Category Archives: Quality of care

Introduction

 

The  SHA Council agreed to pull together some of the existing policies on prevention and public health, introduce new proposals that have been identified and put them into a policy framework to influence socialist thinking, Labour Party (LP) manifestoes and future policy commitments. The SHA is not funded by the industry, charitable foundations or by governments. We are a socialist society which is affiliated to the Labour Party (LP) and we participate in the LP policy process and promote policies which will help build a healthier and fairer society within the UK and globally. An SHA working group was established to draft papers for the Central Council to consider (Annex 1).

 

The group were asked to provide short statements on the rationale for specific policies (the Why?), reference the evidence base and prioritise specific policies (the What?). Prevention and Public Health are wide areas for cross government policy development so we have tried to selectively choose policies that would build a healthier population with greater equity between social groups especially by social class, ethnicity, gender and geographical localities. We have taken health and wellbeing to be a broad concept with acknowledgement that this must include mental wellbeing, reduce health inequalities as well as being in line with the principles of sustainable health for future generations locally and globally.

 

The sections

 

These documents are divided into five sections to allow focus on specific policy areas as follows:

 

  1. Planetary health, global inequalities and sustainable development
  2. Social and the wider determinants of health
  3. Promoting people’s health and wellbeing
  4. Protecting people’s health
  5. Prevention in health and social care

 

The working group have been succinct and not reiterated what is a given in public health policies and current LP policy. So for example we accept that smoking kills and what we will propose are specific policies that we should advocate to further tackle Big Tobacco globally, prevent the recruitment of children to become new young smokers, protect people from environmental smoke and enable smokers to quit. We look to a tobacco free society in the relatively near future. Whether tobacco, the food and drink industry, car manufacturers or the gambling sector we will emphasise the need to regulate advertising, protecting children and young people especially and make healthy choices easier and cheaper through regulations and taxation policies.

 

Wherever appropriate we take a lifecourse approach looking at planned parenthood, maternity and early years all the way through to ageing well. We recognise the importance of place such as the home environment, schools, communities and workplaces and include occupational health and spatial planning in our deliberations.

 

We discuss the NHS and social care sector and draw out specific priorities for prevention and public health delivery within these services. The vast number and repeated contact that people have with these servces provides opportunities to work with populations across the age groups, deliver specific prevention programmes and use the opportunities for contacts by users as well as carers and friends and relatives to cascade health messages and actions.

 

The priorities and next steps

 

In each section we have identified up to ten priorities in that policy area. In order to provide a holistic selection of the overall top ten priorities we have created  a summary box of ten priorities which identify the goals, the means of achieving them and some success measures.

 

This work takes a broad view of prevention and public health. It starts with considering Planetary Health and the climate emergency, global inequalities and the fact that we and future generations live in One World. A central concern for socialists is building a fairer world and societies with greater equity between different social classes, ethnic groups, gender and locality. We appreciate that the determnants of such inequalities lie principally in social conditions, cultural and economic influences. These so called ‘wider determinants and social influences’ need to be addressed if we are to make progress. The sections on the different domains of public health policy and practice sets out a holistic, ecological and socialist approach to promoting health, preventing disease and injury and providing evidence based quality health and social care services for the population.

 

The work focuses on the Why and What but we recognise the need for further work to support the implementation of these priorities once agreed by the SHA Council. Some will be relatively straightforward but others will be innovative and we need to test them for ease of implementation. A new Public Health Act, as has been established in Wales, but for UK wide policies would make future public health legislation and regulation easier.

 

The SHA now needs to advocate for the strategic approach set out here and the specific priorities identified by us within the LP policy process so they become part of the LP manifesto commitments.

 

Dr Tony Jewell (Convener/Editor)

Central Council

July 2019

The complete policy document is available below for downloading.

Public health and Prevention in Health and Social carefinaljuly2019

Leave a comment

This article was first published in the Camden New Journal under the title, Brexit, and spectre of NHS US sell-off, on 16 May 2019.

There is much talk at the moment about the prospect of Brexit resulting in a trade deal with the US which will sell off our NHS to American private healthcare providers.

This fear has also been expressed by Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth. [1] But it is critical to understand this “sell-off deal” has been under way for a long time and is fast gaining momentum, argue Susanna Mitchell and Roy Trevelion.

 

The driver of the “sell-off deal” is Simon Stevens, who in 2014 was appointed head of NHS England, the body that controls all NHS spending. Before this, Stevens had been vice-president and CEO of the mammoth American healthcare corporation the UnitedHealth Group.

Stevens has proceeded to “Americanise” the service through his subsequent NHS policy, based on a privatisation strategy he had outlined at the World Economic Forum at Davos in 2012. [2]

From first to last, his NHS policy – the Five Year Forward View, the Sustainability and Transformation Plans and Accountable Care Organisations (renamed Integrated Care Programmes) that back it up, and now the 10-year Long Term Plan – have worked to import the US model into the UK.

Unsurprisingly, the UnitedHealth Group will make major gains from this transformation. It is now the largest healthcare company in the world, with a 2018 revenue of $226.2 billion. It has many secondary companies that serve more than a hundred-million people globally. [3]

Over the years it has been prosecuted for fraud and bad faith practices. This included limiting insurance payments to doctors, and not stating its true financial results in reports to shareholders. [4] [5]

One of its fastest growing subsidiaries is Optum (formerly UnitedHealth UK). This is a leading information technology- enabled health services business. In February 2015, it was one of the commercial organisations approved by NHS England as “Lead Providers” to carry out the financial work of GPs.

It is now firmly positioned in the system and ready to take away more public money. [6]

The healthcare system in the United States is hugely more costly, and outstandingly less effective than that in the UK. In terms of funding and wellbeing, there is no rational argument for imposing it on our NHS. The only benefit it brings is increased profits for shareholders in the commercial healthcare sector.

To take three examples, first comparing cost:

On average, other wealthy developed countries spend about half as much per person on health as the US – in the US $10,224 compared to $4,246 in the UK. In 2017 the US federal government spent 7.9 per cent of GDP directly or indirectly on healthcare; however in total, taking into account private expenditure, the US spent a vast $3.5trillion or 18 per cent of GDP. This private sector spending is triple that of comparable countries. [7] [8]  This structure excludes many citizens from affordable health­care. Appallingly, one in four adults skipped a medical treatment in 2017 due to an inability to pay. [9]

Secondly, from the point of view of efficacy and wellbeing, statistics are also devastating. The US has the lowest life expectancy at birth among comparable countries (US 78.6, UK 81.2). Statistics show that life expectancy for both men and women has increased more slowly in the US. It comes 12th in the global life expectancy table. [10]

Thirdly, the US maternal mortality rate is truly shocking. It stands at 26.4 per 100,000 live births, the worst among all developed countries. [11]

In the UK the rate stands at 9.2 per 100,000. [12] [13]

Deaths for African-American women are three to four times higher than for white women. [14]

The infant mortality rate is also worse. The US rate is 5.79 deaths per 1,000 live births. [15]  The UK rate is 3.8 deaths per 1,000 live births. [16]

It is clear that if we follow the American model of healthcare it can only reduce wellbeing in the UK. Simon Stevens’ “sell-off deal” simply increases the wealth of global corporations (such as the Mayo Clinic, which has recently opened in London [17]).

