%0 Journal Article %A Lavinia Bertini %A Leanne Bogen-Johnston %A Jo Middleton %A Wendy Wood %A Shanu Sadhwani %A Julien Forder %A Daniel Roland %A Rebecca Sharp %A John Drury %A Jackie A Cassell %T COVID-19 management in social care in England: a systematic review of changing policies and newspaper reported staff perspectives %D 2021 %R 10.1101/2021.11.17.21266410 %J medRxiv %P 2021.11.17.21266410 %X Adult social care has been a major focus of public attention and infection control guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a high mortality both for carers and those receiving care. To protect themselves and others from infection, staff in residential and domiciliary care settings had to quickly adapt to infection control measures that heavily impacted on their working and every-day life, whilst navigating new responsibilities, uncertainties and anxieties. We sought to explore the production and reception of guidance and look at ways these can be adapted to improve the working life of care staff in domiciliary and residential care whilst reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission amid this pandemic and of future emerging infections.We conducted two complementary and integrated systematic reviews of published documents in the pre-vaccination era: (1) National guidance for social care (conducted between 29 July to 28 October 2020), and (2) Newspaper coverage of infection control issues in social care (conducted between 27th July to 10th September 2020).Three higher order common themes emerged in the integrated systematic review of guidance documents and newspaper articles: a) Testing, b) Personal Protective Equipment, c) Employment. The reviews revealed a sharp disjunction between the content of infection control guidance and its usability and applicability in social care settings. We suggest that infection control guidance needs to be better adapted to social care settings and informed by the sector. The practicalities of care work and care settings need to be at the core of the process for guidance to be relevant and effective. Modes and timings of communications also need to be optimised.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by NIHR ARC, Kent Surrey and Sussex, Higher Education Innovation Fund of University of Sussex, NIHR Clinical Research Network Kent Surrey Sussex. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/11/20/2021.11.17.21266410.full.pdf