Search

Social care Personal Assistants (PAs) are directly employed by individuals to assist with activities of daily living such as help or support with personal care, shopping, household tasks and community participation. This option is encouraged by UK public funding. In England, disabled people's support organisations initially offered assistance with such arrangements, although numbers doing this have declined. The Covid‐19 pandemic provided the opportunity to ask those remaining organisations providing support for PA employers about their activities during this time and the questions being posed to them by PA employers. This paper reports data from 15 interviews undertaken March–July 2021 with disability support organisation representatives. We identified one overarching theme 'Working to prevent and challenge marginalisation of PA employers', with three related subthemes: (1) Advocating for the voice of a forgotten group; (2) Needing to be proactive and (3) Adapting to new tasks and ways of working. Participant accounts focused on representing the needs of disabled people to the authorities and providing concise, timely and accurate information to PA employers, particularly around the use of public funds during Covid‐19. Remote working amplified the digital‐divide, resulting in these organisations working hard to ensure PA employers received important information about their support options. Befriending services and Covid‐hubs were established by some organisations to reduce isolation and risks of poor mental health amongst PA employers. Many of the challenges facing PA employers existed pre‐pandemic but were perceived to have been heightened during it, reflecting the value of and need for the work of these local support organisations. Our findings suggest areas where effective contingency planning drawn from closer collaboration between disability support organisations and central and local government might usefully be focussed. The potential for specific services or organisations to be commissioned to provide such support is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports findings from a qualitative study into the immediate impact of social distancing measures on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT+) older people (≥60 years) living in the UK during the first lockdown of the COVID‐19 pandemic. It draws on in‐depth interviews with 17 older people and 6 key informants from LGBT+ community‐based organisations, exploring the strategies used to manage their situations, how they responded and adapted to key challenges. Five themes emerged related to: (1) risk factors for LGBT+ older people and organisations, including specific findings on trans experiences; (2) care practices in LGBT+ lives; (3) strengths and benefits of networking (4) politicisation of ageing issues and their relevance to LGBT+ communities and (5) learning from communication and provision in a virtual world. The findings illuminate adaptability and many strengths in relation to affective equality and reciprocal love, care and support among LGBT+ older people. It is vital UK that the government recognises and addresses the needs and concerns of LGBT+ older people during emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports and discusses the weekly Clapping for Carers – described as 'front‐line heroes' that took place across the United Kingdom during the first national lockdown of the coronavirus pandemic. Data are drawn from a UK‐wide online survey of health and social care workers, completed in May to July 2020. The survey received 3,425 responses of which 2,541 were analysed; free‐text comments were categorised. One question asked specifically: 'Do you think the "Clap for Carers" was a helpful response from the public?', and 815 comments were provided. Responses were extracted from these 815 free‐text comments and categorised as follows: unequivocally Yes, predominantly Yes, mixed feelings, predominantly No and unequivocally No. Most comments revealed mixed feelings about the helpfulness of Clapping with only a minority being entirely supportive. The free‐text comments offer some explanations for these views with many feeling that Clapping distracted from the severity of the pandemic and the inadequate resources. The free‐text comments reveal workforce concerns that the support demonstrated for the frontline workforce in Clapping might be transitory and that it may not translate into workforce improvements and political commitment to further funding of health and social care. Some saw the value of Clapping as illustrative of community cohesion. There was little mention of Clapping for heroes, and where it was the notion of heroism was rejected. The demonstration of public support in Clapping for Carers may have directly benefitted the public, but only indirectly the workforce. Future recruitment data may help discern if public support has translated into a desire to join the workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]