It is time that this fact was “called out” loudly and clearly. All possible measures must be taken to prevent the continuing imposition of this ineffec­tive and costly system.

Susanna Mitchell and Roy Trevelion are members of the Socialist Health Association.
References, some links, live at the time of writing, may not have been maintained:
[1] BBC Question Time 25.04.2019  at 47.21 ff  https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0004hkk/question-time-2019-25042019 .
[2] https://www.sochealth.co.uk/2017/05/25/truth-stps-simon-stevens-imposed-reorganisation-designed-transnational-capitalism-englands-nhs-stewart-player/
[3] http://selloff.org.uk/nhs/CVforSimonStevens260516.pdf
[4] https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-302.htm
[5] https://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/insurers_bad_faith/unitedhealth-pays-400-million-in-bad-faith-claim.htm
[6] http://selloff.org.uk/nhs/CVforSimonStevens260516.pdf
[7] https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget
[8] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
[9] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201805.pdf
[10] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#item-le_the-u-s-has-the-lowest-life-expectancy-at-birth-among-comparable-countries_2019
[11] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world?t=1560004210914
[12] https://vizhub.healthdata.org/sdg/
[13] http://digg.com/2017/uk-birth-us-safety-comparison
[14] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/elizabeth-warren-black-maternal-mortality_n_5cc0e93fe4b0ad77ff7f717b?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACQmWXh6QTnSJI5sjLN1KEdQCuSnVb__LEQLJAyEiK2PZwqnVABYxo500JrU24NHWCooflTZAia50H4OJ-YzSPMUqXyGODWHMGcBXUxhfVY-fau-ViM-Ly9n32SQ1vXD-SGhWXohZRVo2givDSEbM1D3TVs38R5MjmfY_5rGZXuP&guccounter=2
[15] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/deaths.htm
[16]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2016
[17] https://www.medcitybeat.com/news-blog/2019/mayo-clinic-oxford-university-clinic-partnershiphttps://www.medcitybeat.com/news-blog/2019/mayo-clinic-oxford-university-clinic-partnership.

 

 

1 Comment

DELIVERED AT JULIAN HART’S FUNERAL — JUNE 16th 2018

 

Julian and I were chatting once about heaven and hell, as you do. He didn’t believe in either, but supposing he was wrong, he thought he might be allowed into heaven, not as a believer, you understand, but for good behaviour.

Julian always wanted to be a doctor in a mining village, partly because his father had been a colliery doctor in Llanelli; partly it was the romance of mining practice as popularised in AJ Cronin ‘s novel The Citadel; but mainly it was the sort of community to which he wanted to belong.

And belong he did. As Gerald Davies, one of his patients, said in a BBC documentary , Julian wasn’t aloof like the other doctors, the headmaster and the colliery manager. He lived in the village and shared the common experience.

He wrote about it for medical students, “No one is a stranger; they are not only patients but fellow citizens. From many direct and indirect contacts, in schools, shops and gossip, I have come to understand how ignorant I would be if I knew them only as a doctor seeing them when they were ill.”

Julian loved his patients – not romantically, of course. The opposite of love in this context is indifference and Julian was never indifferent. He hated when bad things happened to his patients, especially when they could have been prevented. In his last 28 years at Glyncorrwg, there wasn’t a single death in women from cervical cancer.

In his book A New Kind of Doctor, he described a man, invalided out of the steel industry after a leg fracture, aged 42. With no further use for his big muscular body, he had become obese, had high blood pressure and cholesterol, got gout and was drinking too much. 25 years later, Julian described how, after 310 consultations and 41 hours of work, initially face to face, eventually side by side, the most satisfying and exciting things had been the events that had not happened: no strokes, no heart attacks, no complications of diabetes. He described this as the real stuff of primary medical care.

At a seminar in Glasgow, we asked Julian what happened next. The man had died, of something else, a late-onset cancer I think, but when Julian told us this, there was a tear in his eye. His patient had become his friend.

This was Dr ‘art, without an “H”, as known to his Glyncorrwg patients. None of this explains why Dr Julian Tudor Hart became the most famous general practitioner in the history of the NHS.

In 1961 with large numbers of very sick people, huge visiting lists and a nearby colliery that was still working, the Glyncorrwg practice was extremely busy. His initial base was a wooden hut. It took five years to reach a stable position.

He was the first doctor in the world to measure the blood pressures of all his patients. Famously, Charlie Dixon was the last man to take part, had the highest blood pressure in the village but was still alive 25 years later. Julian became an international authority on blood pressure control in general practice and wrote a book about it which went to three editions and was translated into several languages, with a companion book for patients.

What he did for patients with high blood pressure, he did for other patients, delivering unconditional, personalised continuity of care. After 25 years he showed that premature mortality was almost 30% lower than in a neighbouring village – the only evidence we have of what a general practitioner could achieve in a lifetime of practice.

It’s said that behind every great man there is an astonished woman. Behind Julian, was a great woman. When Deborah Perkin was planning her BBC documentary, the Good Doctor, (which we keep showing to medical students and young doctors), I said to her, there is something you have to understand. There’s two of them. Mary was his partner and anchor every step of the way.

Glyncorrwg was the first general practice in the UK to receive research funding from the Medical Research Council. Mary and Julian had both worked with Archie Cochrane and his team at the MRC Epidemiology Unit in Cardiff where they learned a democratic type of research in which everyone’s contribution was important and the study wasn’t complete until everyone had taken part. And so, in Glyncorrwg, there was the Shit Study, the Pee Study, the Salt Studies and the Rat Poison Study, all with astonishing high response rates.

Julian counted as a scientist anyone who measured or audited what they did and was honest with the results. Brecht’s The Life of Galileo was his favourite play and he often quoted Brecht’s line, “The figures compel us.” Julian didn’t pursue scientific knowledge for its own sake. His research always had the direct purpose of helping to improve people’s lives.

He had a talent for the telling phrase. His Inverse Care Law stated that the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served, or more simply, People without shoes are clearly the ones who need shoes the most.

When Sir Keith Joseph, a Conservative Secretary for Social Services, announced that
“Increased dental charges would give a financial incentive to patients to look after their teeth,” Julian commented, “The government has not yet raised the tax on coffins to reduce mortality, but Sir Keith is assured of a place in the history of preventive medicine.”

Julian’s friend and fellow GP, John Coope from Bollington in Lancashire, admired Julian’s nose for what mattered in the published literature. In his book The Political Economy of Health, that magpie tendency was on display, the footnotes comprising one third of the book and worth reading on their own. A Google search could never assemble such a mix. Goodness knows what readers made of it in the Chinese translation.

He lectured all over the world – in the US, Australia, Kazakhstan, Italy and Spain in particular. Julian could deliver formal lectures but for brilliance and exhilarating an audience he was at his best in impromptu, unscripted exchange.

When principles were at stake, Julian could argue until the cows came home. In his younger years he took no prisoners. A famous medical professor reflected that he had been called many things, but never a snail.

Dr Miriam Stoppard arrived in the village to interview Julian for her TV programme, determined to cast him in the role of a doctor who made life or death decisions concerning his patient’s access to renal dialysis and transplant. They battled for a whole afternoon, Stoppard trying to get Julian to say things on camera that fitted her script. He defied her, ending every sentence by mentioning how much dialysis and transplant surgery the cost of a single Trident missile could buy. She went away defeated and empty-handed.

I was surprised once at Paddington station to see him with a copy of the London Times. He was no fan of the Murdoch press. On boarding the 125 for South Wales, he laid out the newspaper as a tablecloth and over it spread a messy, aromatic Indian carry-out meal. If businessmen in their smart suits wanted to sit next to us, they were very welcome.

Standing for election to the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Julian topped the poll. What he offered GPs was a credible image of themselves as important members of the medical profession – alongside specialists, not beneath them.

Julian was humble in himself but ambitious for his ideas. He accepted with ambivalence the honours and sentimental treatment that came with age but he never lost his edge, and if we are to celebrate his life it should be by holding to the principles he held dear.

The work of a general practitioner is immeasurably enhanced by working in, with and for a local community, for long enough to make a difference.

Everyone is important, the last person as important as the first, and the work isn’t done until everyone is on board.

Julian was the “worried doctor”, anticipating patients’ problems, not waiting for them to happen, and then avoiding them by joint endeavour.

Drawing on his reading of Marx, he saw health care as a form of production, producing not profits but social value, shared knowledge, confidence, the ability to live better with conditions, achieved not by the doctor alone but by doctors and patients working together. Patients were partners, not customers or consumers.

The NHS should never be a business to make money but a social institution based on mutuality and trust – the ultimate gift economy, getting what you need, giving what you can, a model for how society might run as a whole. In re-building society, co-operation would trump competition, not marginally, but as steam once surpassed horsepower. The Glyncorrwg research studies showed glimpses of that social power.

My daughter Nuala met Julian many times. Losing him as a person, she said, was like the Mackintosh Building at Glasgow School of Art, burning down. We lost someone dear, a big part of our lives, an institution, a one man “School of ‘Art”, full of life, light and creativity.

Julian’s gift to us today is not the example he worked out in the microcosm of a Welsh mining village over 25 years ago; it is the present challenge of how we follow and give practical expression to his values in local communities in the future. In honouring his memory, there is work for all of us do.

 

Professor Graham Watt
MD FRCGP FRSE FMedSci CBE
Emeritus Professor
General Practice and Primary Care
University of Glasgow

2 Comments

Chipping Barnet CLP notes that access to contraception is a fundamental human right underpinning equality, impacting on the health, structure and prosperity of both society and families. The 2012 Health and Social Care Act disadvantaged women, separating much of the funding for contraceptive care from the NHS by moving the responsibility for commissioning into Local Authorities, with NHS providers competing for contracts. As a result, the commissioning of contraception is now separate from the commissioning of other aspects of women’s health, including abortion. From both a woman’s and a clinical perspective, this is illogical. Compounding this, the impact of austerity on Local Authorities has led to a reduction in services, reduced access and to a postcode lottery for contraception in England.

Chipping Barnet CLP believes that contraceptive services need to be fully funded and accessible in all areas of the UK, with co-operation replacing competition. It welcomes the commitment of the Shadow Health Department to abolish competitive tendering for these essential services, and to work with clinicians to establish centres of excellence alongside regular accessible clinics to which women have free and easy access to confidential care.

Chipping Barnet CLP calls on the Labour Party to resolve to deliver fully funded contraceptive services in all areas of the UK, setting up a working group whilst still in opposition, composed of experienced clinicians and commissioners, to write a blueprint for delivery which will be implemented within the first year of the Labour Government.

Published by Jean Hardiman Smith with the permission of Sarah Pillai ( Chipping Barnet CLP )

Leave a comment

Nick Bostock reports at GPonline that:

Under-pressure GPs are delivering ‘remarkable outcomes’ on cancer

You can read the complete article here. Nick reports:

GPs ‘can take a lot of credit’ for marked improvements in early cancer diagnosis and reductions in the proportion of cases detected as an emergency, according to a cancer expert.

In the year to March 2018, the proportion of cancer patients who first presented at hospital as an emergency fell to 18.8% – down from 21% in the year to December 2012.

Over roughly the same period, cancers detected at an early stage increased significantly – rising from 46% in 2013 to 52% by mid-2017, according to figures from the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN).

However: GPonline reported earlier this year on research showing that GPs were as good as consultants at making appropriate use of cancer diagnostic tests – and yet pledges to give GPs direct access to four key diagnostic tests – blood tests, chest X-ray, ultrasound and endoscopy – have not been delivered in many areas.

Isn’t it about time that GPs were also given access to the new technology for GP consultations via mobile and Skype? This is currently being ‘rolled out’ by GP at Hand. Here’s a transcript of the R4 Today programme 13 September at 6 mins to 9:00 am (I made this transcript and I believe it’s a fairly accurate job – but any mistakes are mine):

(Int) Interviewer

AP (Ali Parsa, CEO Babylon – parent company that runs GP at Hand)

RV (Dr Richard Vautrey, Chair GP Committee, British Medical Association)

SoS = Secretary of State

 

(Int): So Ali Parsa just explain to us how your App works.

(AP): So, we have a very simple service. So, what it does is allow patients to check their symptoms whenever they want. To make an appointment with a doctor within seconds, to be able to see a doctor within minutes. In fact, I was just checking my App and it says that if I want to see a doctor I can see one at 9 o’clock today, in the next few minutes.

(Int): You mean ‘see’ over the phone?

(AP): Over the phone. And if you want to see somebody physically then, you can go see them that very same day. It is open 24hrs a day, 365 days of the year. And it is available for the same price the National Health Service pays any other GP. What we have done is to solve the problem of accessibility and the continuity of healthcare – using technology and what the SoS and the NHS is doing today is celebrating that and promising it for the whole country.

(Int): And Richard Vautrey, this is something which patients complain about again and again, isn’t it, access to their GP, so is this kind of App the solution?

(RV): We have real concerns, as well as patients do, about the inability of many practices to be able to offer enough appointments and that’s simply because we haven’t had the funding over the last decade to support the expansion of the health service to be able to meet the growing needs of our patients. What General Practices are doing right now is seeing thousands and thousands – if not a million – patients today offering, you know, face-to-face consultations and seeing them in their surgeries, so that’s when patients approach them today. So that’s happening right now. What we haven’t got is the resources to be able to offer some of the IT technologies in every single practice. And the SoS’s commitment to IT is welcome, but we need to see that commitment translated into resources provided to enable every practice to offer this type of consultation.

(Int): But could this kind of technological approach actually help some of the pressure on GPs because people would consult a doctor over the phone rather than going to the surgery.

(AP): Well many practices, if not most practices, already offer telephone consultations. What they haven’t got is the IT kit to be able to offer smart phone consultations, or Skype-phone computer consultations, any many would like to be able to do that, if the technology was provided to them. But the other big difference is that every Practice that is open today will see any and every patient who lives within their area, and we have concerns about the model of which GP Hand has been built, which is primarily about looking at some of the relatively mobile healthy patients and not accepting every single patient who lives within their area.

(AP): I’m afraid Richard that is simply factually not true. We will ask when patients started the service, to ask patients to seek advice if they want to change their GP Practice to our Practice, if they have any clinical issues. Most patients seek advice and join us – we look after them, young, old, sick, healthy, our patients are across the border, and we don’t do that just in Britain, remember we look after one third of the population in Rwanda, and we do so in the United States, we do this in Canada. . .

(Int): But specifically, on this idea of whether you cherry pick patients, it’s likely that patients who don’t have very serious health problems, and maybe younger, are more likely to want to use an App on their mobile.

(AP) . . . but, why is that? If the patient is not very mobile, if the patient is very old, if the patient can’t wait a few weeks to see their GP, they’re significantly more likely to use a service that is continuously available. Many of our patients have mental health issues – they can’t wait for a few days or a few weeks to see their GP. That’s why they switch to us. A thousand patients today will choose to apply to GP at Hand, and then switch their GP Practice – one every three minutes.

(Int): Richard Vautrey, some GP Practices are worried about the fact that if their patients sign up to GP at Hand they then lose that funding, don’t they?

(RV): That’s exactly right. And the way that General Practice is funded at the moment is a balanced mechanism, so those patients who use the service less, and there are many patients that use the service more, and that overall, that compensates one for another. What we have concerns about is that this would effectively replace a personal service with an anonymous call centre and patients don’t want that.

(Int): And finally, Ali Parsa, this was something that commissioning groups in Birmingham were worried about and that was clinical safety – isn’t it better to see a doctor the next day.

(AP): No, it wasn’t clinical safety, you do see a doctor, not a call centre, face-to-face on your mobile and then see one in one of our surgeries. We will open up across the country physical surgeries, their issue was not that. It was an IT hitch that doesn’t allow its screening to be done with your local hospital and that IT hitch has been fixed. This is the future, and I encourage more and more patients to join it.

(Int): Okay thank you both, we’ll leave it there, let us know what your think via twitter.

Leave a comment

For everyone who couldn’t make the Conference, here is Jessica’s speech to our Fringe meeting on the future of Women’s health that I referred to earlier in a members email.

Jean Hardiman Smith

 

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. My name is Jessica Ormerod. I run a research and information organisation called Public Matters with my lovely friend and colleague Deborah Harrington.
Although we write about all aspects of the NHS and other public services, I have a particular interest in maternity. I have been writing about maternity issues for seven years since I was the chair of the maternity services liaison committee for Lewisham Hospital which coincided with our fight to save our maternity services. We won that fight but we have by no means won the war because as you know maternity services up and down the country are being closed and downgraded.
But before anything else I want to paint the picture of what is happening to the NHS as a whole. Because every closed maternity ward, service or reduction in staff is the direct result of changes to the NHS that have been happening since the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. These changes are having a devastating impact on access to care. It is no exaggeration to say that we are witnessing the reversal of 70 years of universal, comprehensive and equitable care.
The 2012 Health and Social Care Act put into place all the major elements for a step change in the privatisation of the NHS.

A QUANGO called NHS England was formed as the Commissioner-in-Chief of the service, with over 200 subordinate local commissioning units. These commissioning units broke with the tradition of planning services, replacing it with buying in from public, private and voluntary sector providers. Areas of work are subdivided into contractable units and NHS public providers are obliged to compete. The loss of a contract means loss of income, which has a knock-on effect on the viability of the public sector, which is left with high cost acute care and a reduced income.

In 2014 a new CEO was appointed to run the NHS in England. He created a new plan for the NHS, the Five Year Forward View and this was greeted by the establishment as a welcome antidote to what was seen as the fragmented mess left by the 2012 Act (this was only a mere 18 months on from it being enacted). But it’s important to recognize that far from being an accident, the Act achieved the fragmentation necessary for privatisation to be embedded at an organisational level, including many major health industry players taking key roles in the commissioning and policy-making process.

At the heart of NHS England’s Five Year Forward View is the idea that the NHS in England will never again be funded to a level that maintains its services in the way they are run now. It puts together a series of proposals for change which are not just cuts but are about a fundamental reshaping of how services are provided. Expensive specialist and emergency care are relocated to centralised hubs and more care is to be delivered in the community via partnerships with local authorities. There is an aspiration for fewer emergency admissions with an improvement to overall health which it argues will lead to less dependency on NHS services.

We could say the scope of this aspiration is far reaching or we could say it is pie in the sky. It not only assumes the NHS can cope with a growing population without corresponding growth in services but that it will do so with a reduced service with much of the change becoming the responsibility of local authorities.

The process of transforming the NHS in England, is based on close co-operation between successive politicians and Department of Health managers over many years with the US Health Maintenance Organisation or Accountable Care Organization principles of managed care. This process is continuing without any checks and balances of substance within the formal organisational structures of government. Politicians go to great lengths to deny both privatisation and US influence on the current changes.

There is, however, a groundswell of resistance to the damage being done to the NHS and there is a lot of knowledge surrounding individual service contractions and closures, but little in the public domain about the overall programme of change. And that is what I am here to talk about today.

The National Maternity Review, aka Better Births – A Five Year Forward View for Maternity Care, is one of the Five Year Forward View’s New Models of Care. It emphasises community care delivered through local hubs with a theoretical reduced demand on hospital services. It recommends an increase in independent sector providers and introduces Personal Care Maternity Budgets. Personal Care Budgets commoditise and monetise the system. They add layers of unnecessary complication, increase expense, fragment accountability and lead to an accounting nightmare.
44 Local Maternity Systems have been established. The systems have been introduced without consultation, peer review, pilot studies or effective oversight from public health or parliamentary scrutiny. They are small-scale Integrated Care Systems. Unlike the Integrated Care Organisations which are now under consultation, they have been put into place with very little fanfare or institutional opposition.
As with all the changes to the NHS currently taking place, there is a real problem that rhetoric about better care closer to home is not matched by real resources or access to physical structures like hospitals. NHS England consistently refers to services being more important than organisations but fail to fill in the blanks about how this works. They also insist that travelling in order to receive excellent care is not a concern to patients. There is no acknowledgment that time, expense and severity of health condition all very much effect the distance people are able to travel regardless of the excellence of the service at the end of the journey.
In the case of maternity, these questions of distance and the emphasis on community care run two different risks. The first being the potential for increase of emergencies outside hospital setting. The second is that mothers might be taken in to hospital for assisted birth or caesarean in order to pre-empt risk arising.
But what makes maternity different from other services?
Most people use health services most at the beginning and end of their lives. Pregnant women are the exception to this. During pregnancy women come into more contact with the NHS than they probably have ever done in their lives. This is particularly the case if they have a complicated pregnancy or birth. Healthy women can become profoundly unwell during pregnancy and they can be vulnerable to life-threatening complications during birth. That’s why it is so important that women have all levels of care within easy access.
Until now maternity services have been provided in the most part by the NHS. Women have always been free to employ a private midwife. But the NHS has a duty to provide a midwife at every birth even if a private midwife is also in attendance.
Maternity services are woven through the traditional structure of the NHS. Women see their midwife at home or at their local GP. They receive a minimum of two scans to check the baby’s progress and health at the local hospital. If they have a pre-existing condition or they develop a pregnancy-related illness then their specialist will work alongside the maternity team to ensure that the woman and baby are safe and as healthy as possible throughout the pregnancy.
Currently women can give birth at home, in a ‘stand-alone’ facility run by midwives, ‘co-located midwifery unit’ – that’s a midwife-run facility on hospital grounds, or in an obstetric unit which includes doctors and surgical theatre. Obstetric units can only be sited in hospitals with A&E because they require acute services which is blood, air and surgeons. A woman can become dangerously ill very quickly during birth so timely access to acute care is essential.
Put this into the context that since 2010 maternity services have been starved of funds and there has been a staff recruitment and retention crisis. Many maternity units have already been downgraded or closed, hundreds of GP practices have also closed so women already travel further to receive care. This means it costs more and takes more time to see a midwife, GP or hospital doctor. It also means longer emergency transfer times. The risk is this will only get worse once the STPs restructuring of the NHS is complete.
Who is driving the changes to maternity?
Surprise, surprise, Better Births panel includes private health providers and those private companies are working with government to re-write policy.
Although most current providers are NHS hospitals, private providers are now being strongly encouraged. Local Maternity Systems set their own payment systems. This means that they can choose whether they pay via their geographical population or they can pay per activity or service. However, they do not follow established budget areas; they do not share boundaries with CCGs or Local Authorities even though they rely on budgets from both. Across the country there is now a mish-mash of payment systems. The risk is that women will fall through the gaps.
NHS Trusts have been ‘incentivised’ to adopt Better Births by offering a chance to win ‘pioneer funding’ to speed up the transition to the New Models of Care. In November 2016, Seven ‘early adopter’ sites started to implement the recommendations – I don’t need tell you about this because you’re part of it! The sites were told to be bold and radical. Another incentive is ‘the maternity challenge fund’ which instructs successful trusts ‘to explore innovative ways to use women’s and their partners’ feedback to improve maternity services’. A pioneer site is not the same as a pilot test site.
LMSs are encouraged to work alongside private providers in order to offer women a wider choice. As most women have previously been cared for by the NHS this simply means opening the door to the private sector. In a climate of serious staff shortages, it is possible that some midwives may see the benefit of setting up an independent midwifery practice rather than staying in the NHS. Despite protestations to the contrary, this does actually reduce the ‘NHS offer’ and opens an income stream for public money to be handed over to the private sector.
Better Births tells us it is working on a new accreditation scheme for maternity providers. But in a publicly provided NHS service, this is unnecessary because the NHS trains staff to a professional standard.
Private providers are required to have a contract with the NHS in order to receive payment via a Personal Care Budget. It is claimed that the budgets (which are described as ‘notional’) will demonstrate to CCGs the kinds of choices women make during pregnancy, birth and postnatally. This will apparently encourage CCGs to respond to women by increasing their offer. The claim is that this will also empower women. But it is decidedly unclear about how this can be achieved. The guidance talks about using Personal Care Budgets for birth pools, place of birth settings or breastfeeding support but all of this should be available to every woman regardless of a personal care budget. In fact, all of these used to be available to women as part of the normal care given by the NHS.
Moreover, it precludes the notion that women become ill in pregnancy. No one chooses to get gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, HELLP or any other life-threatening condition. What happens when your health needs change but you’ve used up your £3000 on hypno-birthing? There should be real concern about the potential lack of access to obstetric care when women have serious complications of pregnancy. Or to return to the issue of financial balance, if £3000 is a notional budget for a normal birth which can be used up in a number of ways then the acute hospital will potentially have to pick up the cost of the emergency care without a matching budget.
What does this all mean?
Scale and pace have taken precedence over caution and evidence. Academic research will take years to catch up to establish the public health consequences of this new policy.
This is a top-down reorganisation of a national service with little to no consultation, pilot schemes, peer review, oversight or risk assessment. A Health Select Committee inquiry into the maternity transformation plan was not completed because of the 2017 election. It has not been re-opened.
The Vice-Chair of the maternity transformation programme finishes his report with the following advice to LMSs: Be Bold! Don’t wait for instruction!
Clearly long gone are the years of epidemiological study, of public health planning, of consultation with experts.
Better Births is based on consumer choice issues around personalised maternity care. There is a serious lack of evidence that this restructuring will give women the vital services they need. There are fewer services, obstetric departments are being stretched even further and technology is replacing face-to-face clinical care.

On the other hand, it embeds private care and fee-for-service. And, most importantly of all this is not how a national public service works.

2 Comments

 Court of Appeal grants NHS campaign group permission to appeal against NHS England’s new Integrated Care Provider contract

Some very good news – which also means NHS England is consulting on an ACO contract that may be unlawful.

They knew full well that was a possibility, despite their protestations in the consultation document that both Judicial Reviews had ruled in their favour.

(They have rebranded the ACO contract the Integrated Care Provider contract and their consultation runs until 26 Oct.)

We shall be putting out more info shortly about this.

 

The Court of Appeal has issued an order granting campaign group 999 Call for the NHS permission to appeal the ruling against their Judicial Review of the proposed payment mechanism in NHS England’s Accountable Care Organisation contract.

The Accountable Care Organisation Contract (now rebranded by NHS England as the Integrated Care Provider contract) proposes that healthcare providers are not paid per treatment, but by a ‘Whole Population Annual Payment’, which is a set amount for the provision of named services during a defined period. This, 999 Call for the NHS argues, unlawfully shifts the risk of there being an underestimate of patient numbers from the commissioner to the provider, and endangers service standards.

In April, the High Court ruled against the campaign group’s legal challenge to NHS England’s Accountable Care Organisation contract – but the group and their solicitors at Leigh Day and barristers at Landmark Chambers found the ruling so flawed that they immediately applied for permission to appeal.

Although fully aware of this, on Friday 3rd August – the day Parliament and the Courts went on holiday – NHS England started a public consultation on the Accountable Care Organisation contract – now renamed the Integrated Provider Organisation contract.

The consultation document asserts that the payment mechanism in the ACO/ICP contract is lawful, because:

“The High Court has now decided the two judicial reviews in NHS England’s favour.”

Steve Carne, speaking for 999 Call for the NHS, said

“It beggars belief that NHS England is consulting on a contract that may not even be lawful.

And a lot of public funds is being spent on developing the ACO model – including on the public consultation.

We are very pleased that 3 judges from the Court of Appeal will have time to consider the issues properly.

We shall shortly issue our stage 5 Crowd Justice appeal for £18k to cover the costs of the Appeal.

We are so grateful to all the campaigners and members of the public who have made it possible for us to challenge the lawfulness of NHS England’s attempt to shoehorn the NHS into an imitation of the USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system.

We will not see our NHS reduced to limited state-funded health care for people who can’t afford private health insurance.”

Jo Land, one of the original Darlo Mums when 999 Call for the NHS led the People’s March for the NHS from Jarrow to London, added,

“All along we have been warning about the shrinkage of the NHS into a service that betrays the core principle of #NHS4All – a health service that provides the full range of appropriate health care to everyone with a clinical need for it, free at the point of use.

Since we first started work two years ago on bringing this judicial review, there have been more and more examples of restrictions and denials of NHS care, and the consequent growth of a two tier system – private for those who can afford it, and an increasingly limited NHS for the rest of us.”

Jenny Shepherd said

“NHS England’s rebranded Accountable Care Organisation contract consultation is a specious attempt to meet the requirement to consult on a significant change to NHS and social care services.

We don’t support the marketisation of the NHS that created the purchaser/provider split and requires contracts for the purchase and provision of services.

Integration of NHS and social care services, in order to provide a more straightforward process for patients with multiple ailments, is not aided by a system that essentially continues NHS fragmentation.

This new proposed contract is a complex lead provider contract that creates confusion over the respective roles of commissioner and provider. It requires multiple subcontracts that are likely to need constant wasteful renegotiation and change over the duration of the lead provider contract. This is just another form of fragmentation, waste and dysfunctionality.

The way to integrate the NHS and social care is through legislation to abolish the purchaser/provider split and contracting; put social care on the same footing as the NHS as a fully publicly funded and provided service that is free at the point of use; and remove the market and non-NHS bodies from the NHS.

Such legislation already exists in the shape of the NHS Reinstatement Bill.”

The campaign team say they are determined in renewing the fight to stop and reverse Accountable Care. Whether rebranded as Integrated Care or not, they see evidence that it is the same attempt to shoehorn the NHS into a limited role in a two tier healthcare system that feeds the interests of profiteering private companies.

Steven Carne emphasised,

“It is vital that we defend the core NHS principle of providing the full range of appropriate treatments to everyone with a clinical need for them.”

999 Call for the NHS hope the 2 day appeal in London will happen before the end of the year. The Appeal will consider all seven grounds laid out in the campaign group’s application – with capped costs.

Details on the first instance judgment can be found here, and the judgment itself here.
David Lock QC and Leon Glenister represent 999 Call for the NHS, instructed by Rowan Smith and Anna Dews at Leigh Day.

Leave a comment

This article was first published at HIV i-Base on 25 April 2018.

The revised BHIVA Standards of Care for people living with HIV are primarily produced as a reference for commissioning HIV services. It also describes a minimum standard of care that HIV positive people can use as a reference.

These 90-page guidelines were last updated in 2013 and this third edition was launched at the 4th Joint BHIVA/BASHH Conference in Edinburgh.

The Standards was produced by a writing group of more than 90 individual doctors, health workers and people living with HIV. It was a collaboration with numerous professional associations, commissioners and community groups.

The main changes to this edition include:

  • Reducing the number of standards from 12 to 8, but with each one covering broader themes.
  • A new section is included on person-centred care. This includes wider aspects of social circumstances, including stigma and discrimination, self-management, peer support and general well-being. The importance of these issues are emphasised by this being an early chapter.
  • Recognising the new U=U consensus: an undetectable viral load means HIV cannot be sexually transmitted – with or without a condom (although some sections of the document have inconsistent information on U=U that will hopefully be quickly updated).
  • The section on complex care has been broadened with more detail about access to specialist non-HIV treatment.
  • Another new section covers HIV across the life course covers HIV treatment and care from adolescence to end of life. This includes palliative care in the context that ART might continue to work well to the very end of life.

There are now eight chapters covering major themes. Each chapter and subsection includes quality statements and auditable targets.

Standard 1 covers testing, diagnosis and prevention and the 90:90:90 goals to eradicate HIV. All three areas are ways to maintain and develop combination prevention. This includes increased testing, early treatment, viral suppression and PrEP. Combination prevention helped bring about the dramatic reduction in HIV transmission seen recently in the UK. HIV positive people are important partners in combination prevention.

Standard 2 is about person-centred care. This has been described as “the fourth 90” and focusses on the whole person, not just HIV. BHIVA say it considers, “desires, values, family situations, social circumstances, and lifestyles. And in so doing, the needs and preferences of HIV positive people can be responded to in humane and holistic ways.” It challenges HIV stigma and discrimination and works towards equality in health and social care. Social inclusion and well-being – crucially aided by peer support – are key to person-centred care.

Standard 3 covers HIV outpatient care and treatment. Anyone newly diagnosed must be seen by a specialist HIV doctor within two weeks and given access to psychological and peer support. In some cases this referral needs to be within 24 hours. There is no gold standard for measuring engagement in care, but transfer of care should be seamless whether a person moves home, is incarcerated or simply moves to another clinic. Increasing numbers of children living with HIV from birth are now becoming adolescents. Management by interdisciplinary teams must ensure successful transition to adult HIV services. A qualified doctor must prescribe ARVs and monitoring according to current national guidelines.

Standard 4 is about complex HIV care. Inpatient care must ensure that an HIV specialist is included in the hospital multidisciplinary team. HIV positive people are living longer and often go into hospital for non-HIV related problems. They may be cared for safely and appropriately in a local ward or clinic. But they must also be supported by immediate and continued HIV expertise and advice. HIV positive people must have access to specialist services for other conditions such as cancer. But clear protocols and agreed pathways are essential for safe delivery of services. This section also includes supporting people with higher levels of need. It includes successful management of multiple long-term conditions, poor mental health, poor sexual health, and problems with alcohol or substance use.

Standard 5 is on sexual and reproductive health. It is important that HIV positive people are supported in maintaining healthy sexual lives for themselves and their partners. In addition, anyone at risk of other STIs and infectious hepatitis, perhaps through drug use, should be supported and given advice. Care should be given for contraception, fertility services, pregnancy planning, and access to abortion services. Care must ensure that babies are born healthy and HIV negative. Care for the mother’s health is key to giving birth to a healthy baby.

Standard 6 is on psychological care. HIV positive people should receive care and support that assesses, manages and promotes their emotional, mental and cognitive wellbeing and health. This should be sensitive to the unique aspects of living with HIV. HIV positive people have higher rates of depression, anxiety, addictions, self harm, and other mental health issues than the general population. Mental health needs must be screened on an annual basis. This includes screening for poor cognitive function that can cause memory problems and reduce ability to perform simple tasks.

Standard 7 covers HIV across the life course. This section looks at standards of care for everyone who is HIV positive. Management of ART should be individualised at every age. It starts with adolescents (aged 10 to 19 years) and young adults (aged 20 to 24 years). Education and personal development – as well as achieving healthy sex lives and relationships – should be supported by experienced sexual health advisers and specialist nurses.

The years from 25 to 65 are described as early to middle adulthood. Most people in this age group are diagnosed as adults. Care for early diagnosis and treatment should include peer support as well as psychological support. HIV positive people should be supported in having healthy and fulfilling sex lives and engaged in treatment as prevention (U=U).

The over 65s – whether newly diagnosed or long-time positive – should be given access to treatment for complex comorbidities. This is an area of significant emerging knowledge and will likely develop over the course of these standards. Successful care may be achieved through co-speciality clinics, mentoring schemes, or by identified experts in advice and guidance. Palliative care is now included here. Palliative care ensures that the individual and their family are supported, receive appropriate care that meets their needs and preferences, and do not experience unnecessary suffering

Standard 8 covers developing and maintaining excellent care. This standard covers knowledge and training to ensure specialist services are provided. It sets standards for monitoring, auditing, research and commissioning. It also sets standards for public health surveillance, confidentiality and information governance.

Roy Trevelion was a community representative on the Standards writing group.

COMMENT

These comprehensive Standards are very welcome.

The community was involved at every stage from planning to the final draft, with at least one community representative on each chapter and more than 15 UK-CAB members collaborating overall.

The result is a comprehensive benchmark for health and wellbeing for HIV positive people.

All sections provide bullet points for measurable and auditable outcomes and must be promoted in primary and secondary care, health & social care, public health, and local authority healthcare provision.

As bureaucratic and structural changes affect the structure of HIV services, these Standards should be a reference for ensuring that high-quality care for HIV positive people is maintained.

The inconsistent messaging over undetectable viral load and HIV transmission will hopefully be corrected. As the publication is only available in PDF format, this should be relatively easy. Several formatting problems, including difficult legibility (light font, justified text) would benefit from being revised. 

It is good to see the inclusion of HIV positive people in the photographs throughout the report, supported by the UK-CAB and Positively UK.

Reference

BHIVA. British HIV Association Standards of care for people living with HIV 2018. April 2018.
http://www.bhiva.org/standards-of-care-2018.aspx

Leave a comment

Imagine the scenario. A 60 year old lady (she could be a relative of yours) undergoes a routine angioplasty for stable single vessel coronary disease. Unfortunately, shortly following the deployment of the stent into her 90% stenosis of her right coronary a dissection occurs, she suffers an acute myocardial infarction, and dies. She had signed a consent form prior to the procedure indicating that there was a 1% risk of heart attack, stroke or death but she had not been told that having a stent would not prevent a heart attack or prolong her life.  She had previously told her son that she didn’t want to have a heart attack implying that’s why she agreed to the have it done in the first place. Should the Cardiologist, who knew that the procedure would not provide any benefit for what mattered most the patient, and neglected to tell her, be prosecuted? Consent that is not fully informed is not consent at all. But rather than the exception such sequestering of patient important information is very much the norm.

One study revealed that 88% of patients believed they were having the procedure done for the very purpose of preventing a heart attack and 43% of cardiologists when anonymously asked said they would still go ahead and do the procedure even if they knew it would not benefit the patient. Monetary factors, enjoyment of performing the procedure and pressure to keep up numbers of cases for individual cardiologists and hospitals all contribute to overuse. But this is not in keeping with the practice of Evidence Based Medicine which is defined by the integration of individual clinical expertise, best available evidence and most importantly patient preferences and values.

When patient’s were explicitly told lack of prognostic benefit from angioplasty only 45.7% opted for the procedure versus 69.4% who were not explicitly given this information. It is estimated that such information given to patients with subsequent reduction in procedures could save US healthcare $864 million a year.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges state that doctors have an ethical responsibility to reduce waste because In a system with finite resources one doctors waste is another patients delay. In the UK approximately a third of coronary angioplasties, 30,000 a year are carried out for stable disease. For many this may be to alleviate symptoms which have not settled with medical therapy but studies suggest this benefit disappears after a year and the recent ORBITA trial suggests stenting offers no improvement in exercise capacity in patients with single vessel disease.

But “too much angioplasty” is just one symptom of a system failure where financial incentives trump patients at every level.

In the US it’s estimated that 20-50% of over $3 trillion dollars spent is inappropriate, wasting resources and/or harming patients.  In the UK Sir Bruce Keogh has suggested 1 in 7 of all medical and surgical treatments in the NHS should not have been carried out on patients.  The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges calculated that at least £2 billion is being wasted on treatments that have clear evidence of no benefit.  But this is likely a gross underestimate of billions more that could be saved/money that could be made better use of if patient preferences and values are taken into consideration.

A pioneering independent free website theNNT.com evaluates evidence based medicine with quick easy to read summaries according to patient important outcomes. It recently published a review that there was no mortality benefit in taking statins for those with a less than 20% risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the next ten years. This risk profile represents the majority of at least 40 million taking statins worldwide but how many of them are aware of this? My own anecdotal twitter survey of 144 respondents revealed 92% would not take a statin on this information. Greater transparency when communicating true benefits and harms of any treatment is an easy win to rapidly improve value in the NHS whilst simultaneously empowering patients with more choice.

Improving the system will also require commissioners to financially reward doctors for carrying out a simple shared decision-making conversation with patients, not on the volume of operations or prescription of more medication which is ethically dubious at best. Every patient should also be empowered by asking the following questions as per the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Choosing wisely campaign. Do I really need this test, medication or procedure? What are the risks? Are there simpler safer options? What happens if I do nothing?

The system is broken and can be rapidly fixed not by pouring in more money but by adhering to the principles of practising evidence based medicine where patient preferences truly matter.

1 Comment

Liverpool activist Greg Dropkin has weighed the claims of the RightCare initiative, and found them wanting.  (RightCare: wrong answers Journal of Public Health November 2017). RightCare is an NHS England programme that identifies opportunities for savings and quality improvements and describes itself as ‘a proven approach that delivers better patient outcomes’.

Greg Dropkin’s challenges the modelling assumptions made by RightCare (which have a flavour of a corporate consultancy about them), and the misinterpretation of dissimilar outcomes as opportunities for improvement. The difficulties of measuring unwarranted variation are well documented by Appleby and others in a 2011 Kings Fund report (Variations in health care: the good, the bad and the inexplicable). Unwarranted variation is a slippery notion, even though it appears to be endemic in clinical practice.

The RightCare approach has advantages for the NHS, giving NHS England, the DoH and the Treasury the results they want – the appearance of better quality care with the impression of lower costs. It contributes to the current magical thinking about NHS finances. Sadly, Dropkin’s argument is unlikely to dent this magical thinking much, the NHS being a centralised hierarchy within which conformity is highly valued.

Worse, from our point of view, is that faulty RightCare judgements may result in misallocation of resources through the allied CROC (Co-ordinated Reallocation Of Capacity) programme. For example, if the solution to unwarranted variation in cancer outcomes seems to be proton beam therapy, the NHS will have to invest in plant and machinery, or buy treatment time in the small but growing network of commercial proton beam treatment centres.

However, if RightCare did not exist we would have to invent it. It attempts to address variations in the five tractable conditions that drive secondary care use (heart disease, hypertension, COPD, CKD and atrial fibrillation), and it is interested in under-use as well as over-use of services. Given that pathway standardisations introduced by QOF seem to have only limited impact on clinical outcomes or service use, this makes sense.

An example is RightCare’s Falls and Fragility Fractures Pathway, which defines the core components of an optimal service for people who have suffered a fall or are at risk of falls and fragility fractures. The NHS claims to be working on this, but other priorities have overshadowed falls and fractures, despite their huge cost. The Royal College of Physicians 2010 report Falling Standards, Broken Promises, documents the neglect of this problem. RightCare is right to pick up the problem, and its proposals for a pathway are appropriate and overdue.

The 2011 King’s Fund report recommended changing the focus of initiatives against unwarranted variation from achieving outcomes to fixing care processes (especially shared decision making). This favours pathways, which may be picked up by the Get It Right First Time initiative (GIRFT) as much as by RightCare. (Digression: Why does the NHS have two organisations trying to tackle unwarranted variation? Because they have both evolved from different NHS fiefdoms!)

Shared decision-making is a noble enough idea, but in the NHS’s current toxic climate it too can be warped. ‘Choosing Wisely’ is a programme that aims to discourage doctors from using interventions that are not supported by evidence, free from harm and truly necessary. (Malhotra A et al Choosing Wisely in the UK  BMJ 2015;350:h2308). The NHS in North West London recently asked the public their views on Choosing Wisely, a scheme which it said was “to help reduce waste”. Its proposals for consideration were: encouraging patients to buy medicines over-the-counter when they could; GPs to avoid prescribing medicines that could be purchased; and patients to collect their own repeat prescriptions rather than let pharmacies collect them. What begins as an attempt to improve the quality of care ends as a means to transfer costs to the user.

An incoming Labour administration should change RightCare without abandoning it. Duplication of effort is usually unhelpful, so RightCare and GIRFT should be merged. The emphasis on outcomes and the optimistic claims of savings could both go, to be replaced by evidence-based pathways that regulators could audit and evaluate. And campaigners could harry those in NHS middle management who try to sneak in service reductions or co-payments as part of a quality improvement drive.

Tagged | 10 Comments

Yet another important figure in the health world adds to the concerns expressed by many others about the serious  situation facing NHS England this coming winter. Niall Dickson, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all health service organisations, said that there was “an even greater sense of foreboding” this year than last.

His comments came as figures revealed that the number of the most critically ill patients waiting more than an hour for an ambulance has doubled in a year.

Mr Dickson writes “A cash injection at this stage is unlikely to solve the winter pressures, but the chancellor must revisit the pencilled in figures for 2018-19 and 2019-20, which if left as they are, would guarantee more crises and further delays to the reforms that are needed. Mr Dickson added “there has also not been enough investment in community health and social care services”!.

Many health professionals are now facing dire problems resulting from insufficient funding and the government must be held accountable for the inevitable consequences.

2 Comments

The BBC has revealed that seven NHS trusts missed their cancer, A&E and operations targets; with only two trusts in London meeting their latest A&E target (to see 95% of patients within 4 hours).

This is consistent with NHS data showing that in February 2017 almost all hospital A&E departments (excluding specialist and GP led urgent care centres) failed to see 95% of patients within four hours. Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust was the only London Trust to hit the target that month.

If you want to read more about these figures, you can find them here.

I am very concerned that this is no longer a winter crisis but a perennial crisis; a crisis of the government’s making. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s uncompromising squeeze on Trusts’ finances is leaving London’s health services over-burdened and struggling to provide the best patient care. The strain is taking its toll, with low morale setting in across the workforce.

The government must recognise the need to meet increasing pressures by increasing funding. Expecting Trusts to carry on as they are with no additional resource is neither fair to patients, nor realistic.

This is not complicated; for NHS trusts to hit the government’s targets, they must be properly resourced to do so. And the Government, by failing to do this, is letting every single one of us who relies on the NHS down.

Meanwhile, in City Hall, the Mayor of London is currently consulting on his statutory Health Inequalities Strategy. We know that there is huge variation in health standards across London, and we will be pressing him to look at these figures closely, to ensure all Londoners have access to excellent quality care.

While what we and the Mayor can do in our capacity here at City Hall remains limited; and responsibility for resources and supporting the NHS still falls on the shoulders of the government, we are able to impact a vast array of areas which impact Londoners’ health.

You can contribute to the Mayor’s strategy consultation as either an organisation or an individual here, and I would encourage as many of you as possible to do so.

Tagged , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: