Category Archives: London

Grenfell laid raw the harsh realities for many living in London today. Many stories unfolded in the aftermath. There was the tale of two cities. The question of worth. The story of inexcusable inequality, and lives cut short by political failings. There was also the story of invisibility and fear. The undocumented migrants who died in the fire, forever anonymous, and the survivors who went into hiding, too scared to seek help.

I went to Grenfell with the charity Doctors of the world UK, a week after the fire. At Westway, the pop-up relief centre, we enquired who to liaise with and were told to speak to Sheena*, she appeared to be coordinating the medical response. We arranged a meeting, she explained what medical support was currently happening and we discussed the logistics of how our charity could help. At the end of the meeting, I asked what was her position. I had assumed she was from the government, or Public Health England, or at least from the council. She told us she was a filmmaker, lived locally, and had come to help the day after the fire. In the void of any eminence of leadership, she ended up as the unofficial coordinator of the medical response. I was dumbfounded.

There was no doubt that Sheena* and all the other volunteers at Westway, were doing incredible work to provide their best support for the Grenfell victims. But I couldn’t help ask myself the question; Had it been the neighbouring luxury flats in flames, would the medical relief effort be left to be coordinated by a filmmaker? It just seemed ludicrous.

In the weeks after the fire, the question I heard repeatedly, how did this happen in the richest borough in London? The question we should have been asking, prior to Grenfell, is why in Kensington borough, is there a 14-year difference in average life expectancy between the richest and the poor? Why, since 2010, did that century-long increase in life expectancy plateau?

Across the UK lives every day are silently cut short, from austerity, poor housing, deprivation and political decisions. According to DoH own data, in all of their 15 markers, health inequality among rich and poor has widened under the coalition and the Tories (after improving over the previous decade). Grenfell laid it raw. But the squeeze on public finances since 2010 is linked to nearly 120,000 excess deaths in England. Housing is core factor. 100,000s live in squalid, unsafe housing. Research by Shelter found that 48% of families in social housing who reported issues about unsafe conditions felt ignored or were refused help. The health implications of this we will be felt for decades.

It also became very clear within our first few hours at Westway, that in Grenfell tower there had been many asylum seekers and undocumented migrants residing. Many had since gone into hiding, too scared to seek help or medical care as they feared deportation. A volunteer told me there was a family that had escaped and were worried about their baby’s breathing but was too scared to seek help as they had a teenage son who was undocumented. We were told of an African woman in her 40s, who had fallen down the stairs on escaping the fire. Her partner and relatives were missing, She was experiencing dizziness and memory loss, but was too scared to go to A&E.

Unfortunately, their fears are not ill-founded. Migrants too scared to access care is not a new story. At the Doctors of the World clinic, regularly see pregnant women, cancer patients, victims of trafficking and abuse, too scared to access mainstream health services. This is due to laws brought in under Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment’ policy, which uses health care as an anti-immigration tool. The most recent, brought in 2 months before Grenfell, made it a mandatory legal requirement for healthcare staff to refer migrant patients to the home office if they access hospital care.

Thee were also concerns about visiting the GP surgeries. This is due to a controversial deal the home office has with NHS Digital (that was introduced without the knowledge of NHS staff) allowing the home office to access migrants data held by GP surgeries. The British Medical Association has vehemently opposed this, stating this breach of confidentiality undermines the sacred doctor-patient relationship and will deter the potentially vulnerable from seeking care. In January, after years of us campaigning, the Health Select committee enquired into this data sharing, determining “We are seriously concerned about the way NHS Digital has approached its duty to respect and promote confidentiality”, calling a halt and full review. Yet, the data sharing continues. It appears migrants do not have the right to medical confidentiality as the rest of us.

It was under these circumstances that Doctors of the World was forced to launch a safe and confidential pop-up clinic near Grenfell Tower, staffed by volunteers, to help survivors who were too afraid to get NHS care. We also had to write Jeremy Hunt, urging him to publicly state that survivors will not have their details shared with the Home Office. It was shameful this needed to be done, in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy. These racial ‘hostile environment’ policies remain in place in the NHS, as highlighted by the Windrush scandal. Encouraging fear around accessing services is a dangerous policy, makes migrants vulnerable, marginalized and invisible.

Grenfell exposed the human cost of austerity. To give justice to the victims, we need to ask the difficult questions. Do the lives of those on our streets have equal worth? Have our politicians addressed the structural discrimination, classism, and racism that underlaid the tragedy?

Lessons learnt? I’ll let you answer that.

*name changed to maintain anonymity

Dr Sonia Adesara – NHS Doctor and activist

Tagged | 1 Comment

Under instruction from the Government, new health proposals across England have been drawn up called Sustainability and Transformation Plans. The plan for our area called “Our Healthier South East London” has now been published with the far greater detail requested by Lewisham Labour. We are worried about the severe funding cuts to the NHS which means the area faces a shortfall of nearly £1billion by 2020/21 if nothing changes.

This week the British Red Cross said the NHS faced a humanitarian crisis because the Tory government has systemically underfunded the NHS and cut over £4.6 Billion from social care in the last Parliament. To make South East London NHS STP a success it will need far more resources.

When the British Red Cross is warning of a humanitarian crisis in our health service and even the head of the NHS says there is not enough money, you have to take notice. So I do not have any faith in the government as it is projected that adult social care will be underfunded by some £242 million across the six boroughs – Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham – annually by 2020-2021. We must evaluate the plans carefully and rigorously on behalf of the people of Lewisham and the rest of South East London. It is clear a partnership approach across the whole of Greater London is the right approach. No-one will argue with that. Higher quality and more integrated social care, acute care, elective care with specialist and mental health services is a good thing. But we have to make sure that we get it!

The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign’s detailed report shows that they believe that the flawed financial modelling could ultimately threaten the future of the A&E again so you can be sure that we will crawl all over these plans wielding a fine toothcomb!

Alan Hall South East London

Lewisham Council passed my motion at the November 2016 Full Council.

COUNCIL MOTION – Proposed by Cllr Alan Hall
NHS SUSTAINABILITY AND TRANSFORMATION PLANS

“The Council welcomes the publication of South East London’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). The Council also notes:

  • That there is a significant shortage of funds in the NHS and social care system
  • That respected think tank The Kings Fund has publicly expressed its numerous concerns over the STP process including:

“Tight deadlines have made it difficult to secure meaningful involvement in the plans from key stakeholders, including patients and the public, local authorities, clinicians and other frontline staff.”

“Despite the focus on local ownership, key elements of the process have been ‘top-down’.”

“National requirements and deadlines for the plans have changed over time, and guidance for STP leaders has sometimes been inconsistent and often arrived late.”

Therefore, the Council resolves to:

  • Request full publication of all associated documents and appendices
  • Request pre decision scrutiny on changes to NHS and social care provision locally
  • Require full public consultation on significant changes to any services
  • Call on HM Government to provide the resources to fund good quality services across South East London and re-affirms its commitment to an Accident and Emergency Department on the Lewisham Hospital site
Tagged | 1 Comment

I owe the NHS everything. I was born in St George’s Hospital in Tooting, as were my two daughters. I know how crucial our health service is to millions of Londoners on a daily basis. That’s why so many Londoners share my alarm at how the Tories have allowed the NHS to drift into crisis.

London's health

Despite the magnificent efforts of our doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, patients are suffering. Year on year, waiting lists get longer, it’s harder to see your GP, and waiting times in A&E and for ambulances are increasing. The NHS in London has fallen into a large financial deficit, threatening future cuts to services, while mental health services can’t cope with growing demand. The high cost of living and shortage of affordable homes means many hospitals are struggling to recruit and retain health workers. Underfunded social care services mean that many Londoners don’t receive early support to prevent avoidable hospital admissions. And, since NHS London was abolished by the Tories, London is without the city-wide strategic leadership on health it desperately needs.

Londoners need a Mayor who will stand up for the city’s health services. I’m determined to be that Mayor, using City Hall to argue for the resources the NHS needs, defending it against Tory attacks, and campaigning alongside patients, health-workers and all NHS supporters against any service closures or reconfigurations without proper consultation. I will fight for new powers to plan and coordinate services across the city, and use them, in collaboration with partners, to ensure that all Londoners have proper access to health services, with solutions tailored to the different needs of patients, communities and places. And I will do what I can to ensure that we move towards parity of esteem between physical and mental health and illness.

Leadership on health

As Mayor, I want to take the lead on health in the city. I will:

  • Be a champion for London’s NHS, protecting you, your friends and your family from the worst of the Tory failure on health in the capital, fighting for greater support for GP, A&E, London Ambulance Service and mental health services, and integration of services around the patient.
  • Campaign for extra powers to coordinate your health services across the city to provide proper strategic planning, and ensure greater access for Londoners to crucial services while providing democratic scrutiny of London-wide health services. 
  • Work with the NHS and the London Ambulance Service to help improve staff retention and recruitment.
  • Champion the need for additional funding to plug the social care gap, and the joining up of services to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. I will promote borough innovation and leadership on the ground to shift from reactive care to prevention, early intervention and care closer to home.
  • Launch a review of the provision of bus services to London’s hospitals.

Improving public health

I will be a Mayor who takes action to improve public health and tackle health inequalities in London. The current Mayor has neglected this crucial area, despite the spreading of diseases that we once thought were eradicated here such as TB and measles, worsening air pollution, and the alarming growth in childhood obesity. I won’t duck the difficult decisions necessary to improve the health of all Londoners. I will:

  • Get to grips with health inequality in London, leading from City Hall on reducing the spread of infectious diseases and promoting healthier lifestyles to harder-to-reach groups and communities, while improving the screening of Londoners to halt the spread of TB.
  • Develop a comprehensive public health strategy, focused around the promotion of active lifestyles, including sport, walking and cycling, to all Londoners, supporting those who want to shake off lifestyle risks such as drugs, smoking and alcohol, and tackling childhood obesity, including through challenging the spread of fast food shops in areas close to schools.
  • Tackle London’s dangerously polluted air.
  • Renew our focus on prevention of and screening for HIV, working with boroughs on collective commissioning and provision of prevention services and ensuring that effective information on HIV is reaching the right audiences.

Greater support for mental health

So many of us suffer from mental health problems at some point in our lives, yet there is still a stigma attached to mental illness, and within our health services, mental health still does not enjoy parity of esteem with physical health. I will:

  • Lead a campaign to break down the stigma of mental illness, and improve the availability of information and support, particularly amongst young men in London, and particular at-risk groups such as BAME men, and the LGBT+ community.
  • Promote and support Mental Health Awareness Week.
  • Coordinate efforts to reduce the number of people who take their own lives. I will expand best practice in crisis care support, and encourage better joint working between boroughs, health services, police, transport and voluntary sectors when dealing with people with mental health issues.

This comes from Sadiq’s manifesto.

Tagged | Leave a comment

What the London mayoral candidates have to say about housing policy:

CandidateZac GoldsmithSian BerrySadiq KhanCaroline PidgeonPeter Whittle
Total annual housebuilding target50,000 a year by 2020200,000 over a 4 year term50,000150,000 private units over 4 year term
Affordable housing target64,000 social and low cost rent, 400,000 low cost ownership• At least half of all new housing to be affordable
• Housing Associations to deliver 180,000 new homes over 10 years
50,000 council homes over 4 year term
Planning• Expert ‘flying planners’ team to support LA planning departments
• Standard viability assessments for affordable homes in developments
• Chief Architect for London
• London Plan to set aside more homes for Londoners on average salaries
• Reintroduce 50% affordable housing target for individual developments, require transparency on viability assessments
• Protect Zero Carbon definition
• Offer communities a Right to Regenerate – becoming partners in the planning
of opportunity areas and housing zones
• Develop planning rules to tackle ‘buy-to-leave’
• Improve planning and design to offer older Londoners more choice of suitable housing
• Greater transparency on viability assessments for affordable homes in developments
• Use powers more effectively to encourage home building, including benchmark that half of housing in new developments should be affordable for majority
of Londoners
Large development consents to be decided by local referendums
Development • Guarantee homes built on Mayoral land are only for Londoners – Homes built on TfL land reserved for those living in London for at least 3 years
• ‘London share’ retained in public sector land sold for development
• Company with a £0.5bln fund from council tax
to support smaller and community builders
• Free home insulation for homeowners
• Break up bigger development sites up into smaller plots
• Setting up ‘Homes for Londoners’ and building alliance of all with a stake in housebuilding
• Affordable homes to include social rent, new London Living Rent and part-buy- part-rent
• Attract institutional investors to finance homes for
long-term, secure rent
• City-hall owned developer to delivery 50,000 affordable homes
• Continue to levy Olympic Precept – leading to accessing finance of up to
£2 billion to build housing*
• Register of London’s brownfield sites
• Prioritise Londoners when developing on GLA land
Buyers • Londoners given first refusal on new-build homes built on TfL land
• ‘Mayor’s mortgage’ for
new-build property, 9 month agreement in principle window (instead of 6 months)
• Phase out shared ownership and replace with models such as mutual home ownership which will remain affordable in the longer term
• Campaign to reform leasehold law
• Londoners given ‘first dibs’ on all homes built on Mayoral land
• Seek to extend ‘first dibs’ to homes built on public land and to a proportion of homes built in all developments across
the Capital
Private Rented Sector• Three-year tenancies offered as standard
• Target high fees charged by estate agents to tenants
• Campaign for employers to offer ‘deposit loans’ for rental deposits to workers
• Create a ‘union for renters’
– which would be an advice and lobbying group
• Set up a register for landlords, which would allow tenants to rate and compare landlords
• Rogue landlords named and shamed in public database
• Set up not-for-profit lettings agency
• Increase renters’ rights on tenancy lengths and rents
• Promote landlord licensing and make the case for a London-wide scheme
• Promote 3-5 year tenancies
• All landlords to be registered
• Scrap agents’ lettings fees for tenants
Higher taxes for buy-to-let investors who leave property empty
Right to buy (Right to Buy comes under Central Government remit)Encouraging 2 for 1 replacement of properties sold• Lobby for end of Right to Buy
• Work with Councils and Housing Associations to mitigate impact of Housing and Planning Bill
Right-to-buy should come with a guarantee that a like- for-like replacement home for social rent will be built in local area• Scrap RtB for Social Tenants
• Introduce RtB for private tenants when landlords sell property
* Green beltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the GreenbeltProtect the Greenbelt
Estate regenerationRegeneration to replace run-down estates with
mansion blocks and terraces
– where a majority of local residents in favour
• No complete demolition unless absolutely necessary
• Regeneration to be led by residents who have right to independent ballot and support from Community Homes Unit
• Regeneration only with full resident support, demolition only where other options have been exhausted
• In-fill to boost housing numbers
HomelessnessExpand ‘No First Night Out’ which helps identify those at risk of homelessnessExpanding ‘No First Night Out’ scheme, with plans to end rough sleepingSet up ‘No Nights Sleeping Rough’ taskforce to oversee funding and implementation of Mayor’s priorities in this areaExpanding ‘No first night out’ schemeSet up a homelessness register at City Hall
Do you support:
Crossrail 2 YesYesYesYesNo
Bakerloo extension YesYesYesYes-
HS2 YesNoYesYes (but ensure impact on London is minimised)No
Heathrow extension
No
No (and close London City Airport)NoNoNo
EU membershipLeaveRemainRemainRemainLeave
Tagged | Leave a comment

First draft of a section of Labour’s Manifesto for London.

The challenge

Londoners deserve to live in a safe and healthy city. But for too many Londoners, crime still blights their communities and ill health still affects some sections of the population more than others.

While crime has been falling for over two decades, there are worrying signs of that certain crimes are on the rise. In particular, data shows that sexual violence and knife crime are increasing. Falling budgets are biting into the number of police on our city’s streets, and there is a very real risk that community policing may disappear altogether. Some communities are still lacking in confidence in the police, and there is still a worrying under-representation of BAME officers in the Met.

Victims of crime are still too often ignored or treated as an afterthought. Without confidence in our justice system, victims and witnesses won’t come forward and report crimes, and perpetrators will be free to walk the streets.

London is blighted by some dramatic health inequalities that shame a developed country. Across the city, there are wide variations in life expectancy, incidences of disease and in obesity. Too many Londoners are dying prematurely as a consequence of our polluted air – a scandal which cannot be allowed to continue.

Sadiq’s plan

Sadiq wants to build a London in which all its citizens feel safe and live long and healthy lives. He will transform the city’s police force so it looks more like the communities it serves, and in an era when the Met is facing devastating cuts, fight for more resources to prevent and tackle crime

Public health will be a high priority, with action to improve London’s air quality and challenge childhood obesity, alongside a focus on mental health.

  •  Put victims first: Sadiq wants to build a London in which all its citizens feel safe and live long and healthy lives. He will transform the city’s police force so it looks more like the communities it serves, and in an era when the Met is facing devastating cuts, fight for more resources to prevent and tackle crime
  •  Building community confidence in our police force: Sadiq will reinvigorate plans to create a more diverse Metropolitan Police force so that London’s police look and sound like the communities they are employed to serve. He will ensure the use of stop and search is intelligence led, and not targeted or overused in a way that undermines communitypolice relations.
  •  Tackling childhood obesity and ill health: Sadiq will use planning powers to restrict the growth of fast food outlets near schools and colleges, and promote physical activity and access to nature for all young people to help tackle childhood obesity, while working to tackle childhood hunger and malnutrition.
  • Cleaning our air: Sadiq will promote clean energy schemes, make our public transport network greener, make cycling safer and create more green spaces in order to reduce the damaging effects of filthy air on Londoners.
  • Taking public health seriously: In addition to prioritising cleaner air and tackling childhood obesity, Sadiq will work with health services and professionals across London to ensure a coordinated and proactive approach to prevention. He will work to promote parity of esteem between mental and physical health and ensure that all people, especially young people have access to mental health information, advice and support in the schools and communities.

Questions for consultation

  1. How can we deal with the major challenges facing community policing in a time of tough public finances?
  2. What new ideas and strategies might be employed to help better detect and fight crime?
  3. How can we build a Metropolitan Police force that is representative of London, and ensure that all of our communities have confidence in the force?
  4. What else should we be doing to improve the way victims and witnesses in London are treated?
  5. What are the key public health challenges for London and how should we address them?
  6. What can the Mayor do to support and improve London’s emergency services?
  7.  What other key challenges and priorities exist in this area?

The consultation closes at 6pm on 27 November 2015. Respond online

Tagged | Leave a comment

“Some people believe football is a matter of life and death,” Bill Shankly, Liverpool FC’s manager between 1959 and 1974, once said. “I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that”. Now imagine the newspaper headlines if at the end of the football season three of the biggest English football clubs – Manchester City, Everton and Liverpool – were relegated from the league. If football were really a matter of life and death, this is exactly what would happen.

