Intressant intervju om situationen i våras i Sthlm när många avled inom äldreomsorgen. Givetvis ur den intervjuades perspektiv, men ett perspektiv som man sällan sett i svensk media. Trots att många mer eller mindre lagt nästan hela skulden på ”deras” misslyckanden...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369443/
Citat:
”Upwards of 70% of the Covid19 death toll in Sweden has been people in elderly care services (as of mid-May 2020). We summarize the Covid19 tragedy in elderly care in Sweden, particularly in the City of Stockholm.
The present report is based in part on interviews of a professional who has worked in elderly care for 30 years, and for the past 17 years has worked in Stockholm city’s most important elderly-care administrative institution (Äldreförvaltningen).
She works in that institution’s department that is most significant particularly as concerns the Covid crisis (Stadsövergripande avdelningen). Her name is Barbro Karlsson and her job title is Senior Technical Advisor. (...)Her perspective is a side of the story that has been little heard.
”Stern: The press and media in Sweden and YouTube material by Giesecke and others seem to be leaving people with the impression that Stockholm elderly care has failed terribly in protecting the elderly. What is your view?
Karlsson: The Public Health Agency (PHA) does indeed give that impression. They have not actually pointed a finger at us, in elderly care, but when they say “We’ve failed in the elderly care sector” that is the impression people get.
People hear them saying: “We’ve done nothing wrong. It is elderly care providers in Stockholm and elsewhere who have failed to protect the elderly.”
Stern: So, are you angry at the PHA?
Karlsson: I wish they’d done more to say that “we” is the entire system. And they are at the top of that system. The picture people get is that of the elderly-care services being incompetent, indifferent, or lacking necessary means to protect their workers and their beneficiaries.
And not just the PHA. Also the prime minister and the minister of social affairs have allowed the impression of elderly care being in a state of chaos, with low quality care and staff that does not do a proper job of protecting the individuals under their care. Those impressions are wrong.
(...)The really frustrating thing in this whole media confusion is that people don’t realize that, while the municipalities and regions make final decisions for the care within their own systems, there is a strong norm of following the lead of the PHA.
So now, it is unfair for people to say that the initiation of changes and adjustments should have come from the local players. Changes and adjustments are usually carefully discussed and assessed by PHA and the other state agencies [such as the National Board and the MSR, discussed above]. Their approval carries great weight. Now, everyone expects us to be the source of quick changes.
Stern: So, what happened in February and early March?
Karlsson: Stockholm city has followed PHA strictly from day one. For instance, it took several weeks before the PHA declared a stop of visitation. The Stockholm municipal homes had implemented visitation stops two weeks prior. And some privately run homes in the system were even earlier to shutdown visitors.
Stern: How about protective equipment?
Karlsson: In the beginning of the crisis, there was a shortage of protective equipment but not really any more [said on 10 May 2020].
Today we are in a good position to follow the guidelines as set up by the PHA. The difficulty now is the conflicting information about protective devices coming from elsewhere, increasing the worry of staff and the elderly.
And it does not help that the PHA itself suddenly changes its recommendations, as they did recently regarding the use of face masks.
When Tegnell then says “it is up to the municipalities” he seems to be avoiding possible blame and leaving it to the municipalities to take over responsibilities. The municipalities are accustomed to PHA guidance and are worried that PHA will disapprove of what they do.
When that is what everyone is used to, it becomes a problem when the recommendations from PHA are fuzzy.
In the end, Stockholm city decided to stick with using a face visor and did not mandate face masks”
The present report is based in part on interviews of a professional who has worked in elderly care for 30 years, and for the past 17 years has worked in Stockholm city’s most important elderly-care administrative institution (Äldreförvaltningen).
She works in that institution’s department that is most significant particularly as concerns the Covid crisis (Stadsövergripande avdelningen). Her name is Barbro Karlsson and her job title is Senior Technical Advisor. (...)Her perspective is a side of the story that has been little heard.
”Stern: The press and media in Sweden and YouTube material by Giesecke and others seem to be leaving people with the impression that Stockholm elderly care has failed terribly in protecting the elderly. What is your view?
Karlsson: The Public Health Agency (PHA) does indeed give that impression. They have not actually pointed a finger at us, in elderly care, but when they say “We’ve failed in the elderly care sector” that is the impression people get.
People hear them saying: “We’ve done nothing wrong. It is elderly care providers in Stockholm and elsewhere who have failed to protect the elderly.”
Stern: So, are you angry at the PHA?
Karlsson: I wish they’d done more to say that “we” is the entire system. And they are at the top of that system. The picture people get is that of the elderly-care services being incompetent, indifferent, or lacking necessary means to protect their workers and their beneficiaries.
And not just the PHA. Also the prime minister and the minister of social affairs have allowed the impression of elderly care being in a state of chaos, with low quality care and staff that does not do a proper job of protecting the individuals under their care. Those impressions are wrong.
(...)The really frustrating thing in this whole media confusion is that people don’t realize that, while the municipalities and regions make final decisions for the care within their own systems, there is a strong norm of following the lead of the PHA.
So now, it is unfair for people to say that the initiation of changes and adjustments should have come from the local players. Changes and adjustments are usually carefully discussed and assessed by PHA and the other state agencies [such as the National Board and the MSR, discussed above]. Their approval carries great weight. Now, everyone expects us to be the source of quick changes.
Stern: So, what happened in February and early March?
Karlsson: Stockholm city has followed PHA strictly from day one. For instance, it took several weeks before the PHA declared a stop of visitation. The Stockholm municipal homes had implemented visitation stops two weeks prior. And some privately run homes in the system were even earlier to shutdown visitors.
Stern: How about protective equipment?
Karlsson: In the beginning of the crisis, there was a shortage of protective equipment but not really any more [said on 10 May 2020].
Today we are in a good position to follow the guidelines as set up by the PHA. The difficulty now is the conflicting information about protective devices coming from elsewhere, increasing the worry of staff and the elderly.
And it does not help that the PHA itself suddenly changes its recommendations, as they did recently regarding the use of face masks.
When Tegnell then says “it is up to the municipalities” he seems to be avoiding possible blame and leaving it to the municipalities to take over responsibilities. The municipalities are accustomed to PHA guidance and are worried that PHA will disapprove of what they do.
When that is what everyone is used to, it becomes a problem when the recommendations from PHA are fuzzy.
In the end, Stockholm city decided to stick with using a face visor and did not mandate face masks”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369443/
