Doctors with Long Covid - Occupational Disease Survey

URGENT APPEAL FOR INFORMATION

A survey has been launched by Long Covid Doctors for Action jointly with the British Medical Association. It aims to collect data from all medical doctors (whether or not a BMA member) who have been affected by Long Covid or other post-acute Covid health complications.

The survey, which only takes 20 minutes to complete, can be accessed here:

Link to Survey

Please note: There is no 'save and return' function and so the survey does need to be completed in one sitting.

If you are a doctor and have experienced Long Covid, we urge you to participate in the survey before the deadline of 5pm on January 6th. Your input will be crucial in helping to understand the impact of this condition on the medical profession and in advocating for the necessary support and resources. For reasons explained in the Q&A below, it is absolutely crucial that a high volume of comprehensive and reliable data are gathered.

Since this is a BMA survey, it specifically focuses on doctors. However, the results of the survey will be relevant across the entire health and social care sector and will be used to campaign and advocate for ALL healthcare workers (HCWs), not just doctors.

We entreat anyone reading this appeal, whether a doctor, other healthcare professional, patient or member of the public - If you happen to know of a doctor who has suffered from Long Covid, please draw this survey to their attention.

Q. How widespread is Long Covid amongst HCWs and what are its implications?

As reported in this Guardian article, tens of thousands of HCWs are suffering chronic and debilitating illness. Many are losing their employment, their career and their income, some losing their homes and becoming bankrupt. Some have massive student loans to pay off, with no means of doing this.

Q. Surely the affected workers have rights under civil law to compensation for diseases arising from their occupation?

Yes, that is true. Employees may bring personal injury (PI) claims against their employer for injury or disease caused by their work. However there are currently two main problems with this:

  1. There appears to be a widespread reluctance amongst lawyers to pursue PI claims, seemingly because they fear that Judges will throw out the case on the grounds that it may set a precedent to 'open the floodgates'. If such a 'no win - no fee'claim fails, the lawyers are out of pocket. This seems to be a greater concern to them than the rights of the claimant to a fair hearing and the compensation to which they may be entitled.
  2. Throughout the pandemic, there has been a widespread reluctance amongst employers (especially NHS Trusts and Boards) to acknowledge that HCWs acquired their disease through their work as opposed to "out in the community". It is hoped that the results of this survey will help to demonstrate the extent to which "occupational exposure" has contributed to HCW illnesses.

Q. Are there any means of compensation possible other than through PI claims?

Yes, but not at the moment. It is hoped that Long Covid may become a compensatable disease, qualifying sufferers to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB). The organisation which advises Government on this is the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC). They lay 'command papers' before Parliament with their recommendations. However it is the Secretary of State's decision whether to accept these recommendations and enact them in legislation. One such command paper has already been submitted which (at paragraph 270) makes recommendations for HCWs with 5 diseases. It is hoped that this list may be further extended, but the Council needs more data to support further recommendations.

Dr Lesley Rushton, the Chair of the IIAC recently gave evidence to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus. The following 3 video-clips explain more about this:

  • Clip 1 : Explains the Industrial Injuries Disablement Scheme
  • Clip 2 : Explains the need for 'robust data' relating occupational links to Long Covid
  • Clip 3 : Explains the need for good studies of occupational groups

If you watch these short clips (less than 1 minute each) it will be immediately apparent how the LCD4A/BMA survey fits in - it may provide just the evidence that IIAC are so desperately seeking.

Q. Isn't there lots of data available about the amount of disease amongst HCWs?

There ought to be, but the sad fact of the matter is that there isn't.

Whilst one would have hoped that the Government (DHSC) would be collecting and collating relevant data, they have confirmed that they are not.

Under the RIDDOR Regulations (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013) employers (e.g. NHS Trusts/Boards) have a duty to report cases of occupational disease and death to the Health and Safety Executive. However this has not been done as diligently as it should - as referenced in paragraphs 110-113 and table 10 of the IIAC command paper.

Again, the data obtained by the LCD4A/BMA survey should help to provide more realistic figures and expose the sheer absurdity of the RIDDOR data (only 12,330 HCWs cases of occupational disease and only 307 COVID deaths). The larger the volume of data obtained via the survey, the more persuasive a case can be made, not just to the IIAC but also to the UK and Scottish Public Inquiries.

Q. Does the survey collect data about HCW exposure to COVID at the 'front line'?

Yes, questions are asked about the likelihood of the disease being caught at work rather than 'out in the community'. If you listen to Clip 1 above, you will hear Dr Rushton use the term 'balance of probabilities'. So in terms of the disease being classed as "occupational exposure", that is the level of 'proof' needed i.e. that it is "more likely than not" that the disease was acquired as a result of a person's work. Some NHS Trusts/Boards have sought to apply a much higher standard of proof. The survey results may enable that stance to be challenged.

The survey also asks about PPE that was in use at the time of contracting COVID. In particular questions are asked about the masks that were provided (if at all) and especially what type (e.g. surgical masks, FFP3, etc.).