Covid inquiry: No advice to test care home patients at pandemic start
Gething was asked about the risk of people without symptoms being infectious and what was known about that before the care home policy was announced on 13 March 2020.Laura Paisley, counsel for the inquiry, said even if it was not specifically discussed with him, "would you agree by that date that you were aware of the possibility of asymptomatic transmission and that it could not be ruled out?"The Member of the Senedd (MS) for Cardiff South and Penarth replied: "I'm not sure I could say by 13 March I was aware of the possibility of asymptomatic transmission."We discussed transmission and the clear evidence and advice was that symptomatic people were the risk."But that doesn't mean it (asymptomatic transmission) could be ruled out."Asked whether at that point "at the very least" there should have been a policy to isolate untested patients being discharged into care homes, Gething said: "That wasn't the evidence and advice that we had at the time."He added: "There was no advice that came to me saying 'you should test everyone who is leaving a hospital'."That advice was never provided to me at this point in time. And I think it's very hard to re-second guess all that and say 'at the time should you have known' when actually I didn't."Looking back though, of course in hindsight you can see that actually you could have reduced risk if you had been able to test on discharge and that would have relied not just on capacity, but on the speed of turn-around from testing as well."
'The guidance could have been provided earlier'
Ministers decided on 15 April that people should not be discharged into social care unless they had tested negative for Covid.But guidance on testing for the care sector was not published until 29 April.Paisley said: "Do you accept, along with the Welsh government, that was a delay that simply shouldn't have happened?"Gething said: "Yes, it's part of the concession that I don't attempt to walk away from."From the decision to the guidance going out it has to be accepted that the guidance could have been provided earlier."Similar decisions on testing were introduced earlier in the rest of the UK.Gething said the Welsh government was "on the back foot" because the UK government did not share information about testing earlier, but that did not explain the 14-day delay before the Welsh guidance was published.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
37 minutes ago
- Sky News
Mother of victim of necrophiliac David Fuller reacts to inquiry that found crimes 'could be repeated'
Warning: This story contains details of sexual abuse readers' may find disturbing. The mother of one of David Fuller's victims has said she is still fighting to get compensation for the impact of her daughter's body being abused in a hospital mortuary. Fuller, a hospital electrician, is known to have violated at least 100 corpses, often filming or photographing his crimes. Nevres Kemal's daughter Azra Kemal was 24 when she died before her body was sexually abused by Fuller three times in the mortuary of Tunbridge Wells Hospital in July 2020. Ms Kemal told Sky News it was "a disgrace" she has to "prove that this has devastated me" as she fights to get compensation. It comes as an inquiry into the case concluded that "offences such as those committed by David Fuller could happen again". The report by Sir Jonathan Michael found that "current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking". Ms Kemal commended the report for being "honest" but also said it was "expensive". She added: "This is the most horrendous story this country has ever seen around the violation of dead people. Now we need legislation and a separate body to regulate these organisations. "They are writing reports to help insure this will never happen again. But what about helping the people it's already happened to?" 'Traumatised' Ms Kemal said she is in a battle for compensation and has to demonstrate how the crime has impacted her. She said: "We have the burden of proof that this situation has traumatised us to a point that we either cannot work or it has made us unwell. It's the burden of proof upon us, which is a disgrace." The first phase of the inquiry criticised the NHS trust's poor management and lax security arrangements that allowed Fuller to access the morgue for 15 years and 444 times in one year alone, without raising suspicion. "Azra was one of his prime targets," says Ms Kemal. "He accessed Azra's Facebook. I spent time with Azra in the mortuary and that moment helped me heal. We spent two hours together." However, Ms Kemal later found out that her daughter's body had been violated both before and after the visit. She added: "It's disgusting that we have to fight for compensation when it should be something that should be considered in a very sensitive way and looked at in a more transparent way. "This government should ensure that people that have been wronged do not wait and beg for compensation." What did the inquiry uncover? The first phase of the inquiry found Fuller, 70, was able to offend for 15 years in mortuaries without being suspected or caught due to "serious failings" at the hospitals where he worked. Phase 2 of the inquiry has examined the broader national picture and considered if procedures and practices in other hospital and non-hospital settings, where deceased people are kept, safeguard their security and dignity. Fuller was given a whole-life prison term in December 2021 for the murders of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, in 1987. During his time as a maintenance worker, he also abused the corpses of more than 100 women and girls at Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital before his arrest in December 2020. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100. Phase 1 of the inquiry found he entered one mortuary 444 times in the space of one year "unnoticed and unchecked" and that deceased people were also left out of fridges and overnight during working hours. Highly critical report suggests suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again Jason Farrell Home editor @JasonFarrellSky After an initial glance, his interim report already called for urgent regulation to safeguard the "security and dignity of the deceased". On publication of his final report he describes regulation and oversight of care as "ineffective, and in significant areas completely lacking". David Fuller was an electrician who committed sexual offences against at least 100 deceased women and girls in the mortuaries of the Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100. This first phase of the inquiry found Fuller entered the mortuary 444 times in a single year, "unnoticed and unchecked". It was highly critical of the systems in place that allowed this to happen. His shocking discovery, looking at the broader industry - be it other NHS Trusts or the 4,500 funeral directors in England - is that it could easily have happened elsewhere. The conditions described suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again. 'Could be a recurrence of appalling crimes' Presenting the findings on Tuesday, Sir Jonathan said: "This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been reviewed so comprehensively. "Inadequate management, governance and processes helped create the environment in which David Fuller was able to offend for so long." He said that these "weaknesses" are not confined to where Fuller operated, adding that he found examples from "across the country". "I have asked myself whether there could be a recurrence of the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller. - I have concluded that yes, it is entirely possible that such offences could be repeated, particularly in those sectors that lack any form of statutory regulation." Sir Jonathan called for a statutory regulation to "protect the security and dignity of people after death".
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
£200 private health check gave incorrect blood pressure but I was denied a refund: SALLY SORTS IT
I had a private health assessment through Bluecrest Wellness in September. The results of my £199 check contained a blood pressure measurement, which was highlighted with a red flag and a comment that I was at an increased risk of heart disease and stroke. I thought I might have a stroke at any minute, so was shaking with shock for three hours until my daughter, a nurse, came to see me. She read the report and told me the result was impossible and that Bluecrest should have known this before sending it out to me. The top figure, the systolic measurement, was 140, and the bottom, the diastolic, was 185. The bottom figure can never be higher than the top figure. Readings taken at my GP surgery earlier in 2024 recorded 130 over 72. I expected a full refund because of the anxiety caused, but after going through the complaints process, I was offered only £50. Can you help? D.M., Ipswich. Sally Hamilton replies: If you'd tested your blood pressure on receipt of your scary results, I imagine it would likely have been through the roof. Not a calming prescription for a woman of 80 with a family history of heart attacks. I can understand how an off-the-scale figure gave you such a fright. Luckily, your daughter saw immediately there was a mistake and tried to reassure you. But I wondered why Bluecrest hadn't spotted the error just as quickly and intervened before the paperwork was sent. It wasn't just the BP error that upset you. You were unhappy with the complaints process that followed – and the way the company, of which you have been a customer for more than a decade, went silent when you said you weren't happy with the £50 payout. On my intervention, Bluecrest investigated swiftly. It admitted the health assessment specialist had mistakenly entered an incorrect number in your report but said this was corrected within three days and you were updated. However, it did confirm it had not responded to your last letter expressing discontent with the conclusion. This was because it considered your complaint closed and had informed you in that correspondence of your right to contact the Care Quality Commission should you be unhappy with the resolution. As a result of your experience, Bluecrest confirms it will now track letters that arrive after a complaint has been closed. It tells me your experience has led it to make improvements to its data input procedures. This includes making enhanced verification checks to stop results being submitted that fall outside expected and physiologically possible ranges, as happened with your BP readings. It is also refunding you the £199 cost of your assessment, offered you a further check free of charge should you want it, and donated £50 to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a charity you support. Openreach is bullying my 87-year-old mother In April, my 87-year-old mother received a request from Openreach to consent to a 'wayleave agreement' relating to the installation of fibre network cables on a route across her property to supply another customer. There was a lot of paperwork to review and she asked me to help. Three days after the first letter, she got a chasing letter saying it had heard nothing. A week later, a third arrived, this time mildly threatening, and a week after that a fourth advising they would take the matter to a tribunal and bemoaning the 'radio silence' on her part. My mother couldn't sleep with worry. I want an apology for the bullying approach. K.T., Norfolk. Sally Hamilton replies: Openreach is behind most of the country's phone and broadband infrastructure and is used by the likes of BT and Sky. When it needs to install, maintain or repair equipment on private land or inside a property such as a block of flats, it will often need permission from those not benefiting from the service. This comes in the form of wayleaves, which are written legal agreements. For individuals such as your mother, who have never come across these before, it can be bewildering. What might you be signing up to? Scam Watch Oasis fans who missed out on concert tickets are being warned about last minute scams. The band are currently on a sellout tour and will play Wembley, Manchester and Edinburgh, as well as shows overseas. Lloyds Bank says fans have lost £2 million buying fake Oasis tickets this year. The bank says 90 per cent of ticket purchase scams take place via fake ads and posts on social media. It warns fans only to buy tickets from official vendors – and never to send money to anyone you don't know and have only spoken to on social media. You were particularly aggrieved at the hectoring letters sent to your elderly mother and the lack of response as you tried to find out more from your sickbed. You called the number printed on the correspondence several times and only ever got an answer machine on which you left messages outlining the situation. You emailed, but also had no response. You only heard back from Openreach once you had emailed with the signed agreement on May 5, together with a formal letter of complaint about how the matter had been handled. Now it was Openreach's turn for radio silence. You have chased for a resolution to your complaint, but with no response. I agree it was over the top for Openreach to be sending four letters in a row with little appreciation that recipients might struggle to understand what was being asked of them – and who might need to ask for input from family or friends. In some situations, it can be sensible for a property owner to take legal advice before signing a wayleave agreement. Not many lawyers would move as quickly as Openreach was expecting your mother to. Openreach needed her permission because it involved her property being used to provide a service to another homeowner. Standard rates or recompense apply in these situations, which for your mother meant a one-off payment of about £184. But of more importance to her, and you, was an apology and a promise to improve the process. Once I contacted Openreach, it responded at lightning speed, sending a bunch of flowers, a note to say sorry and a promise of a gift card. An Openreach spokesperson says: 'This was a very unusual and unfortunate situation, and we're really sorry for causing such distress. We want to thank K.T. and her mother for their feedback and we've sent them a gesture of goodwill. We're also using their feedback to review and improve our wayleaves processes.' Straight to the point In December, I booked a two-night stay in a Liverpool apartment for June through But in March I was told the reservation was cancelled and my £183 would be returned to me. I have supplied all of the information has requested numerous times but my money has not been repaid. Last time I called, it could not find the reservation. D.E., via email. apologises for the delay and says a technical error deleted it from its system. It is getting confirmation of the charge from you and will then process the refund. *** I Bought a new car from a dealership for £52,000 in December and agreed to pay a £5,000 deposit along with £500 each month on finance. After driving just 200 miles, one of the wheels fell off while I was going over a speed bump. My breakdown cover engineer said the nuts must have been loose. I returned the car to the dealership and would like to either get a new one or get the money back I've paid so far. I'm still paying £500 a month. I've now had to put a deposit down on a new car. E.D., Leicester. You have been refunded the £6,500 you have so far spent on the vehicle and also been handed back the £7,157 you had splashed out on the deposit for your new car. Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@ — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Britain's Moore handed four-year ban after CAS upholds ITIA appeal
July 15 (Reuters) - Britain's Tara Moore, who was previously cleared of an anti-doping rule violation, was handed a four-year ban on Tuesday after the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld an appeal filed by the International Tennis Integrity Agency. Moore, Britain's former number one-ranked doubles player, was provisionally suspended in June 2022 due to the presence of prohibited anabolic steroids Nandrolone and boldenone. Moore said she had never knowingly taken a banned substance in her career and an independent tribunal determined that contaminated meat consumed by her in the days before sample collection was the source of the prohibited substance. Moore lost 19 months in the process before she was cleared of the ADRV but CAS upheld the ITIA's appeal against the first instance "No Fault or Negligence" ruling with respect to nandrolone. "After reviewing the scientific and legal evidence, the majority of the CAS Panel considered that the player did not succeed in proving that the concentration of nandrolone in her sample was consistent with the ingestion of contaminated meat," CAS said in a statement. "The panel concluded that Ms Moore failed to establish that the ADRV was not intentional. The appeal by the ITIA is therefore upheld and the decision rendered by the Independent Tribunal is set aside." Moore had previously said how she saw her reputation, ranking and livelihood "slowly trickling away" for 19 months during her initial suspension. The 32-year-old had also filed a cross-appeal at CAS "seeking to dismiss the ITIA appeal, dismiss the nandrolone result in the ADRV or alternatively confirm that she bears no fault or negligence". However, CAS said the cross-appeal was declared inadmissible and her four-year period of ineligibility would start from July 15, with credit for any provisional suspension that has already been served. "Our bar for appealing a first instance decision is high, and the decision is not taken lightly," ITIA CEO Karen Moorhouse said in a statement. "In this case, our independent scientific advice was that the player did not adequately explain the high level of nandrolone present in their sample. Today's ruling is consistent with this position."
