Many Optician practices across the UK carry out each eye examination at an average time of 20 minutes per patient or a staggering 10 minutes in some cases. These are unacceptable time scales and they place patients in danger as missed pathology can lead to serious eye disease and can sometimes lead to other serious health conditions. The practitioners who carry out these eye exams are also putting their careers at risk by agreeing to work to these time scales. Missed pathology will almost certainly lead to fitness to practise (FTP) hearings with the GOC, and the potential for erasure from the optician’s register is a real concern for all practitioners. The GOC’s overarching objective is the protection of the public (Opticians Act Section 1). However, they have not yet addressed this time scale issue. The GOC Registrant Survey 2016 states: “One area identified by participants as having an effect on patients was the length of the sight test. Some participants explained that employers and businesses can put pressure on registrants to conduct as many eye tests as they can in a day. This can result in registrants not being able to always spend enough time with patients. Participants also mentioned that they were under pressure to achieve certain “conversion rate” targets (i.e. to ensure that an eye test with a patient leads to the patient then buying glasses or contact lenses within the store).” We also believe that The College of Optometrists, the Association of Optometrists (AOP) and the Association of British Dispensing Opticians (ABDO) have collectively failed to provide clear and concise guidelines on this matter. Many people working within the industry feel that the answers possibly lie with the major High Street Opticians and their influence on all the bodies mentioned above, which surprisingly includes the governing body (GOC). The vast majority of these representative bodies, if not all, have at least one board member affiliated with a national high street optician chain. This is seen by many as a conflict of interest. A recurring question amongst practitioners is, how are these board members influencing these representative bodies behind closed doors? Every high street optical chain is reliant on high patient volume within their business models. Reduced exam times and the absence of law in this area, means more patients can be seen in each clinic. Which is great for business, profits and turnover, but not so great for the quality of patient care and it’s certainly not beneficial for the well-being of the practitioners that carry out the eye exams. Unfortunately many practitioners who work within these high street businesses are ‘performance managed’ to work to these time scales. Failure to adhere to the current time scales leads to practitioners being ‘performance managed’ out of the businesses. This unacceptable behaviour highlights the profits before patients syndrome, which has been like a cancer that’s spread through the profession over the years. This conveyor belt system leads the public to view practitioners in this field as glasses sellers or salesmen. Whereas the truth is far from this view. A Journal of Optometry study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911451/) found that Optometrists working in Multiple Optician chains were twice as likely to refer false positives to the Hospital Eye Service (HES) compared to Independent Optician practices. When you factor in the shortage of Ophthalmologists (Centre for Workforce Intelligence, 2014) working in the HES. False positive referrals can have a significant impact on the HES. The same study went on to claim; “Myint and colleagues found that lack of TIME to repeat measurements, or remuneration for doing such, as the most commonly reported barriers to effective glaucoma detection in the UK”. The study also found that after the introduction of the new Scottish NHS GOS contract which allows for longer exam times, “there was a significant reduction in false positive referrals and a significant increase in true positive referrals.” An example of the effect this can have on the HES: (https://www.aop.org.uk/ot/professional-support/health-services/2019/11/11/glaucoma-patient-who-went-blind-receives-three-point-two-million-pound-compensation) The AOP’s own “Optometrists Futures Survey” from October 2018 (section 7.3.2) clearly highlights the need for changes to increase the exam times. Almost two years have passed and this point has yet to be addressed by the AOP. The Optical Workforce Survey (2015), Lead by The College of Optometry, states the following regarding the pressures on the HES: “Since 2004, the Department of Health (DH) has been trying to encourage the delivery of more routine and minor emergency eye care outside hospital settings in community optical practices. The aim is to free up hospital capacity to cope with increasing demand from both the ageing population and new technologies such as treatments for wet age related macular degeneration (The King’s Fund, 2009).” This highlights the urgent need to reduce false positive referrals caused by the commercial pressures which impose inadequate examination times on practitioners. The current pandemic also highlights the importance of longer eye exam times. The use of PPE, disinfection and social distancing measures will require added time to carry out eye exams once the suspension on routine sight testing has been lifted. There is also the lingering prospect of potential monopolies being formed, (https://www.financierworldwide.com/essilorluxottica-and-grandvision-agree-8bn-merger#.Xs-8WxbTWEc). This will no doubt effect patient safety as the aim of increasing commercial revenue will take precedence. By signing this petition you will help safeguard patients and practitioners as well as highlight the points made in this petition to the government.

Social and childcare workers have worked tirelessly during the Covid Outbreak. Care homes have been a significant source of infection, with many social care staff not going home. Some live in caravans and some risk their families contracting the virus. The majority of Social Care staff are on National Minimum Wage. The WELSH government made the statement, they should stick to it. Many professionals would have been unable to go to work without childcare staff and for this reason, the payment should extend to them too.

Today the government confirmed that is pressing ahead with its plans to impose the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) which must be paid by non-EU workers on long-term visas; this includes all non-EU doctors, nurses and health workers who are working in the NHS and care services. Someone who wishes to come to work in the UK has to pay this fee before they can progress their visa application - if it is not paid their application will be automatically rejected. The IHS must be paid once a visa application has been submitted online ; a simple redirect in the booking system takes you to the payment page. It is calculated with reference to the number of years someone wishes to remain in the UK, and in January 2019 rose to £400 per year (pro-rata) per applicant - it will shortly rise yet again to have £600. There are no discounts for dependants, including children, all of whom must pay the full IHS. This government is seeking to financially damage the workers who it stands and applaudes each week. These are workers who are giving their all to the people of this country - they should be paid properly for this and not penalised for using the institution that they wish to serve. This country is reliant on overseas health workers and yet this government is trying to deter them from coming to work here.

The public are at risk from cross infections and no formal training by thousands of barbers and hairdressers within the industry in Scotland Now with a pandemic in play it should be more enforced by public health services local authorities and the Scottish government Public protection is of the upmost importance and awareness of this matter should be of great value to protect them and the barber and hairdressing industry by regulation on said health and safety grounds

We want to initiate an annual 'Day of Celebration for the NHS'. To take place on July 5th, the anniversary date of the inauguration of the NHS in 1948. To honour all the marvellous people who work within it. And to thank them all for their incredible self-sacrificing care in helping & treating us, not only during this terrible current Corona Virus crisis. But throughout each & every year. Such an occasion would be not only an ongoing testament to our eternal gratitude. But could be a focus for all kinds of charitable & fund raising events in support of our wonderful NHS.

There are national inconsistencies about how people can access mental health services. For physical health we have the 111 option. We are petitioning to have an option 2 when ringing 111 for the caller to access their local mental health services. Through COVID19 planning, every mental health service nationally have had to develop a 24 hour crisis service. Therefore, the option 2 can link to the callers local crisis care centre to access the mental health support they need. This has already been implemented in Cambridge; all other areas need to be supported to follow suit. We must demand parity for mental health access.

We understand that the Swanage based Ambulance Car could be withdrawn in June. We were shocked to hear that there were plans to withdraw the Car on April 1st. Following Councillors meeting with the Ambulance Trust and lobbying Dorset Council Health Scrutiny, and the Town Council writing to the Ambulance Trust and the Clinical Commissioning Group, we were told the car would remain for two months, and the situation would be reviewed in June. We had previously understood that under the Clinical Services Review ambulance resources allocated to Swanage would actually be increased. We must keep the Swanage Ambulance Car and our excellent Paramedics. The Car is a Rapid Response Vehicle - a fast car - based at Swanage, and covering Purbeck. Unlike the regular Swanage Ambulance, which can be outside Purbeck all day, the Car does not take patients to hospital, and the agreement was that the Car would remain in Purbeck, unless there was a major emergency. Therefore, as well being part of our Ambulance resources, this fast Car is much more likely to get to us quickly in an emergency. The Car supports the health of Swanage and Purbeck residents, and, crucially, helps save our lives. We’ve been told that Ambulance resources at Wareham have increased. However, there may not be an Ambulance in Wareham (or in Purbeck) at the time one is needed in Swanage and villages, and, in any case, it’s impossible to get from Wareham to Swanage in 8 minutes, which is the target time for a category 1 (imminent danger of death) emergency. The Ambulance Car was first allocated to Swanage as compensation for the overnight closure of the Swanage Cottage Hospital Minor Injuries Unit, back in 2008. There was recognition at that time that it was a long way to Poole from Swanage, and there needed to be overnight support here. Under the Clinical Services Review, emergency care will no longer be provided at Poole, and we will have even further to travel to access A&E, Maternity and Children’s care. The Swanage and Purbeck Ambulance Car + Paramedic: i) provides a rapid response (as nearer and faster) to save life in emergency pending arrival of the ambulance Ii) treats the 50% of patients who do not need to go to hospital at the scene, avoiding unnecessary journeys to Poole, and protecting hospital resources Iii) provides a replacement service when the Swanage Minor Injuries Unit is closed (8pm - 8am). iv) supports Purbeck GP home visits, helping to ensure that these are covered. Indeed we believe that the Purbeck GP’s are open to looking at making a contribution towards retaining the Ambulance Car. It is a matter of life and death for us to retain this essential service. /Users/Mel1/Desktop/Swange Amb Car.jpg

We deserve it we put our lives on the line and family at ridk

The petition is framed within the following context: 1. The modifications to the death registration process made as part of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (https://nafd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GROCircular-5-2020.pdf); 2. Written statement by the Welsh Government 21 April 2020 on the subject of COVID19 and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Communities, presented by Vaughan Gething, Minister for Health and Social Services (https://gov.wales/written-statement-covid-19-and-bame-communities); 3. The rising alarm in the UK (and beyond) on the impact COVID19 is having on minoritised populations, including those living in Wales (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2241278-an-unequal-society-means-covid-19-is-hitting-ethnic-minorities-harder/ ); 4. The significant numbers of people from minoritised backgrounds working in the health (7) and social care sectors (https://nafd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GROCircular-5-2020.pdf ; 5. The revelation that some Welsh health boards have a higher representation of employees from BME backgrounds than in the local population, with one example being that in Hywel Dda LHB, 6.8% of the workforce are from BME backgrounds, compared with 2.7% of the local population (https://seneddresearch.blog/2020/04/15/coronavirus-equality-issues ); 6. Calls made by the British Medical Council (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/failure-to-record-ethnicity-of-covid-19-victims-a-scandal-says-bma-chief ) and by a specialist medical group in Wales (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52347003) to find ways to safeguard NHS staff from BME backgrounds who may be at risk due to a number of recognised (genetic, socio-economic, as well as systemic intersecting oppression) and perhaps unknown reasons; and lastly 7. Current call for an Independent Public Inquiry into the impact of COVID19 on people from BME backgrounds (https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/bame-communities-and-the-disproportionate-incidence-of-covid-19?share=c1c370db-dc62-460e-a89c-e3576037c4e9&source=rawlink&utm_source=rawlink). The inclusion of an ethnicity category on death certificates such like that which is in place in Scotland is required urgently in Wales and England. Importantly, this change should be a mandatory undertaking and considered a care quality and safeguarding requirement. In keeping with the lessons to be drawn from an analysis of the collecting of ethnicity data on death certificates recently conducted in Scotland ( https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/vital-events/ethnicity-of-deceased/ethnicity-deceased-report.pdf ), the introduction of an enhanced death registration process will need to be underpinned by training, incentives and ongoing monitoring. In the future we must be in a position to be able to identity and meaningful use existing national data collections to address health and social inequalities impacting on the lives of people from BME backgrounds. Securing a change in death certification is one important action. Keeping in mind all of those who have sadly died, all those affected by this crisis, and all those campaigning for change in across the UK, we urge all members of the public to sign this petition. There is no geographical restriction on who can sign a petition. About us: The ‘We Are One’ Collective: Under the slogan of ‘Pulling together to protect our families, our elders and our futures,’ we are a group of anti-racism activists, concerned citizens, and academics who came together in 2018 to address the Windrush Scandal and its impact on Wales’ Caribbean Commonwealth Elders. Our connections spread across Wales and beyond.

Our leaders need to see a strong message that we want a zero tolerance approach to Covid19. I am an NHS GP who sees first hand the damage to patients, colleagues and our economy. I feel strongly we must work harder to protect the general public, healthcare workers and vulnerable patients, who remain extremely exposed. The infection is indiscriminate with unacceptable death rates in all ages and ethnic groups. Every life is precious and this level of risk is unacceptable for people in the modern world. Good protective equipment combined with isolating cases and contacts can keep control. We can ease lockdown with appropriate social distancing and home working depending on evidence of control being maintained. We would then avoid a second wave. There are other benefits from reductions in many other contagious diseases particularly in children. This buys time saving thousands of lives and allowing more business activity while we research treatments and vaccines. Control is successful in other countries that act with zero tolerance. Please sign this petition to show our leaders that we feel strongly that the best way we can protect everyone from this deadly infection is zero tolerance to Covid19!

Every day, 300 babies are admitted to neonatal care either because they were born premature or because they were born full-term but sick. Some of these babies will need life-saving care for weeks and sadly, some will never make it home at all. When parents can provide hands-on care, babies have the very best long-term developmental outcomes and parents’ wellbeing is also improved. But because of COVID-19, parents’ ability to be with their babies in neonatal care is being limited by changes to access onto neonatal units and the effects of the lockdown. The emotional toll of this on families is huge. One father who is no longer allowed to see his baby told us: ‘I feel like I’ve had a bit of my heart taken out’. A mother who is seeing her baby on alternative days so her partner can also be with him said: ‘It’s hard leaving your son at all, never mind not being able to go up when you want to see him. And I’ve got the underlying worry on top of all that about whether he’s going to have any long-term health problems.’ Current Parental Leave policies are already not fit for purpose for parents with a baby in neonatal care. Bliss was delighted when the UK Government announced they would introduce Neonatal Leave and Pay. But this won’t be available until 2023.Many parents have been furloughed on 80% pay, and self-employed parents will have to wait until June for Government help towards their loss of income. The UK Government must introduce a version of Neonatal Leave and Pay now to support parents in this unprecedented situation – and ensure it covers those who are self-employed or in insecure work. Previous research by Bliss found that the average cost of having a baby on a neonatal unit was £282 per week – due to daily travel, parking food and drink at the hospital, accommodation and childcare for older children. These costs are even more difficult to manage during COVID-19. Parents without a car are being asked to avoid public transport, making them reliant on costly taxis or on lifts. Many food establishments at hospitals have closed, limiting choices and parent accommodation is increasingly unavailable on hospital sites due to infection control reasons. Nationally coordinated funds, and access to free parking at NHS sites, are essential to enable parents to be with their baby at this time. Having a baby in neonatal care is a traumatic experience at any time, but, for many parents, their anxiety and stress is heightened because of the COVID-19 pandemic. To minimise the spread of the virus, neonatal units across the UK have made difficult decisions to restrict who can come onto the unit – with most now only allowing one parent onto a neonatal unit at a time. Understandably, parents suspected to have COVID-19 are not allowed onto neonatal units at all, leading them to be separated from their baby for up to two weeks. To prevent prolonged unnecessary separation, parents of babies in neonatal care should be prioritised for rapid testing if they are suspected to have COVID-19.

As the coronavirus pandemic sweeps across the UK, essential workers like medical staff and supermarket workers are both saving lives and keeping our country going. The government with the HSE should come up with a comprehensive plan to keep all workplaces in the UK safe from Covid-19 and set an official target that no more workers should die from catching Covid-19 at work.