On 27 March, the Local Government Association and ADASS wrote to Matt Hancock to highlight that PPE was not reaching people working in social care and that the government should ‘move faster’. Between March and May, a quarter (26%) of calls from staff to CQC’s national contact centre concerned a lack of PPE or other infection control items. A third (32%) of calls raised concerns about infection control or social distancing. Providers have also reported receiving incorrect or poor-quality PPE. Carers UK highlighted that unpaid carers have not had access to PPE guidance or supplies.

Problems with PPE supplies continued into May. In the first week of May, over a quarter (28%) of domiciliary care agencies in London and the north-west of England that responded to the CQC had only enough PPE to last up to a week. 90% of care leaders responded to ADASS that they required ‘greater and more efficient access to PPE’ to support the pandemic response. Accessing the right PPE is a major driver of additional spending for councils during the outbreak. There is growing concern about the impact of these costs on social care finances.

Particularly at the start of the pandemic, national policy on IPC measures beyond PPE was limited. Many providers restricted visits to care homes in early March – nearly a month before it was recommended in national guidance. There was also a lack of guidance on isolation or cohorting practices. For example, 24% of senior care leaders reported to ADASS that patients were discharged from the NHS to care settings where they could not isolate.

Workforce

The Health Secretary has said that ‘this crisis has shown that this country values our health and care workers so much’. Several policy measures were introduced by government early in the pandemic to help boost the NHS workforce – including the recruitment of 750,000 NHS volunteers by the beginning of April. Major national policy support for the social care workforce came later in the government’s response. A package of measures was introduced in the social care action plan on 15 April, including a campaign to recruit 20,000 extra staff.

Policy timeline

Initial guidance for care providers in mid-March referred to financial support available to workers affected by COVID-19 in all UK industries. The guidance did not address the wider effect of sickness and self-isolation on the social care workforce, or the impact of COVID-19 on workload. Guidance on people defined as clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID-19 signposted the support available for carers on the Carers UK website.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 – introduced as a Bill on 19 March and made into law on 25 March – included several changes that aimed to ‘increase the available health and social care workforce’ and ‘ease the burden on front-line staff, both within the NHS and beyond’. Most of the measures to achieve these aims related primarily to supporting the NHS, but the Care Act easements (see section on oversight) were brought in to help reduce workload for social care staff.

From 27 March, health and social care providers were offered free, fast-tracked DBS checks for staff and volunteers recruited in response to COVID-19. On 30 March, further changes allowed unpaid carers to continue claiming Carer’s Allowance if COVID-19 meant they had to take a break from caring. Government also clarified that providing emotional support counted towards the allowance threshold of 35 hours of care a week.

On 4 April, the government changed its guidance on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to explicitly state that the scheme included people with caring responsibilities, and to permit employees to work for another employer while on furlough ‘if contractually allowed’. Guidance for people providing unpaid care was published on 8 April. It consisted mostly of existing government guidance and external resources, and advised carers and the people they care for to develop an emergency plan in case other people need to help deliver care.

The social care action plan on 15 April announced several government measures to address the impact of COVID-19 on the workforce. Government committed to creating a new CARE branded website and app for the social care workforce by the end of April. The Care Workforce app was launched on 6 May, described as ‘a single digital hub for social care workers to access relevant updates, guidance, support and discounts from their phone’. The action plan also announced a national recruitment campaign to encourage 20,000 people into social care over the next 3 months. The campaign began on 24 April and targeted people made redundant from other sectors and those with previous experience in social care. The NHS recruitment drive in response to COVID-19 had begun on 19 March.

Other measures in the action plan aimed to ensure parity between the NHS and social care workforces. Social care staff were already designated key workers, meaning the children of those working in social care could continue to attend school after they closed at the end of March. The action plan asked supermarkets and other businesses to provide care workers with the same priority access and benefits as NHS workers. It asked local commissioners and providers to give letters to unpaid carers, so that retailers could identify them for similar benefits. It also promised social care workers access to the package of wellbeing support already available to NHS workers. Health and wellbeing guidance for people working in adult social care was published on 11 May.

