Fifty-Third Report - Covid 19: supporting the vulnerable during lockdown

The government commits to learning lessons from identifying CEV people and improving national data use. Work is underway on a national GP dataset and digitising the health service with shared care records, which will be detailed in a forthcoming draft data strategy for health and social care.

The government agrees there was huge local variation and commits to conducting further analysis to understand the drivers and identify lessons for the future, with findings to be provided to the Committee by October 2021.

The government disagreed that a centrally-directed system was chosen due to lack of confidence in local authorities, highlighting councils as crucial partners. They stated that councils received funding, demonstrated good performance, and MHCLG continues to work closely with them and keep funding under review to ensure their capacity and resilience.

The government rejects the recommendation, stating that all reasonable steps were taken to alert CEV individuals and provide support, with local councils confirming through outcomes data that most needs were met.

The government's response was boilerplate text related to other reports and did not address the recommendation about improving patient contact details in NHS records.

The government provides background information on the shielding programme, including the number of people identified, the support provided, and the expenditure, and acknowledges the committee's process of taking evidence for its report.

The government acknowledges the conclusion by describing how the QCovid tool improved the identification of clinically extremely vulnerable people through the introduction of non-clinical factors.

The government acknowledges the difficulties faced by non-clinically vulnerable groups and highlights existing support services such as priority supermarket referrals and NHS Volunteer Responders, committing to consider future preparedness measures for such groups.

The government disagrees with the conclusion that identification took too long but states it is committed to learning lessons and that work is already underway to develop a strategic national GP dataset, digitize the health service, and publish a data strategy.

The government disagreed with the conclusion that they took too long to identify vulnerable people, asserting they worked as quickly as possible. However, they committed to learning lessons to improve future use of national data for identifying at-risk groups.

The government explicitly disagrees with the conclusion that it took too long to identify CEV people, asserting that it worked as quickly as possible. While generally committed to learning lessons for future data use, it does not address the reported delays in people receiving shielding letters.

The government stated that work is already underway, with NHS Digital developing a national GP dataset for faster access to information and working on digitising health records and shared care. These developments will be outlined in a forthcoming data strategy for health and social care.

The government agrees to provide a detailed explanation for the local variation in the shielded patient list growth and identify lessons for a consistent clinical approach, committing to send these findings to the Committee by October 2021.

The government agrees to provide a detailed explanation for the local variation in the shielded patient list growth and identify lessons for a consistent clinical approach, committing to send these findings to the Committee by October 2021.

The government agrees to provide a detailed explanation for the local variation in the shielded patient list growth and identify lessons for a consistent clinical approach, committing to send these findings to the Committee by October 2021.

The government disagreed that there was huge local variation, stating that most areas fell within expected distributions, while acknowledging six areas added more people than expected. They committed to conducting further analysis to understand this variation and identify lessons, with findings to be reported to the Committee by October 2021.

The government accepts the recommendation and states it has tested future delivery confidence with councils, finding them confident to rapidly stand up shielding support, and continues to work closely with them while keeping funding under review.

The government acknowledges the committee's observations and clarifies that the central system was not chosen due to a lack of confidence in local authorities. It details ongoing local support, funding, and collaboration with councils for shielding support.

The government acknowledges the observation about moving to a locally-led model for shielding support, reinforcing that councils are crucial partners, have received funding, and are confident in providing support. It also confirms continued collaboration and funding review.

The government states it agrees with the recommendation (likely an implicit one regarding local authority capacity) and considers it implemented. MHCLG has tested future delivery confidence with councils and continues to work closely with them to ensure support for CEV individuals.

The government explicitly disagrees with the conclusion, stating it has taken all reasonable steps to alert CEV individuals to shielding guidance and support using a multi-channel approach, and defending its existing communication strategy.

The government disagrees with the Committee’s conclusion and the associated recommendation, stating that all reasonable steps were taken to alert CEV individuals and intelligence from local councils provided assurance that most were able to remain self-sufficient.

The government's response addressed a different recommendation regarding patient contact details and did not engage with the conclusion about MHCLG's lack of data on how many vulnerable people local authorities reached.

The government acknowledges the issue of inaccurate contact details and states NHSX is leading a program to improve patient contact details and ensure the NHS Number is the primary identifier. DHSC and NHS Digital will report back with details of ongoing work and plans.

The government explicitly disagrees with the committee's conclusion, asserting that it took all reasonable steps to alert CEV individuals to guidance and support, and that some people chose not to register their needs.

The government stated that during the shielding program, DHSC used letters to encourage CEV people to update their GP contact details to facilitate communication, aligning with the committee's observation.