One in the eye from Musgrove hospital.

This exclusive report from The Guardian does a valuable service – it’s the secret NHS report into the scandal at Musgrove Hospital where the NHS contracted out Cataract operations to a profit making private company which then subcontracted out as much of the contract as possible.

The operations were going wrong at an alarming rate, eventually (far too late) the contract was suspended and then cancelled.

There is no conclusion about what went wrong, so I’ll tell you; too many operations carried out too quickly with too few staff who were inadequately trained.

Who foots the bill? The NHS – who do they sue out of the four companies?

Who takes the profit?

                                                   

Leaked report into cataract surgery revealed

 

Complications at Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton were ten times the number that might have been expected.

 

 Steven Morris  

 The Guardian, Thursday 16 October 2014    

 

Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton, Somerset outsourced eye surgery to a private company.

 

NHS patients who suffered complications during eye surgery outsourced to a private company felt the procedures were rushed and complained they endured pain during the operations and were shouted at by medical staff, a confidential report obtained by the Guardian has revealed.

 

The report, which health bosses are refusing to publish, says that the private company agreed to perform 20 cataract operations on patients a day, at least six more than the hospital’s own surgeons would usually undertake.

 

In addition, the report suggests that the combination of staff, equipment and facilities had not been tried before. It says that training was still going on when the first patients arrived at the mobile operating theatre at Musgrove Park hospital in Somerset. Concerns are also raised that the operations were not halted as quickly as they could have been when it became clear that patients were suffering complications. Rather than stopping procedures and finding out what had gone wrong, they pressed on.

 

By the time the operations at the Taunton hospital were stopped, 62 patients had undergone surgery. Of them, only 25 had a “normal recovery”.

The report says the complications reported were ten times the number that might have been expected.

 

Among the complications were burns caused by the machine used to break up cataract and loss of iris pigment. Some were left with microscopic metallic fragments in the eye, others had to have further surgery because cataract fragments were left in their eyes.

 

The report, marked “strictly confidential: not to be disclosed to any other party”, also gives a rare insight into how contracts between NHS hospitals and private operators work. Musgrove Park drew up a contract with the global health giant Vanguard Healthcare Solutions. It in turn sub-contracted the provision of surgeons and equipment to another private company, which in turn sub-contracted the provision of some equipment to a third company.

 

It raises worrying questions about how a private healthcare company and an NHS trust work together. The decision not to publish the report seems to fly in the face of the government’s commitment to openness about mistakes following the Mid Staffs hospital scandal Musgrove claimed it wanted to publish the report but was advised not to do so for fear that it would be defamatory and open the hospital up to legal action.

 

Mike Rigby, an independent Somerset county councillor, who has been trying get answers about what went wrong since the problems happened in May, said many unanswered questions remained. He said: “I have long been concerned that this sort of problem could occur following the fracturing of comprehensive patient care caused by the government’s reorganisation of the NHS and the huge involvement of private health firms that it invited.”

 

Rigby said the report did not get to the “root of the problem”, adding: “Many questions are left unanswered.”

 

The report says that in spring 2014 Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust needed a “decisive” solution to a backlog of cataract cases to meet government waiting list rules.

 

The trust drew up a contract with Vanguard to treat 400 patients during May 2014. The final contract was agreed on 1 May and operations began next day.

Operations were carried out on 2, 3 and 4 May.

But on 6 and 7 May, according to the report, concerns were raised by Musgrove consultants regarding three patients who had attended the eye casualty department with problems following surgery at the Vanguard facility.

No issues or concerns had been raised by Vanguard. Following discussions between

the trust and the private companies involved, it was decided that products – drugs and chemicals – used during the operations rather than surgical problems were likely to be the problem. It was decided to change the products and carry on with surgery as planned on 9 May.

 

Concerns were still being expressed by hospital staff but operations began again at 9.48am on 9 May. By 11am it was clear that other patients were reporting complications and operations were stopped. The contract was suspended and cancelled on 12 May.

 

The report found that the two surgeons had “significant relevant experience” and both were working in NHS consultant posts. But the combination of staff, equipment and facilities had not been brought together before.

 

Investigators looked at whether poor surgical technique was to blame. But the report says this “cannot be the whole explanation” or such problems would have been picked up by the surgeons’ own hospitals or while working in private practice. Patients were affected following operations by both surgeons.

 

But the report says the “pressure of operating on 20 patients each day may have contributed to the possible deterioration of surgical quality and reduction in patient experience.”

 

it says some patients reported the procedure felt “rushed”. Several reported experiencing pain during the procedure and being “shouted at” for moving.

 

The report concludes that “no single cause was identified....the trust has not been able to identify any clear cause that explains all the complications.”

 

It says: “From the first session on the first day of operating, the number of cases was fixed at 20 per day. “This did not allow for significant on-site training time....Patients were arriving at the Vanguard facility while training was going on, creating pressure to start the lists promptly and shorten training.”

 

The report said that “in retrospect” the products identified as the possible reason for complications were unlikely to have been the cause for complications.

It suggests that “clearer escalation processes” could have led to an earlier decision to halt operations.

The report says that by the time it was written, of the 37 patients who did not have a “normal recovery”, 32 had now been discharged and five were still receiving follow-up treatment.

 

In a statement released before the report was obtained, Musgrove said: “We have now concluded a thorough investigation. The purpose of this was to try and establish what happened to cause the complications that the patients operated on in the Vanguard mobile theatre experienced, and how we could learn from these events to minimise the risk of recurrence in the future.

“As with similar ophthalmic incident clusters there is no clear single cause for the range of problems our patients appear to have experienced.

Instead we have identified a number of factors which may have led to the unusually high level of complications seen. The detail of the investigation has been shared with patients.”

 

Ian Gillespie, Vanguard’s chief executive, said: “Our focus remains first and foremost on the patients and their care, and I’d like to personally convey my sympathy for any patients who have experienced discomfort or distress.

 

“This was a collaborative contract, and we have been working closely with the trust throughout this investigation. The investigation does not identify any one cause, but instead points to a number of different factors which may have led to the complications experienced by patients. No issues have been identified with the Vanguard mobile theatre facility itself; however, there are clearly lessons to be learned by all parties. We are working with the trust to ensure that measures are put in place to prevent this happening again.”

As usual, when private companies take over NHS work they take the profits but the NHS is accountable for the mistakes and it’s us who pick up the bill.

 

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

Home:  helpmesortoutthenhs.blogspot.com

Contact me: neilwithpromisestokeep@gmail.com

 

The benefits of privatisation.

This piece from ‘The Independent’ highlights the problems that are bubbling up from government policy to force hospitals to use private healthcare providers.

Then again for the Tories it’s been a success; it’s started the process of stealing the NHS from us and it’s made a lot of profits for their business friends and sponsors;

Dozens of NHS patients have been left with damage to their eyes, including partial loss of sight, after undergoing routine cataract operations which had been outsourced to a private provider.

 

A hospital in Somerset is now facing a slew of legal claims from patients who say they were left with problems including blurred vision, pain and swelling after undergoing cataract removal operations at a unit run by Vanguard Healthcare, which operated on the hospital site.

 

The scandal will raise serious questions about the Coalition Government’s plans to expand the role of private providers working in the NHS.

 

Vanguard had been under contract to Musgrove Park Hospital, in Taunton, since May to help clear a backlog of patients. Of 62 people who underwent cataract operations, 31 reported poor outcomes, according to lawyers for the patients. Cataract operations usually have a very low complication rate, typically around in one 400.

 

Laurence Vick, head of clinical negligence at Michelmores Solicitors, which is acting for a number of the patients affected, said the case “uncovered the uneasy relationship between the NHS and the private sector”.

 

“We don’t know what arrangements are in place for Musgrove to recoup their outlay and losses on this contract from Vanguard,” he said. “From the taxpayer’s point of view, it would be totally unreasonable for Vanguard to walk away from this scandal with only their reputation, and not their [investment], damaged… It is crucial that an episode of this kind is not dismissed as an anomaly – a hybridised, public-private NHS will need to be wary of similar issues in future.”

 

Patients affected are now having their side-effects treated at the hospital itself. Lawyers for some of the patients, most of whom were elderly and vulnerable, said it was likely the NHS Trust would have to pay for any successful compensation claims – meaning that the taxpayer would be footing the bill.

 

Among those affected was an 84-year-old man, whose son, Chris Newcombe, is now calling for an independent inquiry. Mr Newcombe says his father experienced blurred vision and swollen corneas after being operated on at the Vanguard mobile surgery unit.

 

Mr Newcombe told the Somerset County Gazette: “My father is traumatised and depressed with the loss of his eyesight. Previous pleasures of gardening and watching sport on the TV have now been taken away from him. This could have been prevented if the welfare of the patients had been thought about, rather than this urgency of just getting people through.”