The action plan acknowledged the ‘invaluable service’ of unpaid carers but provided limited new support. It announced an unspecified amount of additional funding to the Carers UK helpline. It stated there would be tailored guidance for carers of adults with learning disabilities and autistic adults (published on 24 April). The government said it was working with young carers to produce guidance for them. This was not published until 3 July.

Two policy changes in May impacted international staff working in social care. On 20 May, government extended its bereavement scheme offer of indefinite leave to remain to families and dependents of NHS support staff and social care workers with non-EEA nationality who die from COVID-19. This had previously applied only to certain NHS staff when it was introduced in April. The provision of a life assurance lump sum of £60,000 to families of health care workers dying due to COVID-19, also introduced in April, already covered social care workers. On 21 May, government also announced that it would exempt health and social care staff from the immigration health surcharge on visas, which non-EEA nationals must pay for access to NHS services.

Policy implementation

There is some evidence that social care providers and charities filled the gap left by a lack of national policy interventions in March. Several large care providers launched recruitment campaigns. And, in response to the government’s NHS recruitment campaign, ‘your NHS needs you’, Care England – a representative body for independent care providers – launched a ‘social care needs you too’ campaign, calling for retired staff to rejoin the workforce. A National Care Force initiative signed up 20,000 people to volunteer in social care.

According to the National Audit Office, the Department of Health and Social Care does not have information about its progress against the action plan target to recruit 20,000 people. Some care providers have reported receiving significantly more applications for jobs than usual. And the vacancy rate in the sector fell from 8.1% to 6.5% between March and May 2020. But social care providers and charities have also criticised the action plan for not including improvements to terms and conditions for people working in social care.

Across the whole adult social care workforce, around 3.4 million additional days were lost to sickness in March, April and May than would be expected looking at the pre-pandemic period. Between mid-April and mid-May, absence rates among staff in care homes were around 10% on average. In domiciliary care, around 9% of the workforce were absent due to COVID-19 in early May – and overall absences were likely higher. 85% of social care leaders have worked with volunteers to support their paid workforce since March 2020.

Several features of the social care workforce (see section on factors shaping the policy response) mean that the government’s wider financial support measures may not have helped all staff. For example, government made statutory sick pay available from day one of sickness due to COVID-19, but people on zero-hours contracts are only eligible for statutory sick pay if they earn a certain amount a week. 24% of adult social care jobs are on zero-hours contracts – rising to 58% of domiciliary care workers. And 12% of jobs have no fixed hours. Depending on people’s circumstances, this may have left some choosing between going to work with symptoms or losing income.

A survey of carers in April suggested that the burden on unpaid carers had increased during the pandemic, including as a result of reduced care and support available from their local authorities. The carers surveyed were concerned about lack of access to COVID-19 testing and wanted more help with contingency planning in case they were unable to provide care. More than half of social care leaders have reported a rise in people presenting with adult social care needs during the pandemic due to carer breakdown, sickness or unavailability.

Oversight

Several regulatory and legislative changes have been introduced in recognition of the growing pressures on social care during COVID-19. The CQC suspended routine inspections in March, continuing only in cases where there were concerns of harm. More controversial and wide-ranging were emergency government powers introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 – a Bill described by the Health Secretary as introducing ‘extraordinary measures of a kind never seen before in peacetime’. This included changes to the Care Act 2014 to enable local authorities to prioritise care for people with the most urgent needs.

Policy timeline

Regulators of health and social care services have published several joint statements for professionals during the pandemic. In early March, the professional regulators issued a statement recognising that ‘professionals may need to depart from established procedures’ to care for people during the outbreak. In April, the CQC and Care Provider Alliance, along with the British Medical Association and Royal College of General Practitioners, issued a statement on the importance of individualised advance care plans, ‘especially for older people’. This advised that decisions should be made on an individual basis according to need, and that applying advance plans to groups of people – with or without Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) forms – is ‘unacceptable’.

The CQC suspended all routine inspections on 16 March, shifting to ‘other, remote methods’ to provide assurance. Inspections continued in a ‘very small number of cases’ where there were concerns of harm. Inspection teams would ‘provide advice and guidance’ and CQC would take an ‘active role in coordinating information locally and centrally’. At the end of April, CQC set out its regulatory approach during COVID-19, including a new emergency support framework for conversations between inspectors and providers., CQC started using this emergency support framework in May, beginning with adult social care providers.

CQC adapted several other processes in response to COVID-19. This included developing a COVID-19 registration framework for new and existing providers, introducing remote methods for monitoring use of the Mental Health Act, and updating data collection to make it easier to record and collate data on COVID-19 deaths in social care settings.

The Coronavirus Act 2020, passed on 25 March, created a range of temporary powers to help the state respond to the COVID-19 outbreak – including action to ease pressures on front-line staff and resources in health and social care. A ‘sunset clause’ means that most of the provisions in the Act will expire after 2 years, with an additional option to suspend (and revive) some powers before then. To enable rapid discharge of patients from hospital, and to free up clinical commissioning group and local authority resources, the Act allowed NHS continuing healthcare assessments to be delayed ‘until after the emergency has ended’. This followed guidance published in March that set out the requirements for hospital discharge during the pandemic. The government allocated additional funding to the NHS to pay for out-of-hospital care and social care support packages for people being discharged (see section on funding).

To help local authorities and care providers manage growing pressures from COVID-19, the Act allowed a relaxation – or ‘easement’ – of some local authority duties introduced under the Care Act 2014. The Care Act defines local authorities’ responsibilities to assess people’s care needs and eligibility for publicly funded support – and describes the core purpose of adult social care as promoting individual wellbeing. These ‘temporary’ powers to relax the Care Act came into force on 31 March 2020, with the aim of terminating them ‘as soon as possible’. Government guidance states that local authorities should ‘do everything they can’ to comply with their duties under the Care Act. But where ‘workforce is significantly depleted, or demand on social care increased’ and this is no longer ‘reasonably practicable’, local authorities can trigger the easements, allowing them to ‘streamline’ some arrangements and prioritise care for those with the highest need.

The easements are described over several stages. Local authorities streamlining social care services under ‘stage 3’ of the easements do not have to carry out detailed assessments of people’s care and support needs, or financial assessments (though local authorities can retrospectively charge people for the care and support they receive). Nor do they have to prepare or review care and support plans. For those operating under ‘stage 4’ of the easements, duties to meet eligible care and support needs, or the needs of a carer, are replaced with a power to meet needs where not doing so would breach an individual’s human rights. These local authorities can prioritise existing care for those with the most pressing needs and temporarily delay or reduce other care.

Government has also published ethical guidance for managing social care services. The Department of Health and Social Care published a framework setting out eight ethical principles – including respect, minimising harm, inclusiveness, flexibility, and other areas – for local authorities, policymakers, and adult social care professionals planning their response to COVID-19. This framework recognises that constrained resources or increased demand may mean that it is not feasible to consider all eight principles, and that each ‘must be considered to the extent possible in the context of each circumstance with appropriate risk management and considerations of individual wellbeing, overall public good and available information and resources’.

Policy implementation

In the 3 months following suspension of routine inspections on 16 March, CQC conducted 17 inspections of adult social care providers. 11 of these were a result of concerns raised by staff or the public, six were in response to a notification from the provider or information from other stakeholders. CQC has identified examples of serious failures.

Guidance on hospital discharge arrangements noted several implications of deferring full continuing healthcare eligibility assessments, anticipating a backlog of around 5,000 assessments per month and noting that a post-COVID-19 ‘handling plan’ will need to be developed to help the system ‘normalise’. It also noted that expectations of people who have received ‘free’ social care during the pandemic (and may not be funded afterwards) must be ‘managed’.

Several concerns were raised in parliament and by other stakeholders about the potential implications of the Care Act easements enabled by the Coronavirus Act, including the risk of care being withdrawn for vulnerable people. Disability Rights UK had ‘serious concerns’ about the implications of the Bill on human rights and published a template for people to write to their MP, saying the Bill presented a ‘real and present danger’ and that plans were ‘effectively rolling back 30 years of progress for Disabled people’.