We put together a public health league table which ranks the areas local to the 2014-15 Premier League football clubs from best to worst using key health indicators with a corresponding code: the percentage of smokers (P, played); weight – percentage of obesity and overweight (W, won); deaths – all cause mortality rates per 100.000 (D, drawn); life expectancy for males in years (L, lost); female life expectancy in years (F, for); alcohol-related hospital admissions per 100,000 (A, against); and the gap or difference in life expectancy for men between the most and least deprived areas of the local authority in years (GD, goal difference).

The final league points represent the sum of ranks for each outcome. For example, Chelsea’s league-winning score of 114 points comes from ranking second for P, first for W, D, L, F, and A and last for GD.

Public Health League

While Chelsea would still be winners in the public health league table, Crystal Palace, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs would join them in the top four, with West Ham in fifth place. As the bottom three in the table, Manchester City, Everton and Liverpool are all relegated.

The data we used came from PHE Outcomes Framework Data, the Office for National Statistics and the Public Health Observatory Wales. Premier League clubs were geo-referenced to the local area with which they are most associated, so Manchester United’s data, for example, is for Trafford Council, Chelsea FC is represented by data from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Swansea is represented by data from the local health board (although the Wales average had to be used for the alcohol variable). Liverpool and Everton have the same data as their grounds, Anfield and Goodison,are located in the same local authority.

Life expectancies

Apart from throwing up some unusual league places, the league table also further demonstrates the extent of the north-south divide in health in England: the top half of the table is dominated by southern clubs and the relegated trio are all from the north-west. To those working in public health, this will not be surprising as the cities of Liverpool and Manchester have some of the worst health outcomes in the country. The contrast between winners Chelsea and relegated Manchester City in terms of life expectancy is immense at seven years for men and six years for women.

The PHLT also demonstrates the local health inequalities that exist within our towns and cities. So while Manchester United place in the top four, their “noisy neighbours” Manchester City are relegated. Life expectancy for men and women on the red side of Greater Manchester is four years higher than for those on the blue side – only a couple of miles down the road. This is probably related to the stark differences on these two sides of the same city in terms of economic deprivation with, for example, child poverty rates of 34% for Manchester City Council compared to 14% in Trafford.

Manchester death league

Even within local authorities there are high inequalities in life chances with, for example, a 14-year gap in male life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas of Chelsea.

The north-south health divide, local health inequalities, and inequalities within local authorities are a serious public health concern – to the extent that they were the subject of Due North, the first Public Health England commissioned independent review in 2014. This report recommended a number of ways in which central and local government and the voluntary sector and the NHS could help reduce these health divides. The league table is another way of showing these divisions and raising awareness of the inequalities in “life and death” that exist in our country today.

This was first published on The Conversation

Tagged | 1 Comment

A Local Example of a National Crisis

This report shows the reality and the anatomy of a crisis that is slowly unfolding nationally in the delicate networks of care in the community. Lewisham is a Labour borough which increased its majority in the election. Like many other boroughs, health and social care services are under extreme strain. It is likely to be worse in other places, as the Labour administration has done its best to protect services where it can.

Lewisham is lucky to have two committed and effective people-centred organisations: the Save Lewisham Campaign and Healthwatch. We combined forces with other local groups, such as Carers Lewisham, to explore in detail both the best of community care and the reality of day to day care.

Together, we carried out an Appreciative Inquiry which defined excellent care by looking at the best care already provided in the borough as described by the stories of users, clinicians and managers. Then we did the same, but this time looking at the day to day reality of care. This is what is described here.

Lewisham enquiry

This report explores community health and social care in Lewisham. The report has two views on the issues. One is the patient and service user experience captured through an extensive community engagement programme by Healthwatch Lewisham. The other is the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign’s complementary analysis of the provision of community care services and the impact of financial constraints and reductions on services, service users and staff.

Community care is an often almost invisible but vital web of support for the most vulnerable in our society receiving care outside hospital and often in our own homes.  Service users may find it hard to comment on their quality of care and it can therefore be difficult to monitor the impact of any reduction or change to provision.  It is easy to see a hospital and get angry when it is threatened. It is harder to see threats to a jigsaw of services to an often vulnerable and sometimes silent population. Community care is a prerequisite for safe and effective care pathways between hospital and home. With pressures to reduce hospital provision, it is even more essential to examine current community provision.

This report follows the Appreciative Inquiry that demonstrated the excellent quality of care in Lewisham. This Inquiry gives voice to service users of community care in Lewisham who may find it more difficult to comment on these services rather than those of a hospital. The Inquiry showed that, from the points of view of users, clinicians and NHS managers, the following dimensions of care were key to a good service:

  • Time
  • Accessibility
  • Smooth Proactive Pathways
  • Empowerment of the Patient
  • Professionalism, Skill, Sensitivity, Listening
  • Sees the Person and the Social Situation not just the Condition

It was also clear that privatisation of NHS services was a concern for Lewisham residents

This report explores the daily reality of community health and social care in Lewisham. We look at both the quality and the provision of services.

We have tried to extend work across the protected equality characteristics and focus on communities that are poorly heard.

The report draws on many sources of evidence: Healthwatch has gathered over 100 stories from service users and carers. The Campaign has spoken to NHS staff to provide a different perspective. The report also draws on previous Healthwatch reports and desktop research. Data was gathered using quantitative and qualitative methods, speaking with individuals and groups. Some evidence has been difficult to gather, some is incomplete, and some will change. We acknowledge that more engagement is needed with service users, particularly those receiving services at home. We invite our partners to support us to do this.

Lewisham people

The Campaign emphasises that current community care provision in Lewisham needs to be seen against central government’s financial and organisational pressure on health, social care and voluntary agencies. The TSA process disrupted some effectively growing services and networks, as has the re-organisation of the Health and Social Care Act.

  • Although NHS funding is technically static, it is effectively falling by 5% annually nationally[1]. Inflation of products and services for the NHS outstrips the national inflation rate.
  • Government money to fund local authority services in Lewisham is projected to fall by 33% by 2017–18 from the level it was in 2013–14. That is from £208.1 million to £138.3 million.
  • Adult social care spending nationally has suffered cuts of 26%: £3.53 billion over the last four years. The service is now under extreme pressure and facing financial crisis. If the trajectory of cuts experienced to date continues over the period to 2019/20 spending must fall by 21% in cash terms or 33% in real terms.
  • There is a 5% decrease nationally in the number of people receiving social care services. As the National Audit Office concludes: “Need for care is rising while public spending is falling, and there is unmet need.”
  • To set a balanced budget for this year Lewisham Council has had to agree measures to save £39m. This comes on top of £93m savings already made since 2010.
    289 more staff could be threatened with redundancy out of 1,133 staff employed.

There is a commitment to improvement in community care by the SE London Strategy Programme, the Local Authority and the CCG.  Both the NHS and the local authority agree that sometimes savings, when combined with imaginative redesign, do not inevitably result in a deterioration of service. Ensuring that the public are fully engaged in the development of current and future redesigns of community care while using existing patient experience evidence such as this report is imperative to winning the best possible community care for Lewisham.

The Campaign highlights privatisation as an additional threat. Lewisham CCG has not been known for extensive privatisation, but, nationally, independent sector providers could provide 50% of NHS community services by 2020. The Campaign points out that there is no evidence that the market improves patient outcomes, while there is ample evidence that profits go out of the NHS, staff and skills are often reduced and fragmentation increased. Companies exit because profits are inadequate – and instability results.

A consistent picture emerges from the research and the stories.

  • Staff are increasingly stretched and are working harder and longer hours. Despite these challenges, in the majority of cases users in both social and health community care still receive a quality service delivered by caring and attentive staff who listen and involve them in decisions about their care. 
  • Services overall, however, seem to be reducing in most sectors. Lack of access, resulting from a reduction in community care provision, poor co-ordination of services and continuity of care, confusion about where to access services and access information are themes arising in the second stage of this inquiry.
  • These can cause some clinicians to focus on the immediate problem rather than the bigger picture of the patient and the wider determinants of their health.
  • On occasion, as in findings on hospital discharge, services can be unsafe.

Time

Service users continue to tell us that time is vital to the quality of care they receive. Once patients access a particular service the majority feel that they are given enough time. However, this appears not to be the case in some areas of social care, and for patients with complex needs in general practice.

Accessibility

Access has been the number one issue raised during this inquiry, particularly access to GPs, chiropodists, practice nurses (in some areas) and diabetes support nurses, CAMHS and mental health services. It is a direct result of fewer, stretched staff. In services provided by the NHS, this is often because of recruitment problems.

Poor user access to information was a related issue.

Smooth Proactive Pathways.

The report finds that many patients have experienced difficulties in the coordination of different services, often when moving between services or being discharged from one service to another. It is hard to link services if they have different management structures and reduced administrative support with too few professionals to meet the demand.

The inquiry found that Continuity of Care, a related theme issue, is also compromised by lack of access to services.

Empowerment of the Patient

Most users told us that they feel supported in sharing decisions, as much as they want to, with professionals. However, there is always room for improvement, particularly when looking at carer involvement and working with patients with learning difficulties.

Professionalism, Skill, Sensitivity, Listening.

Once users get to see a professional for a service, almost all said that they are treated well, with respect, care and commitment. This, again, is a tribute to the professionals working under pressure and still delivering high quality care.

Sees the Person and the Social Situation not just the Condition

Users reported that this aspect of good practice is not always addressed. It is central to some disciplines, such as CAMHS, where understanding the wider determinants of mental health is core. However, in other disciplines, such as district nursing, it seems that pressure encourages an almost exclusive focus on the immediate.  On occasion, it appears that this can become a critical problem.

