Informal dementia care: The carer's lived experience at the divides between policy and practice

Support for informal dementia care at a local community level is not working for most carers today. Carers looking after a person with dementia have long lamented the absence of an empowered named support and an effectively actioned care plan. Drawing on literary writing and social research, we argue in this article that these challenges have existed since dementia emerged as a major condition in the West during the 1980s. Based on this historical context, we ask: Why has this issue persisted over the last four decades? How have healthcare politics and policy initiatives responded to these requests? And what can we learn from this for the current, COVID-19 exacerbated crisis of care? This article focuses on the English context, to discuss these ongoing challenges in the light of a series of policy papers, and to ask what is hampering the implementation of such policy initiatives. In England, local authorities are responsible for dementia support. This article focuses on the situation in a county in the Midlands where one of us (AB) has been lobbying local government for over a decade. The discussion contextualises the lived experience of dementia care within the situation exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuing politics of crises and persistent emphasis on cure over care. We find that the absence on two points centrally challenges care: a joined-up approach between health and social care and adequate information on available care support services, accessible through an empowered named contact. To enhance the lived experience of dementia care, consistent provision of individual named support and professional care support, as and when required, should become essential to local implementation of the care policy.

Understanding the policy dynamics of COVID-19 in the UK: Early findings from interviews with policy makers and health care professionals

The UK government response to COVID-19 has been heavily criticised. We report witnesses’ perceptions of what has shaped UK policies and how these policies have been received by healthcare workers. Such studies are usually affected by hindsight. Here we deploy a novel prospective approach to capture real-time information.

We are historians, social scientists and biomedical researchers who study how societies cope with infectious disease. In February 2020 we began regular semi-structured calls with prominent members of policy communities, and health care professionals, to elicit their roles in, and reactions to, the pandemic response.

We report witnesses’ perceptions that personal protective equipment (PPE) stocks were too small, early warnings have not led to sufficiently rapid policy decisions, and a lack of transparency is sapping public trust. Significant successes include research mobilisation. The early experiences and reactions of our witnesses suggest important issues for investigation, notably a perception of delay in decision making.

•

UK coronavirus response delayed after the alarm was raised.

•

Politicians abdicated responsibility by their early ‘follow the science’ rhetoric.

•

Science advice to policy making needs people who bridge the two worlds.

•

Centralised responses wasted valuable local public health skills.

•

Pandemic response needs to move faster than the infectious disease.