So far, only a handful of councils have reported using the Care Act easements., A government report in May stated that seven local authorities had notified the department that they were making use of the easements. According to an article published in Community Care, some councils have approved the use of the easements but not subsequently triggered them, and most councils using the easements were operating at stage 3. The article mentioned two areas considering moving to stage 4. In board papers related to this decision, one council describes a long list of pressures, including: increased demand and supporting people with issues that would not usually be the remit of adult social care services, additional work associated with shielding, depleted staff due to sick leave, self-isolation and bereavement, lower productivity due to social distancing, PPE supply chain issues, more complex cases being discharged from hospital, ‘unprecedented challenges’ in the provider market, and more. Other councils are reported to have faced challenges over the legality of decisions to trigger the easements. At the time of writing, no local authorities were currently using the easements.

Status of social care in the policy response

Starting on 16 March, the government used a series of daily televised briefings to update the general public on the status of the pandemic and to announce new and changing policy. Alongside ministers and scientific and medical advisers, five NHS representatives made more than 25 appearances at the 77 daily briefings between 16 March 2020 and 31 May 2020. Eight subject-area experts appeared, including Louise Casey (leading the government taskforce on rough sleeping during the pandemic) and Helen Dickinson (Chief Executive of the British Retail Consortium). Social care was not represented at the briefings, except by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, until the inclusion of David Pearson on 8 June – appearing as chair of a new COVID-19 social care support taskforce announced that day. The taskforce was set up to oversee implementation of the action plan and care home support package and to ‘advise on a plan to support the sector through the next year’.,,

The content of prepared statements from ministers provides some indication of government priorities throughout the crisis. These contain many words of ‘thanks’ for those working in social care services – including Matt Hancock pointing out that ‘it’s not “clap for the NHS”, it’s “clap for our carers”’ – and some discussion of social care in relation to funding, testing and PPE. The issue of COVID-19 spread in care homes was first acknowledged by ministers in these prepared statements in mid-April., Social care was a major focus of only two briefings between March and the end of May: announcing the social care action plan on 15 April, and the care home support package a month later. The first recorded deaths from COVID-19 among care home residents in England occurred on 6 March. Data on deaths in care homes were not added to the daily figures presented at these government briefings until the end of April.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) is a group of experts from within government, health care and academia that provides scientific and technical advice to government. SAGE has been a key mechanism for informing government decision making during the outbreak. Members come from over 20 different institutions and cover a wide range of expertise. Scientific advice on care homes has been produced for and considered by SAGE. Minutes from SAGE meetings and the government’s care home support package mention a care home subgroup, but this is not currently listed on the SAGE web page and its membership is not published.

It is unclear what is discussed at SAGE, and when, in any detail – partly because the minutes from meetings are limited. Comments from former and current members of SAGE at committee evidence sessions suggest that COVID-19 spread in care homes was raised as an issue in February or March, but that this did not necessarily translate into policy action until later. For example, in June, former SAGE member Neil Ferguson said, ‘The policy has always been to protect care homes and the elderly […] the policy has simply failed to be enacted until very recently, and there are multiple causes of that.’ Matt Keeling – a member of SAGE’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling – commented ‘We were very concerned about losing control within the NHS, and about ICU and ITU units becoming full, and there are only so many of us and there is only so much time. We were all focused on one area. It was mentioned – we thought about it, and we said, “Care homes are important,” and we thought they were being shielded, and we probably thought that was enough.’

Political statements at the daily briefings and publicly available data on SAGE provide only a limited picture of the role of social care in the national policy response. There are many other ways that government communicates with the social care sector and involves them in policy decisions. Scientific evidence related to COVID-19 in care homes and other settings can also be produced and influence policy through a number of routes – both formal and informal. But the lack of prominence given to social care, particularly compared to the NHS, provides an illustration of the overall status of social care in the policy narrative so far.


* Major non-social care related events and policies are also included in italics.

Local authorities can retrospectively charge people for the care and support they receive during this period subject to providing information in advance and a later financial assessment. The guidance states that all assessments will be completed once the easements are terminated.

Previous Next