Recommendations & Conclusions
5 items
1
Conclusion
Fifty-Third Report - Covid 19: supporti…
Acknowledged
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC), Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG), Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), and NHS Digital about protecting and supporting clinically extremely vulnerable …
Read more
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC), Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG), Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), and NHS Digital about protecting and supporting clinically extremely vulnerable people during lockdown.1
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Conclusion
Fifty-Third Report - Covid 19: supporti…
Acknowledged
As its understanding of the disease has grown, DHSC has developed a new risk assessment tool, QCovid, to identify people at risk based on wider factors which make them at more risk from COVID-19. DHSC described the tool as having technical, clinical and academic elements.10 QCovid identifies people who have …
Read more
As its understanding of the disease has grown, DHSC has developed a new risk assessment tool, QCovid, to identify people at risk based on wider factors which make them at more risk from COVID-19. DHSC described the tool as having technical, clinical and academic elements.10 QCovid identifies people who have combined risk factors which put them at enhanced risk, including personal characteristics, such as age, ethnicity and body mass index.11 DHSC told us it considered it was ‘pretty good going’ to take 10 months to develop the tool and that it would have been difficult to develop it more quickly.12 DHSC used this tool to identify an additional 1.7 million Clinically extremely vulnerable people in February 2021.13
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
10
Conclusion
Fifty-Third Report - Covid 19: supporti…
Acknowledged
NHS Digital created the first iteration of the list of some 900,000 people within two days using readily accessible data sources—hospital, maternity and prescribed medicines data. By 12 April 2020, three weeks after shielding began, a further 420,000 people had 7 Q 17; C&AG’s report para 2.3 8 Qq 13, …
Read more
NHS Digital created the first iteration of the list of some 900,000 people within two days using readily accessible data sources—hospital, maternity and prescribed medicines data. By 12 April 2020, three weeks after shielding began, a further 420,000 people had 7 Q 17; C&AG’s report para 2.3 8 Qq 13, 17 9 Q 17 10 Qq 3–4, 13–14 11 C&AG’s Report, Figure 14. 12 Qq 14–15. 13 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-technology-to-help-identify-those-at-high-risk-from-covid-19 14 Q93; C&AG’s report, para 4.4 15 Royal National Institute for the Blind; Independent Age. 16 C&AG’s Report, para 11 17 Q 21; C&AG’s Report, para 11 10 Covid 19: supporting the vulnerable during lockdown been added using GP data, bringing the total to 1.3 million people.18 We asked why it took until the 12 April 2020 to access GP data. NHS Digital told us that it took three weeks working with GP IT systems providers to design, build and gather the GP data. NHS Digital told us that this was quick, as work of this scale would usually take four to six months.19
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Conclusion
Fifty-Third Report - Covid 19: supporti…
Acknowledged
Defra was chosen to lead on providing food to people shielding because, according to MHCLG, it had the expertise and relationships with the food industry.42 Defra consulted with supermarkets and wholesalers, to understand their capacity to provide people with food, nationally and quickly. Defra told us that it was very …
Read more
Defra was chosen to lead on providing food to people shielding because, according to MHCLG, it had the expertise and relationships with the food industry.42 Defra consulted with supermarkets and wholesalers, to understand their capacity to provide people with food, nationally and quickly. Defra told us that it was very clear supermarkets did not have the capacity, and so it had used wholesalers direct.43 Food box deliveries started five days after the start of shielding, on 27 March, and went to 510,486 clinically extremely vulnerable people from then to 1 August, when the programme was paused. Overall, Defra spent £200.2 million on the food support service up to 1 August 2020.44 MHCLG told us that it had asked local authorities to provide those shielding with ‘supplementary food’ for people with dietary requirements.45
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Conclusion
Fifty-Third Report - Covid 19: supporti…
Acknowledged
In August 2020, the government conducted an early lessons learned review of the programme which noted that, should shielding be needed again, a local support model could improve flexibility and potentially be more cost-effective.46 MHCLG told us how it started to move to a locally-led model over summer 2020 as …
Read more
In August 2020, the government conducted an early lessons learned review of the programme which noted that, should shielding be needed again, a local support model could improve flexibility and potentially be more cost-effective.46 MHCLG told us how it started to move to a locally-led model over summer 2020 as it gained confidence in the food supply chain and in the capacity of local authorities.47
Show less
Government response AI summary
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.
Read full response →
HM Treasury