 

His parents had “only praise and admiration” for staff at Musgrove’s own ophthalmology department, who have since been treating his father, he said.

 

The Trust said that due to an ongoing investigation into the matter, they could not comment “in detail on the sequence of events surrounding the unfortunate complications experienced by our patients receiving cataract surgery with Vanguard Healthcare in their mobile theatre at Musgrove Park Hospital. Our first and foremost concern has always been our patients, and particularly those who have experienced complications,” the statement said. “We have been in very close contact with them since the incident to ensure they are fully informed with our progress and receive the highest quality aftercare and treatment.”

 

Chief executive Jo Cubbon said that “early into the arrangement” with Vanguard in May, “technical issues in the facility had arisen and it became necessary to cease the service arrangements in place”.

 

Ian Gillespie, chief executive of Vanguard Healthcare, said: “Patient care is our number one priority and we’re working closely with the Trust to understand and fully investigate the root causes of any complications… Operations were carried out in Vanguard’s operating theatre by highly qualified surgeons, approved by the hospital.”

 

The Department for Health was yet to respond last night.

 

Profile: Vanguard

 

Founded in 2002 and headquartered in Brockworth, Gloucester, Vanguard’s key service is the hire of mobile operating theatres, dedicated mobile endoscopy units, wards, and clinics to public and private hospitals. The company’s latest accounts show a £576,000 profit on sales of £11.3m in 2013, a rise of more than 10 per cent. Its 57 staff – 35 technical and 22 administrative – earned an average of almost £53,000.

 

Vanguard Executive Chairman and co-founder Andrew Allen, a chartered accountant, spent the past 20 years as owner/manager of healthcare businesses. According to Vanguard’s website “three of these businesses were backed by private equity, and realised returns upon exit well in excess of 30 per cent p.a. for investors”.

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

Home: helpmesortoutstpeters.blogspot.com

Contact me: neilwithpromisestokeep@gmail.com

More Mid Staffordshire Hospital fallout.

This report from the BBC News website brings to an end one of the more shocking incidents from the scandal at Mid Staffordshire Hospital.

I would have used a report from The Nursing Times, usually very reliable but not today. Their report wasn’t helpful and a comment made by a reader (a nurse?) afterwards sought to belittle the episode.

For the record neglect is generally very difficult to prove. This pair were guilty of a number of different acts of cruelty – the failure to test or provide insulin just being the easiest to prove;

Nurse struck off for Stafford Hospital deathGillian Astbury Gillian Astbury died at Stafford Hospital in April 2007

A nurse has been struck off after failing to identify a patient who died at Stafford Hospital was diabetic.

Gillian Astbury, 66, died at the hospital in April 2007 after not receiving insulin.

In July, a Nursing and Midwifery Council panel found former Stafford nurses Jeannette Coulson and Ann King guilty of misconduct.

King has been struck off by the panel, while Coulson was given a caution for a period of three years.

During the earlier hearing, King was also found to have lied about having changing patients' dressings and giving them medication, while Coulson admitted swearing at staff.

The panel heard the pair had failed to carry out blood-sugar level tests on Ms Astbury.

She was admitted to Stafford Hospital a week after suffering a stroke on 1 April 2007.

She did not receive insulin for 48 hours, and was discovered collapsed in a bed at 22:30 on 10 April.

 

In a statement, Ms Astbury's daughter Kate Beeson said: "While we are happy that the conclusion of the NMC hearing draws a line under the case, whatever the ruling, nothing can bring my mother back, and nothing can truly reflect the severity of the nurses' negligence.

 

"We have been fighting for justice for several, very tiring years. Since her tragic death, I have been unable to put my mother to rest.

 

"Today's judgment, and all of the effort that has gone into getting to this stage, will be completely in vain if others in a similar position do not step out and make their voices heard.

 

"It is important that those responsible are brought to account and people need to speak up in order to make that happen."

 

In a statement, the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust said its thoughts were with Ms Astbury's family and apologised for the "appalling care" she received.

 

It added that both nurses had since left the trust.

The trust is itself facing a prosecution over Ms Astbury's death, brought by the Health and Safety Executive, under the health and safety at work act.

What was important was the creation of a ‘culture’ where this behaviour became acceptable, just as bullying becomes ‘acceptable’ and was probably also present.

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

Home:helpmesortoutthenhs.blogspot.com

Another Bart's Health NHS Trust scandal.

If you’ve been following this Blog, you will remember that back in May I highlighted my concerns about Bart’s Health NHS Trust. A mega merger trust which uses the historic name of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, much loved and respected since medieval times but now reduced and diminished and merged into a group of hospitals.

Between them all they are far and away the leading lights in my ‘Bottom 21’ of hospitals with the worst record for ‘never events’; the things that should never happen because simple things like ‘tick lists’ would prevent them; like cutting of the wrong limb, operating on the wrong person or leaving instruments inside people.

Here’s another one hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

By the way, how do you have a course in ‘care and compassion’ – can you teach that? I think if you don’t have it or you lost it, you shouldn’t be looking after people. Sorry.

The London Standard

Sophie Goodchild

06 September 2013

A London hospital was warned today that it must improve care, after maternity staff were reported to have used “disrespectful” language about women they were looking after.

The Royal London in Whitechapel was criticised by NHS watchdog the Care Quality Commission after a visit by its inspectors. They also found that elderly patients did not always receive appropriate care and treatment.

Their report highlights how staff shortages at the hospital — part of Barts Health NHS trust—have left doctors and nurses struggling to maintain basic care standards. This comes weeks after a damning CQC report into care at Whipps Cross University Hospital, which is also part of Barts Health.

The trust is one of half a dozen considered high-risk by Sir Mike Richards, the CQC’s chief inspector of hospitals. It is already being forced to axe services and suspend expansion plans while it tackles a £50 million financial crisis.

Inspectors who visited the Royal London on June 4 and 5 said they overhead maternity staff making comments about patients such as: “I hope bed six isn’t still here,” and: “Bed nine was terrible last night.” There was a lack of experienced staff to meet the needs of mothers and babies, with some women never seeing the same midwife twice.

 

Midwives told inspectors they felt senior managers were not listening to their concerns, especially in relation to staff shortages. One employee told inspectors: “I don’t have confidence in managers to treat staff properly.”

 

Staff on the post-natal ward complained “the management are never present” and do not “treat us well”.

Care plans for patients with pressure sores were not always fit for purpose.

Queues for staff rooms in the ante-natal clinic meant private conversations could be overheard.

 

The CQC found the Royal London was failing five national standards: on care and welfare of people who use services; co-operating with other providers; staffing; supporting workers; and respecting and involving people who use services.

 

Today the CQC warned that some “pretty basic” care requirements were not being fulfilled as they should. Barts — Britain’s biggest health trust — said it was “extremely sorry” for failings identified at the Royal London.

 

The trust said it had put measures in place since the inspection, including a training programme in care and compassion for all 500 staff involved in caring for the elderly. Maternity staff had also been reminded of “the very high standards of care we expect”.

 

Last month, after an inspection in May and June, Whipps Cross in Leytonstone was criticised for its “dirty and unsafe” maternity ward and treating women among “overfilled bins and stained floors”, with women having to wait up to four hours to be seen. Barts Health said it had “taken immediate action to rectify the failures”.

 

Of course the management reaction will be to shut hospitals and sell off the land.

The government reaction will be to privatise it all.

Our reaction?

Rally round the hospitals, save the sites and the departments, fight to break up the trust and win back local control.

 

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)
Home:   helpmesortoutthenhs.blogspot.com

Barts health trust, again.

This is the end of a long and sad tale, which I’ve Blogged about before – it’s disgraceful abuse of elderly patients at Whipps Cross Hospital, part of the failing Bart’s Health trust. I pointed out the worrying developments at that trust, which is now being investigated. This bad treatment is an example of bullying and laziness (they are related) and demonstrates the culture on some wards at that hospital. Bad outcomes may well be related to that kind of treatment, among other things.

These kind of criminal offences are notoriouslu difficult to prove – the witnesses have real problems in communicating and often die before the trial happens. It calls out for secret videoing with mini cameras to keep an eye on the quality of care.

The whistleblower, a student nurse, did a very fine thing in exposing this behaviour when it is so much easier to just go along with the way things are done, when you are new to a job;

‘The Independent’ published this on 23/8/13, it’s a Press Association article.

 

Two healthcare assistants who abused elderly female patients on the geriatric ward of an under-fire hospital were jailed today.

 

Akousa Sakyiwaa, 38, was convicted of four counts of ill-treatment and neglect of patients on Beech Ward at Whipps Cross University Hospital in Leytonstone, east London, between February and April last year.

Sharmila Gunda, 36, was found guilty of one count of neglect and one count of assault by beating an elderly patient in her care following a trial in June.

Sakyiwaa, of Leytonstone, was jailed for 12 months and Gunda, of Ilford, given a five-month prison sentence at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Fellow healthcare assistant Annette Jackson, 33, of Hounslow, west London, was given a two-month suspended sentence and ordered to complete 100 hours unpaid work after being convicted of one count of ill-treatment or neglect.

 

The three women were charged following a Metropolitan Police inquiry into the hospital after a student nurse acted as a whistleblower.

Delivering his sentence, Judge Timothy Lamb QC said the women's actions had "damaged patient trust" in the NHS.

The three women were responsible for looking after elderly female patients with various physical and mental conditions, including dementia, prosecutor John McNally said.

"An entitlement to proper care should not be a matter of chance or be given at the whim of the carer. The conduct complained of simply had no place on any ward," he told the jury.

The women would physically and verbally abuse patients, often telling them to shut up, as well as handling them in a rough and aggressive manner, police said.

Sakyiwaa was found guilty of four counts of neglect against three patients, including holding a bed sheet over 87-year-old Joan Massett's head and telling her she was dead, the court heard.

She pushed Ms Massett's breasts in another incident and forcefully twisted her mouth which was both "demeaning and completely unnecessary", Mr McNally said.

Sakyiwaa shouted at 88-year-old patient Elizabeth Toussaint to force her to sit in a chair and slapped Louise Hodges, 92, after cleaning her, the hearing was told.

Jackson was found guilty of one count of neglecting patient Barbara Jones, while Gunda was found guilty of one charge of neglect and one charge of assault by beating June Evans.

Addressing the defendants, Mr Lamb said: "In short, by your offending you have let down your colleagues, you have damaged patient trust and you have undermined the quality of care for the elderly and vulnerable at Whipps Cross."

Barts Health NHS Trust, which runs the hospital, has apologised to patients and stressed it has a "zero tolerance approach" to any form of neglect or ill-treatment.

In a statement issued following the verdicts, the trust said: "We apologise unreservedly to the patients of Beech Ward and their families for the indefensible failings in their treatment during their time in our care.

"There can be no place under any circumstances for such behaviour in our trust or in the wider NHS."

The trust said that following an internal disciplinary investigation, all three women had their contracts of employment terminated.

It added: "We take a zero tolerance approach to any form of neglect or ill-treatment of our patients and applaud the student nurses who showed courage and integrity in raising the alarm.

"It is the duty of every member of staff to report such behaviour and we will actively encourage and support this through our whistleblowing policy which is made clear to all staff on day one of their employment with the Trust, with ongoing reminders to existing staff during regular statutory and mandatory training.

"Moreover, we will take action against any member of staff who turns a blind eye, or fails to take immediate and appropriate action, if they witness any form of abuse or negligence."

Barts Health NHS Trust was issued with three formal warnings last week after inspectors found "unsafe" conditions at Whipps Cross including  filthy maternity wards and water placed out of the reach of elderly patients.

The trust had "failed to protect the safety and welfare of patients" and must now make "urgent improvements" following unannounced inspections in May and June, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) said.

The judge labelled Gunda "spiteful" before telling Sakyiwaa: "Maybe this offending showed a sign of your character that you and other people didn't know about."

Mr Lamb acknowledged that Jackson, who broke down in tears in court, was the sole guardian of her young son in handing her a suspended sentence.

Only one of the elderly victims, June Evans, was able to give evidence during the trial.

In a statement read to the court, she said: "Since the incident that took place last year I have completely lost trust in the health service.

"I lost faith in my GP, the ambulance service and hospitals in general."

Ms Evans discharged herself from the hospital following the assault and was in a state of distress when she had to return to Whipps Cross for further treatment.

"I wanted to die," she said.

 

"I thought why couldn't I have a heart attack and end it"

 

A number of further charges of neglect, assault and fraud related to the women were ordered to remain on file.

 

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

Home: helpmesortoutthenhs.blogspot.com

Barts Health and Whipps Cross update.

This article is from ‘The Guardian’ today – they’ve got hold of the Care Quality Commission report into Whipps Cross Hospital, now part of ‘Bart’s healthcare’, the biggest Foundation trust in the country. They don’t do things by halves there – big debts, big problems.

I highlighted those problems on 10^th May 2013 in my Blog ‘Never happen events’ and the next day I highlighted Barts Health in ‘The Bottom 21’, where I called for an investigation – Barts had had 27 ‘never happen events’ in the previous three years.

I don’t imagine anyone took notice of my Blog, but I do think someone had a look at the same data I looked at  because the CQC made two unannounced raid inspections at Whipps Cross Hospital (part of that trust) in May and June – I've got a bit to say myself, at the end.

here’s the article;

 

Whipps Cross hospital had 'systematic failings', finds NHS watchdog

 

Care Quality Commission castigates trust over east London hospital as it finds 10 of 16 national care standards not met.  

 Denis Campbell, health correspondent

 The Guardian, Wednesday 14 August 2013   

 

NHS inspectors have uncovered "a catalogue of failings" at a London hospital including uncaring staff, blood-stained equipment, poor hygiene standards, patients not being helped to eat and a high mortality rate.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC), the NHS care watchdog, has castigated Barts Health NHS Trust for the "very serious concerns" its inspectors found when they staged two unannounced inspections in several key departments at Whipps Cross University hospital in east London in May and June.

During the visits a midwife was seen being sarcastic and unsympathetic to a new mother in a blood-stained gown who complained of being in pain. The midwife brought her tablets but did not explain what they were. She then also brought the woman the wrong sort of formula milk for her baby, did not accept that she had done so and did not then offer to bring her the right one.

"We found that, in places, the hospital was unsafe and dirty, and that staff didn't always show patients the compassion that people deserve," said Matthew Trainer, the CQC's regional director for London. "Patients were not receiving the care and support they should have been able to expect, and in some cases this was putting them at risk of harm. If staff have uncaring attitudes, are not supported properly to do their job, or if they are not properly supervised, the consequences for patients can be very worrying," he said.

In an unusually critical assessment, inspectors said the hospital was in breach of 10 of the 16 national standards for quality and safety of care. Some failings were so grave that patients' safety was in danger.

Barts Health, which is the biggest NHS trust and runs five other hospitals, has been issued with three formal warnings to improve Whips Cross's performance – on cleanliness and infection control; safety, availability and suitability of equipment; and support to staff. The CQC has demanded urgent action in these areas.

"We saw examples of poor care, unacceptable staff behaviour and poor infection control in maternity services. In surgery, theatre processes and communication arrangements put people's safety at risk. Surgery and maternity were both too busy, did not have enough staff to look after people's needs, and lacked bed capacity, which meant they were not as effective as they should be and not always responsive to people's needs," one of the CQC's two reports into the hospital said. Management had not done enough to tackle these problems, it added.

In the maternity unit, staff on the postnatal ward were found to be uncaring, while in the labour ward inspectors found blood stains on a stainless steel bowl in a room that staff said was ready to use. In another there were also stains on the disposable curtains.

Care was "not always delivered safely" and some newborns ended up in intensive care "related to a failure by midwives to carry out the correct observations at the right time and escalating mothers [for treatment] when required", the CQC said. A lack of maternity beds meant the unit occasionally had to shut temporarily, with women who expected to give birth there being sent instead to other hospitals when they were already in labour.

In surgical services, a lack of staff on two wards inspected "led to people receiving unacceptable levels of care", while a bed shortage "meant that people waited too long in the recovery areas after surgery" and operations were often cancelled. In addition, "people were having poor outcomes after surgery as the 90-day post-surgery mortality rate was higher than the national average".

The A&E unit had not met the key NHS target of treating 95% of patients within four hours for six months before the inspection and patients arriving in ambulances sometimes ended up receiving medical attention while still on a trolley.

In the elderly care department, some wards had to share equipment and inspectors saw that some patients had to wait to be helped to eat their meal or received no help at all, while water was sometimes put out of their reach. Five patients had developed pressure sores after admission, while checks on feeding tubes were not done.

 

Peter Morris, Barts Health's chief executive, said it was "extremely sorry for the failings" the CQC had found.

He said it had already introduced "robust action plans", including improvement in training and care standards for maternity staff, bringing in personnel from its other hospitals and ensuring that the 500 staff who look after elderly patients always provided excellent care.

 The Department of Health said: "It is unacceptable that Whipps Cross hospital is failing to meet fundamental care standards. It is right that the regulator has exposed these problems, and that this hospital takes urgent steps to improve."

This is a good story; on the Radio London phone in show this morning there were some harrowing stories.

Whipps Cross seems a disgrace – falling below acceptable standards in a number of areas. The amazing Dr Semmelweiss will be turning in his grave – if you haven’t heard of his story, I put him in my ‘Hall of fame’ over on my other Blog (link on ‘pages’ top right).

The problem is, according to the ‘Never events’, it  wasn’t just Whipps Cross in the Trust that was messing up. All the hospitals in the group need to be investigated.

Please don’t think I’m saying that ‘never events’ are a guide to how good or bad a hospital is – but they are one indication of things going wrong.

We need to be looking at a whole range of indicators of bad treatment and if alarm bells are going off, do something.

People of my generation remember when ‘Barts’ was a greatly respected Hospital and name, cherished since medieval times and more recently by the workers at nearby Smithfield Market who fought to keep Accident and Emergency open some years ago. While there is still a hospital on the historic site, it lost its A and E and has been merged into oblivion.

The PFI contract for the new London Hospital in the East End, threatens the future of all the hospitals in this group. It is costing £3 Billion over the next 30 years and is too big to fail.

The decay in standards at Barts Health is probably related to a collapse in morale and leadership as a result of the changes that are likely in the provision of healthcare in this area.

Its time for patients and staff to start campaigning in this Trust, before its all too late - this sloppiness just gives the Trusts enemies the ammunition they need.

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

 

Proper care?

p

       BOOK ‘EM DANNO !

This story needs no further comment by me, except that one of the Francis Report recommendations turned down by the government is that Healthcare assistants should have a professional body and be subject to regulation – they should be struck of for misconduct. Right now you or I could do this tomorrow. So could these three, even if they were to be convicted – they could come out of prison and go back to work.

Court told healthcare assistants 'beat elderly patients' at Whipps Cross Hospital.

 

4 June, 2013 | By The Press Association

Three female healthcare assistants treated elderly patients in hospital in a way that “simply had no place on any ward” with two patients even beaten, a court has heard.

Akousa Sakyiwaa, 38, Annette Jackson, 33, and Sharmila Gunda, 36, are charged with several counts of ill-treatment or neglect under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with Ms Sakyiwaa and Ms Gunda also charged with assault by beating.

The incidents, involving 11 patients, are alleged to have taken place from February 27 to April 30 last year on Beech Ward at Whipps Cross Hospital in east London.

Ms Sakyiwaa, of Orange Grove, Leytonstone, is charged with seven counts of ill-treatment or neglect and one count of assault by beating, while Ms Jackson, of Simpson Road, Hounslow, is charged with five counts of ill-treatment or neglect.

Ms Gunda, of Horns Road, Ilford, is charged with two counts of ill-treatment or neglect and one charge of assault by beating. They deny all the charges.

John McNally, prosecuting, told the jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court that the three women were responsible for looking after elderly female patients with various physical and mental conditions including dementia.

Ms McNally said that while these patients may have been at times obstructive and although the duties may have been unpleasant, the defendants should have taken good care of the patients, many of whom needed help with day-to-day tasks. “These factors only serve to highlight the vulnerability of these patients,” he said.

“An entitlement to proper care should not be a matter of chance or be given at the whim of the carer. The conduct complained of simply had no place on any ward,” he told the jury. Mr McNally said that when someone lacks capacity - the scenario a dementia sufferer may find themselves in - they should be treated with respect.

“Even when people lack capacity they don’t just become bodies to be pushed around,” he said. Mr McNally told the jury about one incident involving “extremely frail” 92-year-old Lily Oliver.

Ms Oliver was admitted to hospital with painful swelling in her knee where she also had arthritis. Mr McNally said Ms Oliver “depended on others for her daily living”, and said she was “bed-bound” and “not cognitively intact”. “Lily Oliver wasn’t able to make decisions about her care,” he said.

During her time on Beech Ward, Ms Oliver was under the care of Ms Sakyiwaa, Mr McNally said. Ms Sakyiwaa was “extremely rough with Lily Oliver” during a change of bandage, the jury heard.

He said she “grabbed Lily Oliver’s left knee with both hands and pushed it” towards another worker. This caused her to “scream with pain and turn pale before falling silent”, Mr McNally said.

The three women were charged following a Metropolitan Police inquiry into the hospital after a student nurse acted as a whistle blower. Only one of the 11 patients is able to give evidence at the trial which is expected to last for two weeks.

 

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

Home: helpmesortoutthenhs.blpot.com