The reason for the squeeze on staff and services is clear – it is austerity.

This report supports the visions created through the Appreciative Inquiry. Service users, community leaders, health and social care staff have told us community care needs:

  • Adequate investments in community care services to ensure that service users receive the highest quality of care
  • Well trained and well paid staff, well supported, who have the time to offer patient-centred services with a focus on continuity of care
  • A holistic approach, taking into account many aspects of the patient’s life and health
  • Connectedness and cooperation between services, the voluntary sector and the community
  • Patients to be supported to make as many decisions about their care as they want
  • Patients to have all the necessary information made available to them to support them and their wellbeing, as well as enabling them to make positive choices about their health
  • Patients to be able to access services in a timely manner with choice made available wherever possible
  • Healthcare as a whole – we reject suggestions that boosting community healthcare opens the door to reductions in hospital care
  • Smooth integrated pathways: this cannot be provided through privatisation and fragmentation
  • New media to be used where appropriate.

The Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign challenges two assumptions behind current NHS thinking. It is highly unlikely that improving community care services will enable cash-releasing cuts in hospital services. There is virtually no evidence for this. Indeed, the number of hospital beds probably needs to increase rather than contract: current bed occupancy is well over the safe threshold of 85-90%. England has fewer beds than all but one OECD country per head of population.

The Campaign calls for:

  • Increased government funding for community health and care services
  • An end to austerity for public services
  • A dissemination of this report to community groups and Lewisham residents
  • Public support for rapid and permanent support for existing staff, increasing numbers and engagement

This report has been compiled by Healthwatch Lewisham and the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign with the help of 100s of Lewisham residents and Lewisham community groups, with Carers Lewisham prominent. Some of the views are the Campaign’s alone. These are made clear.

[1] 4% is the figure usually quoted. There is an annual 1% tariff ‘deflation’ which, added together, makes a 5% average ‘cost pressure’ annually for most trusts

Full 70 page report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tagged , | Leave a comment

London has some significant health and care challenges and inequalities. The healthcare system continues to be poor at preventing ill-health and in diagnosing illness early, and too much care is provided in hospitals instead of in the community.

London has the highest average income but it is also the most polarised in the country, with people in the top 10% of households earning around five and a half times more than those in the bottom 10%. On the whole, people in the more deprived boroughs in London have poorer health. In many London boroughs poverty and affluence and the associated health inequalities exist side by side. In Tower Hamlets women have life expectancy of 54.1 years compared to 72.1 years for women in wealthier Richmond-upon-Thames, a gap of 18 years.

There is growing pressure on health and social care systems. The number of people with multiple long-term conditions is set to grow to 2.9 million by 2018 and the number of older people likely to require care is predicted to rise by over 60 per cent by 2030.

More than 1.5 million Londoners live with mental illness which ranges from anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder to schizophrenia. Mental ill health is more common in London than in other parts of the country with 18% of people living in the capital having a common mental health problem, compared to 16% nationally. London’s leading causes of premature death are from predominantly treatable conditions such as cardiovascular disease, cancers and respiratory disease. Around 80% of these deaths are attributable to lifestyle factors such as excess alcohol, smoking, lack of physical activity and poor diet. Obesity is a bigger problem in outer London, although inner London has higher rates of early death from heart disease and cancer.

Across London there is a serious shortage of home and community-based care available for patients and carers. Around a quarter of patients who do not need specialist care are admitted to hospital as a result of this, and up to 60% of patients are kept in hospital beyond five days when their needs could be met in more appropriate and cheaper community settings. State-funded social care spending decreased by £1.5 billion between 2006 and 2013 (2012/13 prices). This included a 39% reduction in the use of services for older people, 48% reduction in the use of services for adults with mental health needs and 33% reduction in the use of services by people with physical disabilities.

Hospital admissions in non-urgent cases could be avoided with better proactive management of patients’ condition in their own home or within a community facility. There is an emerging social enterprise movement of approximately 1000 healthcare co-ops working within the NHS with a combined turnover of £600m. Social enterprises, housing associations and the third sector have developed a range of services to support the marginalised and disadvantaged communities in London in part funded by personalised budgets. We need much more of this approach in London, as it puts more choice in the hands of patients and successfully prevent conditions getting so bad that admission to hospital is required.

Here’s how we could promote more patient power through the use of social enterprise in London’s healthcare system:

  • make third sector, social enterprises, co-operatives and mutals preferred providers in commissioning healthcare, and take action when there is a bias against using these providers;
  • give patients and staff more control over hospitals by changing foundation trusts into co-operatives;
  • increase the use of personalised budgets and allow budget holders to pool funding to increase their purchasing power to help shape the market and develop more choice;
  • charge private-sector NHS providers 5% of gross profit they make from these services to help develop patient-led healthcare social enterprises with a particular focus on the most socially excluded communities.

We need a co-operative healthcare agenda for London to give patients a bigger say over the care they receive, reduce health inequalities, and move towards services that prevent health conditions becoming health crises.

First published by the Co-operative Party

4 Comments

The current smog – whilst unnerving for those living through it – is a welcome opportunity to focus on an under-reported scandal of modern British public health. We are being killed, silently and invisibly in the thousands, by the air we breathe. And few in Public Health, let alone the media, is noticing. Why?

The mainstream narrative on public health this century revolves around behaviour and chronic disease. The major health challenges were tackled by the Victorians and the social reforms of the 20th Century. First sewerage and water, through factory acts and public housing, then lately the clean air act in the 1950s meant the big industrial killers and (with vaccines and antibiotics) major infectious diseases were solved. In their place we have a new set of evils – diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol and sex, particularly amongst the poor.

Public Health England has a nice list in its priorities: “We know the most significant factors that lead to poor health: smoking; high blood pressure; obesity; poor diet; lack of exercise; and excessive alcohol consumption.”

This shift fit with the New Right and then New Labour focus on individual responsibility and (at best) a behaviour-regulating Government. Regulation gave way to nudge. For the right, moralistic victim-blaming whilst railing at a state reduced to nannying personal choices. For the left, a doomed mission to explain the complex social determinants (and commercial pressures) driving behaviour itself.

So it is not surprising perhaps that air pollution has gone out of fashion since the closure of heavy industry and this shift in political status quo. Until, that is, you learn (as I did today) that air pollution is responsible for 29,000 premature deaths, half a year off life expectancy and is the second biggest cause of premature death after smoking but before obesity or alcohol. In the light of these figures, the air-brushing of pollution from the priorities of public health policy is nothing short of surreal.

Perhaps our blindness to air pollution is that, apart from this week, it is usually invisible. Perhaps, it does not fit into our understanding of post-industrial Britain where dirty industry is off-shored to the Developing world. Perhaps it is a victim of Government departmental silos, but Defra lacks the budget or (potential) clout of the Department of Health. Certainly the Treasury has been keen to dilute the Cameron Greenwash as being anti-business. But I can’t remember Labour being much louder about it – with the notable exception of Livingstone’s pioneering policies.

Is there an opportunity here for Labour to mount a populist pro-green, pro-health attack on air pollution? Nothing apparently so far from our Public Health team, admittedly busy in pursuit of mental health, sugary drinks and plain cigarette packaging this week. Miliband made a tentative foray back into the green agenda during the floods, so following up with an attack on the Government (and Johnson’s) lamentable record would seem to be an open goal in the run up to local and Euro elections. As the UK breaches EU pollution limits, killing thousands more, what better example of the potential for progressive public health policy in Europe and in local government to bring tangible impact on life and death?

Tagged | 2 Comments

Life expectancy and poverty in London

WHAT THE MAP PLOTS

  • The life expectancy at birth of those living within a 200m radius of each London Underground, London Overground and Docklands Light Railway (DLR) station
  • The rank of each London ward on the spectrum of Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index

The full map

Tagged | Leave a comment

The Socialist Health Association starts from the premise that health services should be planned to meet health needs.  Services for Londoners should be planned by a single strategic health authority for Greater London.  Londoners need access to high quality primary and community services and to a network of district general hospital services, comprising general medical, surgical and accident and emergency departments.  Referral and access to specialist services should be easily available when appropriate.  Funding for undergraduate and postgraduate education and research should be disaggregated from the provision of comprehensive local health services.

The Socialist Health Association deplores the introduction of market forces into the National Health Service.  Decisions should be determined not by extraneous costs (such as land values) but by effective use of resources and measured outcomes.

The Socialist Health Association makes the following response to the Tomlinson Report:

Historic underfunding and impact of the internal market

  1. The financial crisis in London’s hospitals is caused by a combination of a historic pattern of provision, long-term underfunding and the impact of the internal market. The market is an inappropriate way of providing health care: it threatens hospital services in areas with high overheads and capital charges and takes no account of health care need and local
  2. Funding of the NHS over many years has not matched inflation in health costs or demographic changes. The pattern of annual financial crises has forced hospital managers to take short-term measures to reduce costs, without the benefit of a broader over-view of the longer-term needs of Londoners in terms of specialist, general and geriatric beds. Capitation funding, as currently proposed, will compound the problem.
  3. Primary and community services provision has continued to be inadequate and well below national averages, due to lack of investment in staff and premises. Community services have been cut during the 1980s, with significant reductions in numbers of health visitors, community nurses and other ancillary staff.

The SHA proposes a comprehensive health needs assessment

  1. The terms of reference state that the enquiry should “take account of the health needs of London’s resident and day time populations”. However the Report states “… we have not seen it as part of our remit to carry out a comprehensive health needs assessment for the whole of London, we have looked briefly at various indicators” and “… the population of London presents a range of need unparalleled in the rest of England” (Tomlinson, paragraph 20, page 6). The Report fails to demonstrate that its recommendations will meet this range of needs and the depth of deprivation identified.
  2. The health needs section of the Report is therefore inadequate as a basis for making judgments on the health care services required. Most of the assessment focuses on mortality, but morbidity in an inner city population is often much more important as a predictor of service demand. For instance, work in City and Hackney on the needs of elderly people shows that there is a significant population of frail elderly people living alone, who require a great deal of support from community services, also having frequent admissions to hospital for acute and respite care. The number of Londoners moved out of the capital for continuing and nursing home care is not recorded, but failure to include them in assessments for NHS and local authority community care planning distorts data on the mortality and morbidity of London’s elderly population.
  3. No data is presented on infant mortality, teenage and unwanted pregnancy, vaccination and immunisation uptake rates, drug and alcohol misuse, HIV and AIDS, or cervical and breast cancer screening uptake.
  4. Any enquiry into London’s health services needs to recognise that the prevalence of social deprivation in London is particularly high. According to a Child Poverty Action Group report published in November 1991 one million Londoners live on income support and 750,000 earn poverty wages. More than 25% of schoolchildren in the twelve inner London boroughs get free school meals. By the end of November 1991 unemployment in London had risen to 11.1% while throughout 1990 almost one quarter of London’s adult full time employees were defined by the Low Pay Unit as being low paid.
  5. London Housing Unit statistics indicate that by the end of the third quarter in 1991, 60% of people in Britain accepted as homeless and living in temporary accommodation were in London. The total of unsatisfactory dwellings in London remains persistently high with some 34% of public sector housing and 24% of private housing either unfit or requiring repairs costing over £4,500 at April 1990.
  6. The level of drug misuse and the number of people diagnosed with AIDS is significantly higher in London compared to the rest of the country. London Research Centre figures indicate that almost 50% of Britain’s regular users of notifiable drugs live in London. Figures on the number of people with AIDS reveal that the four Thames regions accounted for over 70% of known cases as at 30 November 1991, due to the concentration of specialist services in London.
  7. There are many ethnic groups with different needs which must be met. They account for some 15% of London’s population, with a forecast growth of a further 6% by 2001. The diversity and mobility of the ethnic groups present challenges which need appropriate responsiveness from health as well as local authorities. This section of London’s population is often concentrated in particular areas, notably in inner London where the percentage of people of various ethnic origins reaches 33% in places. Again age distribution is changing with the number of Black pensioners in London predicted to increase by as much as 84% over the next decade.
  8. The Socialist Health Association calls for an accurate assessment London’s health needs, including information drawn from the 1991 census and reports from District Public Health Departments, to be undertaken before any significant changes are made to London’s services.

SHA calls for a Greater London Health Authority

  1. The Report makes frequent reference to the need for pan-London planning but rejects the concept of a London Health Authority. The Socialist Health Association proposes an elected single Greater London Health Authority to enable services to be planned across the four Thames Regions which fall within the Greater London area. Those parts of the Thames regions which would not form part of a Greater London Health Authority need to be considered in relation to other surrounding regions.
  2. The impact on patients and implications for services in Greater London and in the shire parts of the present Thames Regional Health Authorities of possible acute hospital closures in inner London has not been addressed. Patient choice, so recently promoted by the government, could not be delivered in the face of the hospital closures proposed or, indeed, by the internal market.
  3. The Socialist Health Association agrees that health and local authority boundaries should be co-terminous, to strengthen the link between health and social services, and with other local authority services including housing, education and environmental health. Logically, strategic health planning should be a function of an elected Greater London Authority with responsibility to co-ordinate other aspects of strategic planning, such as transport and the
  4. There are references in the Report to public consultation but no mechanism to achieve it, or to involve local authorities, CHCs or users in debating the report’s far-reaching Instead, “changes are to be driven briskly by a dedicated Implementation Group”, which will be wholly unaccountable. Unless this democratic deficit is addressed, so that Londoners who use and work in the health services are able to contribute to a constructive debate there will be widespread protest at changes which are perceived to be finance-driven. What is required is a public debate with an accountable authority to ensure the use of resources to meet the health needs of Londoners.

Effectiveness and equity

  1. The Report states that the forces of the internal market highlight inequity and inefficiency in the present distribution of hospital facilities (Tomlinson, paragraph 8, page 3). In fact it is the market itself which is leading to haphazard deterioration of London hospital services.  It does nothing to improve equity.
  2. The Report concentrates heavily on efficiency, but does not address in any detail effectiveness, accessibility or relevance. For instance, access depends on adequate This should be a major component of a London-wide health services strategy. An inadequate assessment of local need makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of existing and proposed services. Further research is needed to ascertain whether improved primary and community services reduce or increase overall requirements for hospital beds. There is a general shortage of data on outcomes from specific treatments. There is undoubtedly a large amount of unmet need.

SHA challenges the assumption that London is over-bedded

  1. The Report recognises that Londoners have special health needs, but fails to base its conclusions on the analysis of health status and need for services, or to demonstrate that the proposed loss of a further 4,200 beds will solve these particular problems. The Socialist Health Association rejects the proposition running through the Tomlinson Report that London is overbedded.  Since 1979 London has already lost over 9000 NHS beds. This has taken the form of centralisation of acute services and the closure of hospitals which, though often inadequate and unmodernised, served local communities. Such small hospitals could have been adapted or rebuilt to provide much needed continuing care   Changes in mental health service provision has followed a similar pattern. Between 1984 and 1990 7273 long-stay psychiatric hospital beds were closed (51%), without sufficient alternative provision being made.  There is widespread public experience and public perception of broken promises that locally accessible services would be replaced.
  2. The Report does not offer any analysis of the need for different types of beds to provide specialist, district general and geriatric care for Londoners. It concentrates on the estimated 30% of beds for elective surgery in inner London, hitherto filled by patients referred from outside London. Under the contract pricing system of the internal market, neither the non-London health authorities nor the London DHAs are able to afford to pay for their patients to be treated there.  Outer London DHAs have local district general hospitals: inner London DHAs do not.
  3. Throughput predictions, based on bringing London up to national averages, do not reflect deprivation and social indicators (paragraphs 5 to 9 above and 26 to 29 below). These factors influence hospital discharge rates and the appropriateness of day surgery.
  4. Figures used by the King’s Fund London Commission demonstrate that London is at present under-provided with acute hospital beds. In the words of the King’s Fund Report London Health Care 2010 (p47): “despite the generally held view that London is ‘over-bedded’, Table 4.2 shows that when inner deprived London is compared with equivalent areas elsewhere in England it is found to have slightly fewer beds per thousand resident population than comparable districts elsewhere”

Available NHS beds per 10,000 resident population by status category, all acute specialties group, 1989-90 (Boyle & Samje [1992])

Area category London DHAs London inc. SHAs Non-London comparators
Inner deprived 38.8 43.6 41.6
Urban 24.5 28.9 29.0
High Status 21.4 21.9 19.0
Total 28.5 31.3 29.2
England                                  |    25.0 25.4

22         The conclusion that London is in fact not ‘over-bedded’ is reached by comparing London districts categorised as ‘inner deprived’, ‘urban’ and ‘high-status’ with equivalent districts in England, referred to in the report as ‘non-London comparators’. Although this method does not deal with absolute equivalents, it is better than comparing London to the average as a whole.  Surprisingly it is from this latter comparison that the King’s Fund reaches its final conclusions advocating major bed (hospital) closures. Through this major inconsistency in approach, a report which provides a basically sound analysis of the history and current nature of London’s health service problems, produces its unsound and contradictory proposals for future changes.

23        Although improvements in primary care would help to produce a healthier population in the longer term, this would not immediately reduce the need for hospital care and would be likely to identify further health care needs, at present unrecognised and unprovided for. Furthermore the population of London is projected to increase by 0.7% and 2.9% over the next ten years. Investment in primary care development is essential, but should not rest upon drastic cuts in acute provision.  Change takes time to implement.

Re-designation of beds

  1. Hospital beds are currently not necessarily in the right places and often not in the specialties needed by Londoners. GPs consistently report problems in getting patients into hospital and waiting lists in some specialisms continue to rise. The designation of beds should be reviewed, as part of the comprehensive assessment of health needs outlined in paragraph 2 above, to make the best possible use of resources and in order to improve services to local populations, both resident and day-time. There is recognised overprovision and duplication of some specialist services and underprovision in others.
  2. If the listed hospitals were to be closed there would be no guarantee or suggestion that the remaining teaching hospitals or Trusts, which are obliged to give priority to financial viability, would provide high quality, but less financially rewarding, district general services needed by their local resident and daytime users.

Developments in secondary care

  1. Any significant moves towards out-patient and day-care services depend on a home to go to; someone at home to act as a carer; and appropriate transport to and from hospital. The Report makes no reference to problems such as the state of housing stock in London and the number of people (particularly elderly people) who live on their own. It assumes that bed use in inner London can match the rate of the current top 10% in the country within 5 years (Tomlinson, paragraphs 89-95).  Any such shift in medical care would therefore take longer to happen in London than in the rest of the South East. It should also reflect the views and choices of users.
  2. Moves towards reducing the length of stay of people in London hospitals is similarly affected by social circumstances: many patients simply have no other place to go. Planning a reduction in beds on the information presented is not acceptable. The use of beds per 1000 episodes of acute care is not a “simple measure of efficiency”. We need to know how many of these episodes are readmissions, how many are for emergency admissions, how many are for rare conditions or complications of treatment carried out We also need to know how London, as a capital city with a large population, differs from other inner city areas: hospitalisation rates are generally high in inner cities for the reasons set out above. No attempt has been made to compare the number of beds
    used per 1000 episodes of acute care with the provision of nursing home and other residential care in the area.  “Bed blocking” by people who would be better off in an alternative care setting is responsible for anything up to 30% of bed occupancy in inner London.
  3. The Report recognises this (Tomlinson, paragraphs 59-60), but its recommendation to reduce beds in inner London, far from being a solution, would aggravate the problem. For acute hospital beds to be used effectively, there has to be adequate provision by the NHS of rehabilitation, convalescent and long-term care beds within the capital. Funding for any proposed re-designation of hospital services in London must take into account these long-term needs. The West Lambeth Community Care Centre is cited for its innovative approach, but only benefits the patients of those GPs who participate in all the facilities. This scheme evolved locally and is seen as locally owned. Similar schemes in other areas would not be guaranteed with success.
  4.     Such arguments also apply to the provision of care for people with mental illness and learning difficulties.  The problems outlined in paras 61-66 will continue so long as there are insufficient hostels, group homes and other alternatives to acute hospital care. Replacing hospital beds by improving community services would require greatly increased revenue funding for the foreseeable future, not just bridging funding for five years. Experience suggests that this would not be available from the present government.

Community care

  1.  The development of community care policies from April 1993 demands close collaboration between social services and health authorities. The accountability of directly elected local authorities conflicts with health authorities run by managers and appointed directors with minimal local knowledge or accountability. There is an urgent need for the Secretary of State to clarify where NHS responsibility ends and where local authority responsibility begins.  The Chief Executive’s letter to the Health Service Ombudsman (January 1992) appears to retreat from what most people believe they can expect:

If in a doctor’s professional judgment, a patient needs NHS care, then there is a duty upon the Health Service to provide it.”  But this was subject to resources and to clinical priority, he said. “There is no general duty on a health authority to provide in-patient medical or nursing care to every person who needs it.” (Guardian, 30/1/92) The Report does not clarify this confusion and is therefore ill-equipped to assess the extent of services required by Londoners.  Nor does the Report address the serious impact on the public of being obliged to shift from ‘free’ NHS care to means-tested services.

Primary Care

      1. The Socialist Health Association supports the need for additional resources for the improvement of primary care services. The SHA has long called for salaried practitioners, general medical, dental and ophthalmic.  It advocates the concept of core primary care teams, which should include doctors, practice nurses, district nurses, community midwives, health visitors, and community psychiatric nurses.  Additional members would include nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, counsellors, social workers, interpreters and home helps.  Such teams should be resourced to plan anticipatory care, promote good health, and undertake on-going training. The SHA supports the building of purpose designed health centres.
      2. Public perceptions of a right of access to A&E departments would take many years to Currently A&E departments provide many primary care functions, particularly for those not registered with GPs. Involvement of general practitioners in A&E departments only offers an interim solution. Increasingly A&E departments arrange admissions for hospital treatment for those whose conditions have become emergencies while on a waiting list, reflecting the market-induced funding problems for elective in-patient care, noted in paragraph 2.
      3. The Report proposes funding and advice for upgraded or new premises, but does not address adequately the long timescale required to improve professional standards to bring them up to those few examples of excellence and so inspire public confidence in GP The effectiveness of enhanced primary and community services should be monitored in pilot schemes. As noted in paragraph 23 above, the long term improvement in primary care is likely to lead to the discovery of unmet need, with resource implications for both primary and secondary care.

Research and teaching

      1. The specialist postgraduate medical institutions are unique to London. They have special status closely linked to the NHS, Department of Education and Science and the university medical schools. Their role as centres of excellence extends not only throughout London, but nationally and internationally. They have traditionally been managed separately from the rest of the NHS, but they will join the internal market in 1994. Research and teaching should be funded centrally, not from monies for local services.  A formula to preserve excellence is needed.  Certain of these postgraduate institutions could form the basis for specialist regional medical services within London, allowing other specialist units to be distributed more equitably between London and elsewhere in the country. The internal market will endanger these functions which are vital to the NHS.
      2. The thrust of pure medical, and particularly pharmacological, research over past decades has altered, so that private industry, much of it based in the South East, now plays the major role, conducting clinical trials in hospital settings, particularly in London. Inevitably private interests are driven by commercial considerations. It is therefore vital that pure and applied research based in universities and medical schools should be encouraged and fully supported with independent funding, free from commercial pressure. Such research projects are more likely to be related to clinical and public health needs, such as health service evaluation, rather than to the production of a commercial product.
      3. There is an overlap between the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science in the running of university based medical research. Such co-operation
        between universities and the health service should be encouraged and more broadly based than at present.  The need for independent health services research, identified by the Report of the Royal Commission (1979), should be addressed.

Conclusion

      1.  The Report does not offer the much needed health strategy for London.  In the hands of the present government it is more likely to result in hospital closures, cuts in services and in the sale of valuable NHS sites, with no guarantee that the proceeds would be deployed in London or within the NHS for the improvement of other services. The changes proposed would not achieve measurable improvement in Londoners’ health in the absence of London-wide policies to tackle health inequalities.

JM/TJ/RR 18/12/92

Socialist Health Association

The SHA was founded in 1930 as the Socialist Medical Association to campaign for the creation of a comprehensive national health service. It continues to promote discussion around the politics of health. Through its journal Socialism & Health and other publications, conferences and meetings, the SHA campaigns for the improvement of curative services and the promotion of measures to tackle inequalities in health and prevent illness. It is affiliated to the Labour Party and supported by individual members and affiliated organisations. For details about membership, activities and publication lists, contact:

SHA, 195 Walworth Road, London SE17 1RP (071-703 6838)

1 Comment

The National Health Service (NHS) Act was promised in the Labour landslide election of 1945, passed into law in 1946, and the service itself launched in 1948: a non-contributory comprehensive service making all forms of medical, dental and nursing care, in hospitals or in the community, available free to the whole population, paid entirely from central government funding. I qualified from St. George’s Hospital in London four years later, and will retire from full-time clinical practice in 1988; the NHS allowed me to do my own work and refer my patients to the full range of specialist services during an entire working lifetime, without ever having to collect a fee. Several generations of British doctors have followed, with essentially the same historically novel experience.

We have come a long way since then; there have been huge changes in the work and effectiveness of medical care, and exponential growth in medical science which will require even bigger changes in the future. If advances in medical science are to be available for all of the people, the principles on which the NHS was founded must be both restored from their present shorn condition, and extended in entirely new directions. The NHS is under attack as never before, its enemies confident that medical care can again become a commodity on the market, many of its former friends confused and capitulating. The whole world has entered a dangerous time, perhaps most dangerous of all in our own destabilizing society.

Some Illustrative Autobiography

All history must be selective, and therefore judgmental. Its contemporary actors, by living through one set of experiences, are denied others. Like everyone else, my assumptions derive from my own background, experience, the books that I read and the books I avoided, and my readers deserve to be warned what these were.

I was what Americans call a ‘red diaper child’, my mother in the Labour Party, my father in the Communist Party, our home among other things a transit camp for anti-Fascist refugees from Austria, Germany and Italy. Both my parents were doctors, my father a GP recruited by the South Wales Miners’ Federation to help them in a dispute with general practitioners in Llanelli (a redleg?) who later went off to Spain as a surgeon for the International Brigades. Unlike most medical students in 1947, I knew exactly what I wanted to do before I left school; to become a general practitioner in a coal-mining community, because to me that was the highest possible ambition. Like others of that immediately post-war generation, I also felt unjustly spared. My survival was, quite possibly, accidental. Had I been born one year sooner, I might have died in the war, and therefore felt permanently bound not merely to enjoy the peace, but to win and defend it; and not just any peace, but precisely the peace that was won at that time, against Fascism and for a new era of the Common Man, as we still said in those days.

After qualifying in 1952 and disenchanted with teaching hospitals, I sought ‘real life’ as a House Physician at Kettering General Hospital in the East Midlands, just as general practitioner (GP) surgeons in provincial hospitals were beginning to be replaced by professionals. All routine and much emergency surgery in Kettering had always been done by GPs, helped once a week by a part-time consultant who travelled 100 miles by rail from London. About six months previously, one of the GP-surgeons had been presented with a young woman with acute intestinal obstruction, a condition easily reversed by early surgery but otherwise rapidly fatal. He opened the abdomen, to find multiple obstructions by scarring from Crohn’s disease. He excised four or five segments at several points along the seven metres of small intestine, leaving the loose ends to be reconnected. Then his troubles began; which end belonged to which? Never having met this unusual condition before, he had waded into the macaroni without planning his return. In those days emergency surgery was still regarded by patients as a gamble with death. If he had confidently reconnected the tubes as best he could, praying he hadn’t created any collisions, dead ends, or inner circles, he would probably have been acclaimed whatever the outcome. Being a man of integrity, he persuaded his GP-anaesthetist colleague to keep the patient unconscious for what turned out to be four hours with a small coppice of metal clamps splayed out from the incision, telephoned the London consultant, and waited for him to come up by the next train to sort it all out. Remarkably, the patient survived. It was the last anecdote of a closing era of GP surgery; the professionals put an end to all that, and not before time.

The General Hospital served two distinct catchment areas: on one hand, the pleasant market towns of Kettering and Wellingborough and their surrounding countryside, with deeply rooted populations of middling provincial gentlefolk and workers in farms, breweries, railways, shops and light industry; on the other, the steel manufacturing town of Corby, with a population largely imported from Glasgow. From Kettering we had people generally at an early stage of illness, with helpful, informative letters from their GPs, who often visited the wards or at least telephoned to see how their patients were getting on, and made use of the x-ray department and laboratory to investigate patients themselves before referral. From Corby we received patients with gross end-stage disease, and hastily scribbled notes from their GPs:

Dear doctor,

Billy  Briggs,  22 Tipslag Terrace, Corby ? acute abdomen (or chest, heart, or whatever), please admit.

Yrs etc.

Hearts sank when requests for admission came from Corby. They were usually about some medical crisis, often avoidable by earlier diagnosis and appropriate action. The Corby and Kettering GPs seemed to work, as their patients lived, in different worlds. It was my first introduction to the divisions of medicine corresponding to the two nations of British society.

My boss was a bachelor who ran an Austin-Healey sports car, and endlessly complained to his junior staff about his poverty and sufferings under the NHS. I earned £250 a year looking after 20 men, 20 women and 16 children on acute medical wards, on call 24 hours a day, without right to any evenings or weekends off for six months except those personally wheedled from the boss. We differed about the NHS: he believed it would end enterprise and reward sloth, I thought it was the best thing that could have happened for the future of medicine. When he went off for the weekend he would fix me with his pale blue eye: ‘Hart: when I come back on Monday I don’t want to find the beds filled with rubbish. Old men with chronic bronchitis belong in Local Authority Part III accommodation, not this hospital.’ Some old man living alone with advanced smoker’s lung was sure to tip into pneumonia, and his GP, rightly acting as advocate, would press for admission. Though squalid dormitory geriatric accommodation did exist under Part III of the Insurance Act in what had been the Kettering workhouse, it was not bad enough to deter a queue to get in. The real choices were between solitary death at home, or a hospital bed with warm nursing, antibiotics (all requiring injection in 1952), and a good chance of recovery. That was my introduction to contradictions between what doctors were interested in and what mattered to patients.

I asked for a reference at the end of my six months, which read as follows: ‘Dr Hart has performed his duties as a House Physician adequately during the past six months.’ At the time this seemed faint praise, but only later did I realise it conveyed the same lethal message to any experienced medical employer as Hamlet’s note on his journey with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; my introduction to the 18th Century structure of servility and patronage endured by all doctors for some of their lives, and by many for all of their lives.

My junior hospital career was therefore on course for self-destruct, postponed for a few more months by a consultant chest physician who persuaded me to work for him as registrar at the Watford Chest Clinic on the outskirts of London, dealing almost entirely with tuberculosis, then still a common cause of death. I was not properly trained for such respon­sibility, but the previous man in the job was an alcoholic with drug problems, and no other applicant could be found. The clinic was responsible for tuberculosis patients on the wards of a local hospital which had been a workhouse until 1948. The workhouse master and matron still lived in an elegant residence within the walls, waited on by high-grade mentally defective or so-called morally defective inmates. The barrack-complex contained geriatric and chest wards for sick people, as well as dormitory accommodation for the workhouse inmates who, though liberated by repeal of the Poor Law and advent of the Welfare State, had nowhere else to go. Men lived at one end of the building, women at the other. Most were old people without either money or relatives able to look after them, but there were also mentally or physically handicapped younger people, and several young homeless families. Young or old, married, widowed, or single, males over seven years of age were separated from females except at strictly enforced visiting times.  The work was interesting but uncomfortable, not because of the Dickensian surroundings but because I knew I was under-trained. Sink or swim, I learned as I went along; I swam, patients sank.

Just before the lethal reference could catch up with me, I was saved and diverted prematurely into general practice in the wrong place. At the end of 1952 I was chatting to an old Irish GP, Dr Henry Blaker, in a corner dairy in North Kensington. He had retired from a lifetime of work for the Indian Medical Service in Calcutta, to buy a practice from an old colleague, Dr Sweeney, in the slums of North Kensington, with about 2,000 registered patients. His sight was failing from cataracts and he was no longer able to drive, doing his home visits on foot or on the underground. On hearing I was a Cambridge graduate, a fact which impressed him more than me, he asked me to join him as an equal partner starting tomorrow. Only later did I realize how exceptionally just he was; then even more than now entry into general practice, or into almost any other medical job, was difficult, and many established GPs took full advantage of this to exploit their younger colleagues with grossly unequal partnership contracts. Postgraduate experience before starting practice was still an optional extra generally reserved for entry into ‘practices of the better type’. North Kensington was Corby not Kettering country, and even the scanty hospital experience I had seemed much more than my local colleagues expected. Under personal pressures which are irrelevant here, I took the job.

Urban Industrial General Practice in the 1950s

The surgery was in what had been a large corner pub in Clarendon Road, off Holland Park. The area is now gentrified beyond recognition, full of media persons and croupiers at the Stock Exchange, but then it was the edge of one of the worst slums in London, stretching from the bottom of Notting Hill in the south, to Harrow Road and the Grand Union Canal in the north. The pub was all elaborately decorated plaster cornices, frosted glass, and engraved mirrors still advertising various ales, stouts, porters and whiskys. Dr Blaker’s surgery was in the saloon bar, the waiting room in a narrow adjoining room previously used for off-licence sales. It was nearly always full of people waiting to get in, often with more standing in the street, sometimes in the rain. Patients entered the consulting room at one corner, stepped down from the raised area previously behind the bar counter, and sat in front of an enormous oak desk covered with wooden boxes, books, urine test glassware, and unopened copies of the British Medical Journal. When I eventually sorted this out, I found one of the boxes contained a full set of equipment for post-mortem examination, with bone saws and knives of every size and description. A small working area of desk was cleared in front of the doctor’s swivel chair. Behind him was a threadbare printed fabric screen, folded and apparently rarely used. Behind this again was a low divan couch covered in American cloth and stuffed with horsehair, much of it bursting out through ulcers and abrasions acquired in forty or fifty years of combat. On the wall to his right was a large white semicircular washbasin with a single brass cold water tap, an amenity added a few months previously; Dr Blaker warned me not to pee in it, as some previous locums had done. Next to this was a metal stand with a china bowl and ewer, now redundant but, like the junk on the desk, kept on standby in case the 19th Century returned, a not unlikely event to any thoughtful observer. This time-warped impression was strengthened by a glass fronted cup­board set in the wall of the waiting room, still full of dusty medicine bottles waiting to be collected by patients whose names could still just be made out on the elegantly scripted labels. Apparently Dr Sweeney had done his own dispensing, and when the practice finally gave up competing with the local pharmacy this cupboard was simply locked and left as it stood!

There was no receptionist, so patients’ medical records, the small pocket envelopes devised in 1916 for the Lloyd George Act and still used by nine out of ten English GPs, were housed to the left of the great oak desk in a nest of wooden drawers. Virtually the only entries ever made were of medicines prescribed, but occasionally there would be a brief diagnosis (‘asthma’, ‘fractured femur’, ‘neurotic’) without any of the evidence on which the diagnosis was based. Useful clinical information, if any, was confined to hospital correspondence, folded and pushed into the record envelope in a more or less randomly ordered and increasingly tattered bundle.

Twenty to thirty patients came each morning, about the same number in the evening, and between these two sessions I was supposed to fit in about 15 house calls. There were nearly always two or three visits left to do after the evening session, together with any late calls. I would finish by 7.30 if I was lucky, by 9.00 if I was not. I did all the night work for that first year.

One year to the day after I started, without warning or discussion, I found a note from Dr Blaker on the desk to say he had retired and the practice was mine. I took a partner of my own age and we built up the practice to about 3,000 when I left in 1957 to resume my interrupted hospital train­ing, this time on the children’s wards at Hammersmith Hospital. Workload steadily fell, reduced by good practice organization, employing a receptionist and dealing with the underlying causes of such clinical problems as were soluble, rather than sidestepping them with symptomatic treatment. When I left the practice, we often saw only ten or twelve patients at each session, despite a much larger population at risk.

South Wales in the 1960s

After another three years of junior hospital posts and some experience of epidemiological research, first with Richard Doll and later with Archie Cochrane, in 1961 I finally reached my original goal, a single-handed general practice in a small coal-mining community in the Afan Valley in South Wales. The daily consulting rate in Glyncorrwg was roughly the same as when I started in London: 20 to 30 patients at the morning session, the same in the evening, 12 to 15 home visits, for about the same number of people at risk. The time available for each consultation was 5 or 6 minutes, slightly more than was found in a large study of practices in Aberdeen ten years later, (Buchan,   I.C.,   Richardson,  I.M.,   ‘Time study  of consultations in general practice’. Scottish Health Studies no. 27. Edinburgh: Scottish Home & Health Department, 1973.)  but less than the average 8.25 minutes found in the most recent survey of GP workload in 1986. (‘Survey   of  GPs’  workload’,  British  Medical  Journal  1987,  294:1241.) Unlike my London experience, improved practice organization had little effect on workload; the reserve of unmet need seemed inexhaustible.

The squalid conditions of industrial working-class practice I met, first in London and later in South Wales, were incompatible with the standards of clinical medicine taught in medical schools, denying self-respect and limiting the imaginations of GP and patient alike. They were essentially the same as those pilloried by Collings(Collings, J.S.,  ‘General practice in England  today’,  Lancet 1950,i:555-85) in his classic report in 1950 on British general practice. Thirty-four years later Eric Wilkes, Professor of general practice in Sheffield, described the same squalor in 1984 in a despairing paper entitled ‘Is good general practice possible?’ (Wilkes, E., ‘Is good  general  practice possible?’,  British Medical Journal 1984; 289:85-6.) . British general practice has changed in my lifetime, but very unevenly and very incompletely. It has changed least of all in the old areas of heavy industry, where the real wealth of this country was originally made, and where poverty and unemployment are now most miserably endured.

General Practitioner and Referred Care

Having worked a lifetime in general practice, that is the point from which I see the NHS as a whole, and the people it serves; a close underview from where the action begins, rather than an overview from hospital specialism where some of it ends, or from the outer space of a university library.

To an extent unique in Western Europe and North America, the British medical profession is and has for well over 50 years been divided into two easily defined groups, with little overlap: GPs responsible for registered lists of patients, who care for them only in their own homes and communities; and consultant specialists responsible for all hospital work, assisted by young doctors in training (most of whom later become GPs), who only see patients on referral from GPs. GPs therefore remain generalists, whose real specialized skills are based on familiarity with a specific local population. All other levels of the NHS rest on general practice; the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of specialists are limited not only by the resources made available to them by the State, but also by the quality and completeness of GP care.

The National Health Service created, and was designed to create, a dramatic improvement in both the extent and the quality of care by specialists in hospitals. It also suddenly extended GP care from the minority of male manual workers covered by the old Lloyd George Insurance Act, to the entire population. It vastly increased the accessibility of general practice but did nothing, and was not designed to do any­thing, to improve its quality. Clinical medicine in British general practice did improve between 1948 and 1967 (the first important structural reform of NHS general practice), but not at anything like its pace of improvement in hospital care. Nor were improvements selective for those social and geographical areas most in need of them. In general, the quality of all medical care, and particularly of GP care, was lowest where the needs of the population were highest; what I later described as the Inverse Care Law. Neighbourhoods with the worst health inherited the worst traditions, expectations and resources, and were least competitive in the market for well-trained, innovative young doctors. General practice remains an area of relatively poor perform­ance, falling short even of its traditional task of meeting the immediate demands of patients for care of symptomatic illness; it is better, much better, than it was, but still far below what it should be. General practice is even now only beginning to accept its huge future potential for effective health conservation, through which its impact on the health of the general population could be greater than anything possible through specialist care in hospitals.

‘The Health Service is Hospitals

Most politicians, media persons, or members of the general public, asked for their mental picture of what is central, important, and effective in the NHS, will describe something going on in a hospital. For most people, hospitals appear to be virtually the only source of effective treatment for life-threatening or seriously disabling conditions; the job of GPs is to sort out major from minor conditions, referring major ones to specialists in hospitals, dealing with minor ones them­selves. Planned government investment in hospitals through­out the land, in their staff, equipment, and buildings, with demand from the whole population limited only by the process of GP referral, was the great leap forward which made the NHS such a huge public success.

Until 1967, there was virtually no investment at all in general practitioner services, except what GPs themselves were prepared to spend from their own pockets. The 1966 Package Deal (also known as the GP Charter) brought some indirect public investment in the form of 70% reimbursement of wages to encourage employment of office and nursing staff, 100% reimbursement of rent for suitable buildings, and incentive payments for group practice. Eventually this almost wiped out two common features of industrial general practice; the seedy front-parlour surgery in the GP’s own home, and the squalid shop on the high street with a half-painted glass front, staffed only by a harassed GP’s wife. It reduced the proportion of GPs working single-handed from 43% in 1952, to only 14% by 1980. This did not always improve access for patients, but did encourage sharing of staff and equipment, and placed some limit on the idiosyncratic behaviour of GPs. Even this investment was not fully taken up. GPs are now entitled to claim 70% reimbursement of office and nursing staff wages up to two Whole-Time-Equivalent (WTE) staff for each GP. For the past ten years the actual number employed has stuck around 1.1-1.2 WTE per GP, and only about 15% employ their full entitlement; (Hart’ J T , ‘Practice nurses: an under-used resource’, British Medical ‘ Journal, 1986, 290:1162-3.)most GPs evidently don’t think they need a larger team.

The most important feature of public investment in general practice, however, is that it is neither planned nor plannable. Though GPs now accept some public investment, they are not publicly accountable, except in the narrow and negative sense that they are answerable for complaints. General practice has for seldom-considered historical reasons become a public service privately administered. GPs are independent contractors with government, to provide a public service on their own initiative, with little public control, all of it negative. Even within the narrow limits set by the maximum resources available through the present GP contract, quality of service depends on autonomous decisions by GPs.

Imagine the state of our national road network, if it were financed by a multitude of turnpikes, the quality of each stretch depending on local owners and local expectations; a few miles of motorway, suddenly replaced by a three-lane A road, then a narrow, rutted, unpaved lane, then another mile of motorway, and so on, each depending on the interest and integrity of its owner. It would be an inherently corrupt situation, since whatever he spent on his stretch of road he would be unable to spend on himself or his family. It would be cheap, and occasionally charming, but ineffective as a transport system. For the same reasons, general practice is  also cheap, occasionally charming, and, if its task is so far as possible to maintain the health of the whole population, ineffective.

1935-1970: An Age of Optimism

Aneurin Bevan‘s bold nationalization and expansion of hospitals coincided with a worldwide wave of optimism about the effectiveness of medical science, and the feasibility of delivering it to all of the people.

The 35 years from the discovery of sulphonamides in 1935, the first antibiotics suitable for mass use by non-specialist doctors, were a golden age of uncritical faith in the social value of applied medical science. This began to collapse around 1970, with a general mood of radical criticism among young people, together with the beginnings of doubt and retreat from the commitments of the Welfare State and the social contract built on the double victory of 1945, the war and the Labour landslide election. Criticism of medical activity at all levels, focused particularly on high technology care in hospitals, has persisted ever since, both from ‘Left’ and from ‘Right’ perspectives.

Source of figures: Derived from Registrar General’s Decennial Supplement, England & Wales 1931, and Registrar General’s Statistical Review of England & Wales, various years. Figures reproduced from ‘Disorders which shorten life’, OHE 1966, by kind permission of the Office of Health Economics, London.

Fig 1-1  Maternal  mortality,   death  rate 1860-1964, England and Wales.

Maternal Mortality 1860-1964

Note: (1) Ten year averages 1861 to 1890, five year averages 1891 to 1930, annual rates 1931 to 1964. (2) Logarithmic scale.

Fig. 1.2 Pneumonia, death rate per million males living, by age, 1861-1964, England and Wales.

Pneumonia death rates 1861-1964

Note:   (1)   Females rates are similar and in order to facilitate graphic presentation are not shown.

Ten year averages 1861 to 1930, annual rates 1931 to 1964. Logarithmic scale.

There is little doubt about the starting date for this era, which more than most historic turning points derived from precise technical as well as less easily defined social and political change. Dramatic effects on valid indicators of disease susceptible to sulphonamide treatment are shown in Fig. 1.1 for death-rates of women in childbirth (maternal mortality), (Loudon, I.,  ‘Puerperal fever, the streptococcus, the sulphonamides,  911-1945’,   British   Medical  Journal   1987;   295:485-490) and in Fig. 1.2 for death-rates from pneumonia in young men.

Clearly something dramatic happened in the mid-1930s to two common causes of premature death, but it is important to remember that this advance in effective treatment occurred against a background of steady improvement in death rates from all causes, which seems to have started around 1870 (Fig. 1.3), with full industrialization of the British economy, and the beginning of intensive rather than extensive exploita­tion of industrial workers. This improvement in health was probably caused mainly by improved nutrition, education, and housing, and by reduced occupational risks (in that order of importance), all of which have bigger effects on health than personal medical care.(McKeown, T., The role of medicine, Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.)

Fig 1.3 Death rates per million living from all  causes,  by age,   1841-1964, England and Wales.

Death rates 1841-1964
Note:   (1)   Five year averages 1841 to 1960, annual rates 1961 to 1964. (2)   Logarithmic scale.

 Fig. 1.4  Diphtheria. Child death rates per million; England and Wales 1931-60.

Diptheria deaths in children 1931-60

Source: Registrar General’s Statistical Review, Part I. Figure repro­duced from ‘The lives of our children: a study in childhood mortality’, OHE 1962, by kind permission of the Office of Health Economics, London.

It is equally important to remember that advances in medical science only lead to improvements in health to the extent that they are generally applied; sulphonamides did not save women in childbirth or young men with pneumonia unless doctors prescribed them. On the other hand, sulphonamides were toxic in high dosage, and a lot of damage was done by doctors who used them inappropriately or carelessly. This is obvious, but seems to have been ignored both by pre-war Ministers of Health and by practising doctors. Fig. 1.4 shows deaths of children from diphtheria from 1931 to 1961. Clearly there was a dramatic improvement in 1941; an effective diphtheria vaccine had been commercially available from about 1922, but was not applied as an organized programme for mass immunization to the whole child popula­tion until nearly 20 years later.

The NHS is a social construct, whose advance or decline depends on social ideas and competing social pressures. Advances in medical science like the discovery of diphtheria vaccine are not automatically applied to the general popula­tion. The age of optimism in medicine was just one part of a general period of post-war liberal illusion, which denied the value or necessity of social struggle, and imagined that a classless society could be painlessly achieved by ‘levelling up’ in a consumerist, capitalist and corporate nation. That kind of liberal optimism died in Vietnam. It has been replaced by strategies of retreat, the subject of the next chapter.

Tagged , , | 3 Comments
%d bloggers like this: