Blanket DNACPRs are not the solution for panicked healthcare rationing

The rising death rate from COVID-19 and the pressure of the pandemic on a weakened NHS have caused warranted anxiety. There were reports from Italy of rationing, when life saving equipment was simply unavailable for some sick patients, and difficult triage decisions had to be made by doctors. Many deaths in the UK are occurring among elderly residents of care homes, and unlike deaths in hospital, these have not been given prominence in daily reports.

Press coverage has indicated that Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) agreements have been misused. Rather than an agreement on a one to one basis after full discussion and as part of advance care planning, marginalised groups such as the elderly and disabled have been asked for consent by letter. In some cases decisions have been made on their behalf.

Such agreements should only apply to what happens in the event of the heart stopping during an illness, but they have been wrongly interpreted as consent to not having treatment for illness, or not being admitted to hospital.

Professional bodies such as the British Medical Association are attempting to provide an ethical framework for health care staff faced with impossible decisions regarding rationing and who should take precedence. Not only has the government failed to provide guidance on this matter, perhaps because it undermines their narrative that the NHS is coping with the onslaught and will continue to do so. Their grotesque incompetence in failing to follow World Health Organisation advice has put front line workers in an unprecedented position: having to make decisions about who should and who should not receive care.

The government, policymakers, managers and clinicians have a responsibility to patients. They must ensure that any system used to assess the escalation or de-escalation of care does not disadvantage any one group disproportionately. Treatment should be considered irrespective of a person’s background when it can help them survive, balanced against the risk of that treatment causing harm.

A GP surgery in Wales sent letters to patients asking them to complete a DNACPR form, reportedly stating “several benefits” to its completion. The form explained that “your GP and more importantly your friends and family will know not to call 999” and that “scarce ambulance resources can be targeted to the young and fit who have a greater chance.”

In an “ideal situation”, it continued, doctors would have had this conversation in person with vulnerable patients, but had written instead due to fears the doctors may be asymptomatic carriers of coronavirus. The practice later apologised to recipients of the letter.

A GP surgery in Somerset also wrote letters to a support group for adults with autism, requesting they make plans to prevent their clients being resuscitated if they become critically ill. The letter was later withdrawn after criticism.

The Guardian has reported that “elderly care home residents have been categorised ‘en masse’ as not requiring resuscitation”, and that “people in care homes in Hove, East Sussex and south Wales are among those who have had ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ notices applied to their care plans during the coronavirus outbreak without proper consultation with them or their families”.

The Mirror also reported that adult patients and parents of children with chronic conditions were sent letters asking if they wanted to have DNACPR statements agreed in case of admission to hospital with coronavirus.

A learning disability care provider described an unprecedented increase in the number of DNACPR letters it had received. In the Health Service Journal their spokesperson said “making an advance decision not to administer CPR if a person’s heart stops, solely because they have a learning disability, is not only illegal, it is an outrage.

“We are seeing DNR orders that have not been discussed with the person themselves, the staff who support and care for them, or their families. This is very concerning as it may potentially lead to people being denied life-saving treatment that other patients would be granted”.

NHS Trusts, GPs and clinical commissioning groups have been told by NHS England they must not send out blanket DNACPR forms.

The British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and Resuscitation Council UK provide detailed guidance on decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CPR was introduced in the 1960s following recognition that some hearts could be restarted when they had stopped beating, often after a heart attack.

The probability of CPR being successful in other situations is generally low. It involves compressing the chest, delivering high voltage electric shocks to the heart, attempts to ventilate the lungs and giving intravenous drugs. Injury to ribs and internal organs may occur and some patients survive only to spend long periods in intensive care without full recovery. This is why people talk about the risks and benefits of CPR.

The heart and lungs stopping is a natural part of dying from any cause. When CPR is used in people who have been gravely ill it is very unlikely to work. Rather than a peaceful death, their lives could end in the context of aggressive but futile attempts to change an irreversible process.

To prevent this happening patients can be asked well in advance about their wishes, with a full exploration of the issues involved. In normal circumstances, the decision to not attempt CPR is made after a discussion between patient and doctor. An understanding can be reached that because of frailty, and because the heart stopping is the final stage of an irreversible process of multiple organ failure, the potential benefits to the patients are outweighed by the risks of pain and indignity.

Standardised DNACPR forms were introduced to attempt to ensure patients’ wishes were recorded and would be easily available to healthcare staff. They do not have to be signed by patients. The member of the healthcare team who has discussed CPR with the patient signs the form, as does the responsible senior clinician (this may well be the same person).

Doctors are told by their professional organisations that “considering explicitly, and whenever possible making specific anticipatory decisions about, whether or not to attempt CPR is an important part of good-quality care for any person who is approaching the end of life and/or is at risk of cardiorespiratory arrest.

“If cardiorespiratory arrest is not predicted or reasonably foreseeable in the current circumstances or treatment episode, it is not necessary to initiate discussion about CPR with patients.

“For many people, anticipatory decisions about CPR are best made in the wider context of advance care planning, before a crisis necessitates a hurried decision in an emergency setting.”

The purpose of advance care planning is to allow each individual to choose in advance what interventions, including CPR, they wish to receive in the event of deterioration in their health. For people with multiple conditions, or those who are severely unwell, the optimal time to undertake advance care planning is when they are relatively stable. Discussions are best had in their home or usual care environment where planning can be supported by the healthcare professionals who know them well. These may include doctors and nurses based in general practice, in the community, in hospices or in hospitals. Making a decision in advance ensures that there is time for all the appropriate people to be involved in a decision. It allows time for reflection and scrutiny.

Decisions made may be written down, and described variously as a living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive, or advance decision. This is a legally enforceable document in which a person specifies what treatments or interventions they would not wish to undertake in the future if they are unable, due to illness, to give their opinion at that time.

Nearly one in five people over 80 may need hospitalisation with COVID-19. An estimated 1.28% of people diagnosed with COVID-19 will die. Around half of patients ill enough to be admitted to ICU in the UK for ventilation have died. 95% of UK COVID-19 deaths have occurred in patients with underlying medical conditions.

Consequently asking people most at risk to decide what they would like to happen in the event of them becoming unwell is sensible, and good medical practice.

It is however important to distinguish this from a blanket application of DNACPR orders to particular groups. This is discriminatory and illegal. There must be full consultation with the individual concerned. A thorough face-to-face discussion with staff who know the patient well is required. This has clearly not happened in the examples cited in the press.

Care workers may worry about breaking social isolation rules and potentially infecting patients at home visits. There are ways around this, including video consultations. Poor communication over such sensitive issues breeds mistrust.

The risks and benefits of CPR may change in the context of coronavirus. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who then have a cardiac arrest, not only is there little likelihood of CPR restarting the heart, there is the potential for health personnel to become infected as a consequence of attempted resuscitation.

Professional guidelines are however quite clear. “A decision not to attempt CPR applies only to CPR. All other appropriate treatment and care for that person should continue. It is important that this is widely understood by healthcare professionals and that it is made clear to patients and those close to them.

This is essential as it is a common fear amongst members of the public that a ‘DNACPR’ decision will lead to withholding of other elements of treatment.”

For example, if someone in a care home agrees to a DNACPR, it does not mean they cannot be admitted to hospital if appropriate, or that they cannot be considered for intensive care. It only means that if their heart stops, resuscitation would not be attempted.

There is an anxiety about the availability of resources if the number of patients overwhelms the amount of life saving equipment available. The COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge for a weakened NHS. The elderly, care home residents and those with disabilities are being marginalised. The government mantra of “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives” led people with acute medical conditions to avoid medical attention when they needed it, and encouraged some ill with COVID-19 to stay out of hospital, dying at home when they may have survived.

The idea of rationing life saving care is anathema to healthcare staff, but it may be on the horizon. In Italy, which has twice as many ventilators per 100,000 population as the UK, there were age cut-offs applied for admission to intensive care. Ventilator treatment was withdrawn from some patients expected to do badly in favour of younger patients with a better prognosis.

If rationing does become a reality, front line teams will try and work in accordance with accepted ethical principles. This will unfortunately not provide perfect answers.

Ethicist and barrister Daniel Sokol described the dilemma on April 7th. “It is no secret that intensive care unit (ICU) capacity may be overwhelmed if the pandemic worsens. Why then is there so little published guidance on ICU triage from the UK government and NHS Trusts? The Royal College of Physicians’ ethical guidance on covid-19, published on 2nd April 2020, stated that ‘any guidance should be accountable, inclusive, transparent, reasonable and responsive.’ The British Medical Association’s ethical guidance, published the next day, emphasised the need for decisions to be made ‘openly, transparently, by appropriate bodies and with full public participation’.”

Sokol asked, “Where are the protocols setting out the triage criteria?” He suggested that senior officials in the government and NHS England may be reluctant to publish anything that might clash with the current messaging that the NHS is managing present demand and is likely to continue to cope. “The official message is that with continued communal efforts the NHS can be protected, ICU need not be overwhelmed, and tragic choices will be avoided. Publishing a document that contemplates an NHS in chaos and tragic choices aplenty sits awkwardly with that message”.

He also wondered if fear of legal challenge was a factor. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was threatened with judicial review on publishing its COVID-19 guideline for clinical care. This advice was subsequently amended due to concerns about unlawful discrimination against people with long-term conditions including autism and learning disabilities.

The 2019 National Security Risk Assessment also highlighted the potential for public outrage if health and care systems were seen to struggle, especially if provision of the remaining services was unevenly distributed.

There are no ethical guidelines from the Department of Health or NHS England for front line staff and senior managers relating specifically to COVID-19, but the British Medical Association (BMA), Royal Colleges and specialist medical bodies have produced their own.

The BMA suggests, “All patients should be given compassionate and dedicated medical care including symptom management and, where patients are dying, the best available end-of-life care. Nevertheless, it is legal and ethical to prioritise treatment among patients. This applies where there are more patients with needs than available resources can meet.”

To help decide which patients to treat, they ask doctors to “follow your organisation’s guidelines and protocols, including relevant procedures for making complex ethical decisions. The speed of patient’s anticipated benefit will be critical. Other relevant factors include: severity of acute illness; presence and severity of co-morbidity; frailty or, where clinically relevant, age.

“Managers and senior clinicians will set thresholds for admission to intensive care or the use of highly limited treatments such as mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation based on the above factors. Patients whose probability of dying, or requiring prolonged intensive support, exceeds this set threshold would not be considered for intensive treatment. They should still receive other forms of medical care. Prioritisation decisions must be based on the best available clinical evidence, including clinical triage advice from clinical bodies. These criteria must be applied to all presenting patients, not only those with COVID-19.”

The Royal College of Physicians says, “Any decisions made to begin, withdraw or withhold care must also comply with the shared decision-making policies of the NHS. This means that these decisions should include the patient and their wishes (as much as is feasible for the given situation) and, if appropriate, the patient’s carers. This is true regardless of whether the patient has COVID-19.

“Front-line staff, policymakers, management and government have a responsibility to patients to ensure that any system used to assess patients for escalation or de-escalation of care does not disadvantage any one group disproportionately. Treatment should be provided, irrespective of the individual’s background (e.g. disability) where it is considered that it will help the patient survive and not harm their long-term health and wellbeing.

“Many front-line staff will already be caring for patients for whom any escalation of care, regardless of the current pandemic, would be inappropriate, and must be properly managed. We strongly encourage that all front-line staff have discussions with those relevant patients for whom an advance care plan is appropriate, so as to be clear in advance the wishes of their patients should their condition deteriorate during the pandemic.”

There is an urgent need for national guidance from the Department of Health and NHS England on how to manage if resources run out. In the absence of such guidance, individual clinicians will be using the available evidence to assist in making extremely challenging decisions.

This will not be an easy task, as illustrated by one Italian doctor speaking to the New York Times. “If you admit an 82-year-old with hypertension, in a situation where you have two or three patients waiting outside your I.C.U. who have many more chances of survival that you cannot admit because your I.C.U. is full, then it becomes really inappropriate, or I would say, immoral”.

It is outrageous that UK medical staff may be put in this position due to the government’s incompetence.

Dr John Puntis is the co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public

Government ineptitude has undoubtedly led to many unnecessary deaths – they must be held to account

Richard Horton, respected editor of the medical journal ‘the Lancet’, aptly summed up the current pandemic in the following words: “Coronavirus is the greatest global science policy failure in a generation. Austerity blunted the ambition and commitment of government to protect its people. The objective was to diminish the size and role of the state. The result was to leave the country fatally weakened”. China implemented a lockdown in Hubei province on 23rd January in response to a new and severe respiratory infection. One week later the World Health Organisation declared a global emergency in recognition of what had become a worldwide pandemic. It then took nearly two months for the UK government to grasp the seriousness of the problem and to implement social distancing and isolation. This delay has led to many unnecessary deaths.

Despite there being core public health principles of “test, isolate and contact trace” in response to an epidemic, this process has not been implemented in the UK. There was talk of ‘herd immunity’ as an alternative strategy, but scientists then pointed out this could mean hundreds of thousands of deaths before the infection was under control. A panicked government decided to abandon its irrational belief in ‘British exceptionalism’ and on 23rd March instituted a lock down of sorts, with people encouraged to stay at home, and most businesses closed down. News footage still showed London underground packed with people and construction workers as key workers were expected to turn up for work as usual.

Unrecognised dangers included the risk to the elderly living in care homes together with their carers, the risk to bus drivers and other key workers with public-facing roles in the community.  The fact that many workers on zero hours contracts and those outsourced from the NHS and not entitled to sick pay would be forced to continue to go to work even if ill. Sick and elderly patients were discharged to care homes only to spread infection without having been tested for the virus, and outrageously, ‘do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation’ orders proliferated for pensioners and those with learning difficulties or disabilities often without discussion. The official death toll has gone up to above 20,000 – but these are confirmed deaths in hospital and there may be at least as many again in the community without a definitive diagnosis.

In the meantime, countries like Singapore, South Korea, New Zealand and Germany, which rapidly instituted widespread testing and contact tracing were demonstrating a much lower number of cases and deaths. While the UK government kept promising more testing, numbers grew painfully slowly. Centres specially created to test key staff were set up by the accountancy firm Deloitte, given the contract without it going out to tender under obscure legislation passed in 2015. As usual, reports of problems with lost samples and mis-communication of results followed, just as the privatisation of NHS logistics caused problems with distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE). Despite repeated reassurance from government ministers that stocks of PPE were available, this turned out not to be the case as week after week front line staff complained of being sent to war without the necessary armour. Around 132 NHS and care staff have now died from the disease and will be remembered along with many others on International Workers’ Memorial Day.

Worse still for government credibility were details of the unpublished Cygnus report from a 2016 pandemic planning exercise, and more from the 2019 National Security Risk Assessment, both showing that the government knew full well of the major risk posed by the likelihood of a new pandemic, and the need to stockpile PPE and equipment such as ventilators for intensive care, yet did nothing. As one commentator remarked: “We have been paying for a third-party fire and theft policy for a pandemic, not a comprehensive one. We have been caught out”.

Things which have assisted the pandemic response include the fact that we still have a ‘national’ health service and brilliant staff with a public service ethos. Things that have hindered the response include government reforms over recent years promoting marketisation, fragmentation, privatisation and outsourcing. NHS England has rightly taken over commissioning functions from Clinical Commissioning Groups, and government has wiped away the £14 billion hospital overspend to let Trusts focus attention on doing what was necessary to fight the infection. The small private sector capacity was harnessed to assist the NHS. However, the huge PFI debt millstones remain in place, and private hospitals are only too happy to be subsidised to the tune of £2.3 million/day through block contracts- one of the businesses that will not now go under in the coming recession.

The hostile environment aimed at those migrants with uncertain immigration status not only meant the end to universal health care under the NHS, but now fear of being reported to the home office or financially charged will undermines planned contact tracing. This charging needs to be abolished now, as does the yearly surcharge of £625 for members of NHS staff coming from abroad, and each of their family members.

Government policies left the NHS in a weak starting position, with over 100,000 staff vacancies, cuts in bed numbers of 17,000 since 2010, and near the bottom of the European league table in relation to intensive care beds (half as many as Italy and around one fifth of those in Germany). The government will be constructing a narrative portraying themselves as victims of a natural disaster, doing their best in impossible circumstances and leading us all to victory in the war against Covid-19; in this they will be aided by large sections of the media.

Trade unionists must make sure that ministerial incompetence, arrogance and callous disregard for human life are not forgotten and there is a holding to account. When the pandemic is over, we cannot go back to how things were before. We need to take the public with us in demanding a return to NHS founding principles, a publicly funded, managed and delivered health service with democratic control, linked to a national social care service. Renationalisation of the NHS; proper funding; an end to PFI, the Health and Social Care Act and the Long-Term Plan for the NHS; and an end to outsourcing and privatisation. We are witnessing a tragedy unfold and a government scandal of momentous incompetence. The right lessons must be learned.

Dr John Puntis is co-chair of the campaign group Keep Our NHS Public.

International Workers’ Memorial Day

IWMD this year is unique in falling in the middle of the UK lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of appropriate PPE has thrown millions of public facing workers into harms way as they do not have the right tools to protect themselves from infection.

In this environment it is vital that IWMD is observed. We intend to do this safely, with social distancing, and by asking for people to take a moment’s silence in their homes or workplaces.

Representatives from the trade union movement will leave a memorial banner and floral tributes at the Royal London Hospital at 10:45am on Tuesday 28th April, to mark the memory of those workers who have died during the pandemic. Similar memorials are taking place in other UK cities including Sheffield and Leeds.

COVID-19: the lack of safe PPE will be this government’s legacy

As the number of cases of COVID-19 in the UK continues to rise it has become increasingly clear that there is a dire shortage of appropriate PPE for health and social care workers.

There have been repeated assurances from the government that there is plenty of appropriate PPE. However it is widely reported from the front line that PPE is in very short supply, and that what is available does not adequately protect from infection. Deliveries do not arrive and hotlines that have been set up do not work. 

In desperation many health and social care workers have taken it upon themselves to source their own equipment from DIY stores, and some have made agreements with local secondary schools to make visors on 3D printers. This situation is wholly unacceptable.

Doctors in Unite de­mands transparency from the government about the real state of affairs with respect to the current reserves, on-going production and distribution of PPE. Health and social care workers are working long hours in stressful conditions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government owe it to us to be honest, and acknowledge our very real and widespread experience with shortage of appropriate PPE and explain to us why it is lacking.

It is the duty of the employer to ensure that the working environment is safe for employees. As a trade union we contend that the current situation in health and social care with respect to COVID-19 and PPE is not safe for either patients or workers. We believe that health and social care workers should not work without appropriate PPE, as to do so endangers the worker and the patient. We do not believe that health and social care workers, including porters and cleaners, should inadvertently carry infection from one patient to another through lack of disposable equipment.

Research has shown that while approximately one in five will suffer severe symptoms, and approximately one in twenty may die, the vast majority of the population will suffer a mild illness – some so mild that they are unaware they are infectious.

We must therefore assume that everyone is infectious and protect ourselves accordingly. Failure to do this will result in health and social care workers becoming infected en masse, and unavailable for work in large numbers. This will put greater strain on the NHS and social care than already exists. It will result in patients becoming infected by health and social care workers. Consequently, and disgracefully, some patients and workers will needlessly die.

We demand that industry is immediately repurposed to produce appropriate PPE in adequate quantities to properly protect staff. At the very least this should be long sleeved gowns to cover all clothes, gloves, plastic overshoes, a mask (preferably FFP3, since coughs and sneezes are also aerosol generating events) and eye and face protection for all workers in the community. Critical care workers would need considerably greater protection. 

We demand to know where this equipment is being produced, in what quantities, and when and how it will be delivered to the front line. 

If the government will not give us this information we can only assume that the PPE is not available. Given that at the time of writing we are still to feel the full force of the pandemic in the UK, this would demonstrate a total abdication of the government’s responsibility to keep the population safe.

We reject any accusation that we are engaging in political point scoring. We believe that it is the duty of the trade union movement to draw attention to the harmful effects of government policy and to demand that the population (workers and patients) receive proper care. 

Failure to draw attention to damaging government policy now will only lead to far worse consequences in later months, when the full force of COVID-19 has hit, when people have seen their relatives refused critical care because there are not enough ventilators for everyone, and there is not sufficient staff to look after them. People will quite rightly ask why the trade unions and professional organisations did not speak out.

It has been recently reported1 that in 2016 then Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt, now chair of the Health Select Committee rejected stockpiling of PPE for health and social care workers on the ground of cost. It is clear that the health of the nation has been put firmly behind the strength of the economy in terms of government priority.

Dr Jackie Applebee 

Chair, Doctors in Unite

Dr Rinesh Parmar

Chair, Doctors’ Association UK

Dr Gary Marlowe 

Chair, BMA London Regional Council (signing in a personal capacity)

Michael Forster 

Chair, Health Campaigns Together

John Puntis and Tony O’Sullivan 

Chairs, Keep Our NHS Public

Professor Wendy Savage 

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost

Demands in response to COVID-19


The challenge of coronavirus requires a radical response. We will overcome this virus, but current legislation falls short – much more must be done. We demand:

Full PPE

This must include FFP3 masks, visors/protective spectacles, fluid resistant gowns with sleeves and gloves for all health and social care workers dealing with patients and service users who have or are suspected to be infected with COVID-19. This is vital to prevent staff going off sick en-masse leaving no one to care for patients.

Widespread testing

Whole population testing for COVID-19 is essential, with particular attention paid to health and social care workers. Isolation and follow up of identified cases with rigorous contact tracing is crucial.

Laboratories in hospitals

Full pathology laboratories should return to hospitals. Cuts and privatisation of labs have reduced the capacity for testing so that when they are needed the system cannot cope.

Public control of private hospitals

Private health care facilities must be taken under public control and made available to assist the NHS in caring for ill patients.

Public control of industry

Key industries must be taken under public control and repurposed to manufacture equipment that is essential to deal with the outbreak of COVID-19, such as PPE, ventilators and antibiotics. 

An end to needless competition

The protection of intellectual property rights for key equipment such as ventilators must end, so that companies can collaborate to produce them. There is no place for the pursuit of profit and competition between companies during a national crisis. 

Support for staff to work remotely 

Guidance on confidentiality and data security should be rapidly produced. Investment in IT should take place to enable all those who need to work from home to do so. 

Protection and recompense for retired workers returning to work

Retired workers returning to the NHS deserve the proper provision of PPE and COVID-19 testing. Older people are more vulnerable to the virus, and will need thorough protection. 

Full pay when self-isolating

All UK workers who are off sick or self isolating due to COVID-19 should be paid as if they were in work. No one should be under financial pressure to work when government advice is that they should be at home. Previous record of days off sick should not be an impediment to this principle.

Universal basic income

Universal basic income must be made available for all in line with the living wage for the period of the crisis. This would be in place of all other benefits, universal credits or employment support.

Retraining for the newly unemployed

Those who have lost their jobs should be offered free retraining in roles that support our society and infrastructure during the pandemic. This could include medication delivery, care work, and supporting the socially isolated.

Universal access to essential services

Everyone should to be able to access the essentials that they need, including food and shelter. The homeless should be accommodated in empty hotels and houses. Supermarket stocks should be centrally managed and provisions distributed so that everyone can have what they need. 

Proportionate, time limited emergency laws subject to regular review

While being clear that everyone must be able to access what they need, there is a fine balance between ensuring equity of distribution and infringements of people’s reasonable rights and liberties. All new legislation that curtails civil rights must be limited in scope, be regularly reviewed, and should include a sunset clause.

Comprehensive support for vulnerable health groups

Services for the homeless and those who suffer from substance misuse must be maintained. These are vulnerable groups who are at high risk of complications from COVID-19 infection. They are often hard to reach and should be provided with phones so that key workers can maintain contact while working remotely.

Comprehensive social care

Disabled people are vulnerable and their needs must be properly met. They are at particular risk if their carers become unwell. Those who have accepted personal budgets are particularly at risk. Services must continue for them in all circumstances. 

An end to overseas charging

NHS eligibility checks for migrants leads to them not accessing healthcare as frequently. It is vital that during a pandemic, everyone gets the care they need. Charging overseas visitors for NHS care must be stopped and the legislation that allows this abolished.

Extended rent and mortgage payment holidays

Suspend rent and mortgage payments for all NHS and social care staff. No health or social care worker should be anxious about living costs. Many are at risk of losing household income if their partner loses their job. The current three month mortgage holiday should be extended to at least six months.

Psychological support for health and social care workers

Psychological support services should be provided at no cost for NHS and social care staff caring for patients during the period of the pandemic crisis.


We the undersigned support these demands and urge their adoption by the government as quickly as possible: