The Keogh Review turns out to one of the best documents produced for our NHS.  Clear, concise, brief and informed by evidence.  It doesn’t look to blame, doesn’t make overt recommendations that can be tracked and ticked off.  It just makes sense.

It does not portray 14 further Mid Staffs and its forensic approach probably should make us think again about what exactly we learned from a review by lawyers.

It bears no resemblance to the media coverage it received before it was published.  It draws lessons only when justified from the evidence from the 14 trusts that were examined – it makes no links at all to politics or policies.  It is about now, not about years ago.

It actually talks to an NHS before the Lansley reforms!  It makes no allowance for competition and markets and assumes parts of the NHS will be willing to help out other parts; commissioners will work with providers and even puts a strategic body into play focused on quality.  It talks as if the old levers were still there to pull!  It hardly refers to commissioning, money flows, targets, the drive for FT status don’t get much traction.

It will greatly disappoint the various conspiracy theorists and those who claimed it should show the whole NHS was awful; how long before the accusations of a cover up or use of whitewash begin.

It makes clear that the process used, let’s call it peer review, is far more effective than anything regulators can deploy and that it found things they would not. It sets out that they found poor management, poor leadership including clinical leadership and many examples of issues caused by inappropriate levels of staffing; and it found too many trust specific issues that needed urgent attention.  It leaves that as problems for local management to resolve with some external help – it does not say the problems were caused by particular policies or particular external forces.  It does not castigate regulators for not being able to find as much.  It does not call for sackings and retribution or apologies.

It puts the use of HSMR and SHMI where it should be, pointing out they give different answers, and refuting in strong terms the stupid and dangerous claims about excess deaths, as did Francis – for all the good it did.  The proposed development of proper measures, based on case notes review, and measuring avoidable deaths is one we have long argued for.

The ambitions set out are not for magic or instant solutions – it will take years to achieve them.  But they sound right.

  • Moving on from statistical arguments (often backed by commercial interests) to actually reducing avoidable deaths.
  • Making sure those who manage can actually understand and analyse the wealth of data that is already produced.
  • Making far better and more creative roles for patients, carers and public – convincing them they are listened to; making them partners.
  • Having a CQC that we can have some confidence in because it involves clinicians and the patients.
  • Reinforcing the coherence of the NHS – stopping the idea of trusts as separate isolated (competing?) entities.
  • Having the right skill mix at all times matching the caseload, not in theory but in place 24/7.
  • Making best use of the small army of junior doctors (one we haven’t advocated!).
  • Valuing the staff and understanding that happy and engaged staff will deliver the best patient outcomes (always our favourite!).

This is good solid sensible stuff.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

4 Comments

  1. Mervyn says:

    Both he and his deputy said today on BBC news that HSMR statistics should not be used in future and are discredited, also that he made no mention of 13,000 deaths. that information was leaked and the interviewer remarked it could backfire on the government as this is the second time controversial statistics had been leaked to the press.

  2. Suzi says:

    It was outrageous that the Tory press made such outlandish claims before the ink was dry on the report, which were immediately denied by Sir Bruce Keogh. I agree on your comments I have read it and it is a great model to follow with underlying common sense that also gives praise where it is due. Unfortunately it still has not stopped the crazy sensational headlines and wealth of negative comments about my local hospital , that has frightened so many people which is very sad as there is so much good work goes on there. Obviously there are major challenges that need to be addressed immediately/urgently but this reads as if it is all attainable,. I love also that he speaks so highly of our NHS, that transforms the lives (and of course saves them) of many people and we must not ever forget that and spread that message far and wide…….

  3. Ian Spencer says:

    Excellent report by Sir Bruce. Using multi-disciplinary teams they identified problems and proposed solutions. The teams were cooperative rather than confrontational and appear to have been respected at the Trusts. Oh, that we could have a government that took such a balanced view of facts.

  4. Why is no-one willing to question how much longer consultant will be able to operate their firms in a way that is little changed from the 19th century?

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 490 other subscribers

Follow us on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: