Bereaved urge ‘truth' as Covid inquiry shifts focus to care homes
The first week of what is to be a five-week module will also hear from former health secretary Matt Hancock.
Former health secretary Matt Hancock has given evidence to the Covid inquiry multiple times (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times.
He will return on Wednesday for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector.
In 2023 he admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue.
At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.'
Bereaved families have previously called this phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'.
When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed.
However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April.
This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus.
The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) campaign group said people want answers about decisions made 'at the highest levels of government'.
From Monday, module six of the inquiry will look at the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK.
Among the issues to be examined will be decisions made by the UK Government and devolved administrations on moving people from hospitals into adult care and residential homes in the early stages of the pandemic.
The module will also consider how the pandemic was managed in care and residential homes, including infection prevention and control measures, testing for the virus, the availability and adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE), and the restrictions on access to such locations by healthcare professionals and loved ones.
Charlie Williams' 85-year-old father, Vernute, died at a care home in April 2020.
The latest module will focus on the care sector (Alamy/PA)
Mr Williams, a member of CBFFJ, said: 'We have been waiting years for this moment. What happened in care homes during the pandemic was not a tragic accident, it was the result of decisions made at the highest levels of government.
'Covid-positive patients were knowingly discharged from hospitals into care homes. There was no testing, no PPE, and no plan to protect the most vulnerable.
'Those in care were left to die. Bereaved families deserve to know who made those decisions and why.'
The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson.
Mr Williams said not calling Mr Johnson and other senior figures was 'shocking', adding: 'They were at the centre of government when these choices were made, and the inquiry's decision to exclude them is baffling and deeply damaging to any sense of justice.'
He said: 'This is the moment for those responsible to finally tell the truth. We want answers. We want accountability. We want justice.'
Members of bereaved groups from across the UK will give evidence on Tuesday, while representatives of the National Care Forum and Royal College of Nursing will give evidence on Thursday.
Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Replace spending review with AI, says Blair Institute
The spending review should be scrapped and replaced with modern technology, according to a report by the Tony Blair Institute. A new report by the think tank argues that the review wastes huge amounts of money across Whitehall, and advocates for technology instead. The spending review is the process the Government uses to set all departmental budgets for future years, covering services from the NHS to schools and transport. Defence and the NHS emerged as the big winners from the review unveiled by Rachel Reeves earlier in June, while other departmental budgets will be squeezed. Departments spend thousands of pounds preparing submissions for the spending review and the money is then allocated based on subjective judgment, the institute said. It means ineffective projects go on being funded, leaving less money available for the public's priorities. 'We cannot afford to operate like this' AI tools and shared dashboards that allow money to be tracked in real time to counter these problems should be used instead, the report argues. It also claims many departments face structural problems that prevent technology from being used. It recommends that the Government instead reviews how public money is being spent every two years, to allow it to continue planning for the medium term. Dr Laura Gilbert, lead author of the report, said: 'When a company spends money, it understands that that money is limited. If what you're spending the money on isn't working, the company should demand for you to stop and spend it on something else that drives the outcomes you want. 'The way the traditional spending review process is set up prevents this level of accountability in government. As a result, Whitehall can waste huge amounts of money – our money – on things that don't work, and keeps doing it again. 'We cannot afford to operate like this when the technology to fix it is there. We owe it to taxpayers to make sure every pound counts,' said Dr Gilbert. 'This isn't about spending more or less. It's about spending better – on what works, and on what improves people's lives.'
Western Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
Weight loss jabs linked to potentially fatal side effects
Some cases of pancreatitis reported to be linked to GLP-1 medicines (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) have been fatal. Data from the medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), shows that since the drugs were licensed there have been hundreds of cases of acute and chronic pancreatitis among people taking GLP-1 medicines. The new weight management medication 'Tirzepatide' (brand name Mounjaro®) is shortly being made available to NHS patients to support weight loss. Access is prioritised for those with the greatest clinical need. You can find out more at: — NHS Cheshire and Merseyside (@NHSCandM) June 24, 2025 This includes: 181 reported cases of acute and chronic pancreatitis linked to tirzepatide – the active ingredient for Mounjaro. Five people died. 116 reported reactions of this kind linked to liraglutide, one of which was fatal. 113 cases of acute and chronic pancreatitis linked to semaglutide – the active ingredient for Ozempic and Wegovy. One person died. 101 reported reactions of this kind linked to exenatide, three people died. 52 reported reactions of this sort linked to dulaglutide and 11 reported reactions lixisenatide. No fatalities were linked to either drug. These cases are not confirmed as being caused by the medicines, but the person who reported them suspected they may be. Review your ICB's local policy about treating patients with tirzepatide (Mounjaro) for weight management in a primary care setting and visit: — We are Primary Care (@PrimaryCareNHS) June 27, 2025 Nonetheless, Yellow Card Biobank project, launched by the MHRA and Genomics England, will see researchers examine whether cases of pancreatitis linked to GLP-1 drugs may be influenced by peoples genetic makeup. The MHRA is calling for people who are taking GLP-1 medicine who have been admitted to hospital due to acute pancreatitis to submit a report to its Yellow Card scheme. When a Yellow Card report is received, the MHRA will contact patients to ask if they would be willing to take part in the study. Patients will be asked to submit more information and a saliva sample which will be assessed to explore whether some people are at a higher risk of acute pancreatitis when taking these medicines due to their genes. GLP-1 agonists can lower blood sugar levels in people living with type 2 diabetes and can also be prescribed to support some people with weight loss. 🧵Weight loss jab roll out 'positive for patients' but with implications for general practice that must be considered. Our Chair Kamila Hawthorne has featured widely in the national press and broadcast media responding to the phased roll-out of Mounjaro prescriptions by NHS… — Royal College of General Practitioners (@rcgp) June 23, 2025 Stress and sleep issues Chronic stress and poor sleep are major weight loss blockers. Stress increases cortisol, a hormone linked to fat retention, especially around the abdomen. Sleep deprivation increases ghrelin (hunger hormone) and decreases leptin (fullness hormone), making you more likely to overeat and less likely to move. You're also more impulsive and less motivated when sleep-deprived, making it harder to stick to your diet and exercise routine. As a solution, prioritise stress management techniques (like mindfulness or journaling), and aim for 7-9 hours of sleep per night. Health conditions and medications Medical issues such as PCOS, diabetes, hypothyroidism, or insulin resistance can all interfere with weight loss. Similarly, certain medications (like antidepressants or steroids) may cause weight gain or inhibit fat loss. If weight loss stalls despite doing everything right, consult your GP to rule out or address any underlying conditions. If you have a known medical condition, it's important to stay up to date with your routine reviews and inform your GP or specialist about any weight loss treatments you're using. Regular follow-up helps ensure your treatment plan remains safe and effective. More Mounjaro news... Recent estimates suggest that about 1.5 million people in the UK are taking weight loss jabs. Health officials have suggested that they can help to turn the tide on obesity, but have stressed they are not a silver bullet and do come with side effects. Most side effects linked to the jabs are gastrointestinal including nausea, constipation and diarrhoea. And the medical regulator recently warned that Mounjaro may make the oral contraceptive pill less effective in some patients. Dr Alison Cave, MHRA's chief safety officer, said: 'Evidence shows that almost a third of side effects to medicines could be prevented with the introduction of genetic testing, it is predicted that adverse drug reactions could cost the NHS more than £2.2 billion a year in hospital stays alone. 'Information from the Yellow Card Biobank will help us to better predict those most at risk of adverse reactions – enabling patients across the UK to receive the safest medicine for them, based on their genetic makeup. 'To help us help you, we're asking anyone who has been hospitalised with acute pancreatitis while taking a GLP-1 medicine to report this to us via our Yellow Card scheme. 'Even if you don't meet the criteria for this phase of the Biobank study, information about your reaction to a medication is always extremely valuable in helping to improve patient safety.' Professor Matt Brown, chief scientific officer of Genomics England, said: 'GLP-1 medicines like Ozempic and Wegovy have been making headlines, but like all medicines there can be a risk of serious side effects. 'We believe there is real potential to minimise these with many adverse reactions having a genetic cause. 'This next step in our partnership with the MHRA will generate data and evidence for safer and more effective treatment through more personalised approaches to prescription, supporting a shift towards an increasingly prevention-focused healthcare system.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Ban trans women from female lavatories now, Starmer tells hospitals
Sir Keir Starmer has told hospitals and universities to obey the law and ban transgender women from female lavatories 'as soon as possible'. The Prime Minister said public bodies must stop dragging their feet and comply with April's Supreme Court ruling, which found that trans women are not legally women. The judgment on the meaning of the word sex in the Equality Act means that amenities such as toilets and changing rooms have to be separated by biological sex and not by self-identified gender. But two months on, dozens of NHS trusts and other organisations up and down the country have failed to change their guidance, meaning biological men are still being allowed in women's lavatories and changing rooms. Women's rights groups say this puts female staff at risk because most sexual abuse is carried out by biological men. Now, Sir Keir has lost patience with organisations that are still failing to comply with the law. 'We've accepted the ruling' The Prime Minister said: 'We've accepted the ruling, welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned. 'Therefore all guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.' Soon after the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that said that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities'. It is now consulting on the details of its guidance, but Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairman, has said the main thrust of the advice will not change. Despite this, most NHS organisations and universities have said they are waiting for the EHRC guidance before updating their policies. But Sir Keir's comments indicate he has little sympathy with this argument. 'No need to wait for further guidance' Maya Forstater, chief executive of the women's rights charity Sex Matters, said: 'This is an important intervention from the Prime Minister, given the huge number of public bodies failing to implement the Supreme Court judgment and therefore operating outside the law. 'Political leadership is essential if women whose rights are being stolen are not to be forced to turn to the courts, where public bodies will end up losing, at great expense to taxpayers.' She added that the law is clear and there is 'no need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC or anyone else'. A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association, for example, has said trans women would be banned from women's sport. The Houses of Parliament announced last week that it had changed its position, saying that visitors should use 'the facilities that correspond to their biological sex'. Trans people were instructed to use gender-neutral lavatories on the estate. However, a large number of public organisations have still not changed their guidance. The ruling is of particular importance for universities, many of which organise sports teams and continue to allow biological men to participate in female sports. 'Not making changes' Leeds University said: 'For the avoidance of doubt, we are not making any changes to how we provide campus facilities. 'We will not do so unless there is clear legal obligation, and we have meaningfully consulted with those most directly impacted. This is about getting things right – not about rushing to respond.' Liverpool University said: 'Any practical implications in applying the ruling to our facilities and activities are not yet clear and along with other universities, we now need to wait for more detailed guidance. 'As such, there are no immediate changes to any university policies.' As for the NHS, a group of eight nurses in Darlington is challenging their health trust's policy over allowing a trans colleague to use the female changing rooms at work. The national body – NHS England – is still to publish guidance on the Supreme Court ruling. The NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, has withdrawn pro-trans guidance but has not yet updated it. Several other regional organisations have indicated their advice will not change, at least for the time being. NHS Sussex said: 'There should be no change in terms of how services are delivered as the NHS nationally considers the judgment. 'Further to this, we understand that the update provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has led to concern. NHS Sussex will fully participate in a code of practice consultation when it launches to ensure that the protections of the Equality Act endorsed by the Supreme Court are upheld.'
