---

Kings Fund Report Shows Major Failings In Healthcare Of The Victims Of Grenfell Now Published

The week before the Kings Fund report was published (9th September, Channel 4 News reported on the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower Fire and the 72 deaths and their relatives and survivors from the worst fire in history of UK's residential buildings.

Despite the Governments claim it will block any company indicted by the report of greed, and lies, and putting profit before lives; will never work in Government contracts again, the Kings Fund has identified one Company - Rydon - as being contracted to the NHS!

In 2004 Rydon secured the largest mental health PFI contract in the country for the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, a contract still in place.

Rydon is the company that led the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower during 2015-16 which resulted in external cladding being installed onto the face of the tower block. Metropolitan Police have launched a criminal investigation into the fire and have said that the cladding and installation fitted at Grenfell had failed “all safety tests”.

The King's Fund is an independent charitable organisation working to improve health and care in England.

The King's Fund report (published on Monday 9th September) reveals that survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire faced significant failures in health and care services, echoing the same disregard and lack of responsiveness they had experienced before the disaster. The report highlights how structural racism and discrimination shaped the response of healthcare authorities, who often imposed interventions without considering the specific needs of the community. This mismatch between what the authorities thought was necessary and what survivors actually required further alienated those most affected.

One striking example was the offering of mental health services that were culturally insensitive, such as providing Muslim men with cognitive behaviour therapy from white female therapists, which many found unsuitable. Similarly, a "screen and treat" program, meant to address health concerns, missed many of the most impacted individuals despite targeting 11,000 homes.

While mental health teams were commended for their prompt and attentive response, physical health services fell short. Enhanced health screenings for survivors were inconsistent, with some general practitioners (GPs) unaware they were supposed to provide them. Natasha Elcock, a survivor, described her frustration at being denied the opportunity to have blood samples taken for future health monitoring, a service offered to firefighters for research purposes.

The King’s Fund report aims to ensure that lessons are learned from these failures, stressing the importance of listening to and collaborating with affected communities to inform future health and care responses in disaster situations.

A key finding in the report states:

'There was a history of distrust between Grenfell Tower residents and local public services, and we heard many examples of people being talked down to or ignored and having to fit in with services that were insensitive to their needs and preferences. Survivors and the bereaved were therefore highly critical when the health care response to the fire was initially decided top-down and based on expanding existing clinical services as a one-size-fits-all approach that did not correspond to what they needed.

The community refused to be silenced and organised themselves so that they could feed back on what changes were needed. Some health care leaders responded positively to the feedback, rather than reacting defensively, and over time the relationship between the community and public services started to change.

Healthcare leaders started asking the community and people using health services ‘What will work for you?’, and they began to work together to plan and deliver services. Working as partners required a different leadership approach. Leaders needed to actively go out into the community, build relationships, and develop an understanding of what people felt was important to them. They started to encourage person-centred, rather than rigidly guideline-driven, care; they experimented with new services; and, above all, they took action on what people told them. They acknowledged the ingrained racism and insensitivity to diverse requirements and worked with community organisations to make services more culturally competent, including with staffing that better reflected the communities they serve and that were more connected to those communities.

This work has often been challenging – for example, by requiring staff to change and by acknowledging and confronting racism. We heard that really listening to people, and being prepared to let go of the greater power that public services inherently have, were the two key qualities that enabled progress. These new ways of working have not yet been developed across all services and, in many cases, are still not well embedded. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made, indicating that although it takes time and can be difficult, it is possible to move to a more community-focused approach.

There is a risk that these ways of working may be seen by some as a time-limited approach in response to an exceptional situation, and that there will be a return to top-down ways of working when the additional funding following the fire runs out. This would be a backwards step.'

The answer to stop that from happening says the report is threefold:

• Greater depth of community involvement in decision-making, which will require greater transparency in decisions and openness to shifting where resources are spent.

• More transparency so that public services can be held to account by local communities for funding decisions and the outcomes they achieve.

• Going further in working as one joined-up system, rather than individual services working with communities in silos, and individual services or institutions defending their status quo.

It is quite interesting that the above points also apply to the way the 42 Integrated Care Systems, that have replaced the NHS in England are claimed to work. However, anyone having to use their Local Health Service knows full well that transparency and accountability are certainly nonexistent when it comes to awarding contracts to private healthcare companies.

You can down load both the full report, and the Executive Summary, by clicking on the pics above. They are both also available from the Unionsafety E-Library.

Source: Channel 4 News / The Kings Fund

Designed, Hosted and Maintained by Union Safety Services