Government plan to ban staff working at multiple care homes is 'short-sighted and self-defeating'

The Care Workers Charity (CWC) has joined other leaders in the care sector in opposing government proposals to ban movement of care workers between care homes, claiming it is ‘short-sighted and self-defeating' and could push care workers into poverty.

An open letter written by the CWC and signed by leading people in the sector such as Vic Rayner, executive director of the National Care Forum, raises concerns that over 75 per cent of care workers are being paid less than the Real Living Wage and often need to work in multiple care settings to make ends meet.

In 2020, the CWC has supported 3,023 care workers and warns 'this is the tip of the iceberg’ as thousands more are struggling without support. Banning the movement of care home workers targets individuals who have little power of influence caused by zero-hours contracts and a low income'.

The letter reads: 'With current vacancies of 112,000, expected to rise to 520,000 by 20,355, an exodus of care workers will be disastrous especially with an ageing population rising to 14.1 million by 20,356.

‘This proposal is short-sighted and self-defeating. Valued care home workers will be prompted to leave jobs, in favour of financial stability and job security. Care providers will subsequently be reliant on agency staff to combat unsafe staffing levels which will inhibit the care of residents and threaten the closure of care homes.’

The CWC points out that 'the proposed policy overtly singles-out care home staff who deliver direct care. Healthcare professionals, Registered Managers and CQC inspectors (to name a few) are exempt.'

’The proposal is ill-thought through and hard to implement' during pandemic

Vic Rayner, executive director of the National Care Forum (NCF) admitted that “the rationale behind the proposals is understandable – based on trying to reduce the chances of asymptomatic staff inadvertently spreading the virus" but she added "the proposal is ill-thought through and will be hard to implement in the current circumstances.

“Many providers have already limited the movement of their staff, but this does not appear to have been acknowledged by the proposal. In the midst of the very significant staffing and financial pressures around delivering care in the midst of a pandemic, managers will be expected to negotiate with staff around critical issues which could have potentially devastating impacts on an individual’s personal circumstance.”

Care England has also submitted a response to the Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) consultation on restricting staff movement.

Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said: “We are at a loss to understand why if these measures are to be introduced across adult social care settings, the movement of NHS staff between NHS settings is not being subjected to the same regulation.

"The difference in the treatment of the adult social care sector and the NHS seems to be disproportionate and unjustified.”

Concerns have also been voiced regarding the government’s infection control fund (ICF). The open letter states funding does not do enough to support social care. It states: ‘We, therefore, are unconvinced that care home workers will receive satisfactory support for the inconvenience caused.

‘The Care Workers Charity is aware some care workers are not receiving top-up payments from the ICF, care home managers and local authorities have informed us they are having to spend the limited funds elsewhere. This proposed policy is the result of chronic underfunding and neglect of the social care sector by successive governments.’

Care England and NCF say the ICF is simply not enough to cover compensating both staff and other employers when a member of staff is asked only to work for one employer.

Professor Green said: “Although the proposed regulation is aimed at minimising the risk of infection of Covid-19, many care providers already have clear procedures and processes to manage safe staffing levels and staff movement which are regularly reviewed.

"The answer to managing infection prevention and control in care settings is testing. If staff were able to access a greater frequency and efficacy of test prior to a shift, there would be less need to limit staff movement."

Ms Rayner added: “Rather than seeking to regulate to reduce staff movement at short notice in the middle of a pandemic, the approach needs to be more supportive and practical.

“Our research with members shows that the Infection Control Fund, which has to date been utilised to minimise staff movement, vastly underestimates the costs that providers already incur, before adding on a meaningful compensatory mechanism to address shortfalls in workers’ incomes.

"Simply legislating against staff movement does nothing to solve the fundamental issues of recruitment, retention, high turnover rates and competition from other sectors.”