Showing posts with label privatisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privatisation. Show all posts

Thursday, 14 July 2016

How privatisation costs us money.

Here's how saving money by using the private sector ended up costing the NHS nearly £9 million pounds;

University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was wasted on an NHS outsourcing contract, investigators have found.
Under the £726m deal, UnitingCare was meant to provide care for older and mentally ill people in Cambridgeshire.
But the consortium claimed the contract was not financially viable and pulled out of the deal in December.
A joint statement from the two organisations in the consortium said the National Audit Office's (NAO) findings provided "clarity".
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group had been been in charge of care for older and mentally ill people but put these services out to contract because it was trying to save money.
The UnitingCare Partnership's business case estimated net savings of £178m to the local health economy by 2020.

'Astonishing array of errors'

But the NAO's investigation into the contract - which ended just eight months after it started - has criticised the planning and the lack of data setting out the true cost of the service.
The report found the consortium had not taken account of VAT costs and underestimated both the changeover and running costs of delivering the service in drawing up its bid for the contract.

The report also found negotiations between the CCG and the UnitingCare were continuing when the contract started.
As a result, one month into the contract UnitingCare asked for £34m in extra funding which triggered fresh negotiations.

The report said: "The wasted cost to the NHS of the contract set-up and bidder costs was £8.9m."

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: "This contract was innovative and ambitious but ultimately an unsuccessful venture, which failed for financial reasons which could, and should, have been foreseen.

"Limited oversight and a lack of commercial expertise led to problems that quickly became insurmountable."

Meg Hillier, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said the report "details an astonishing array of errors" in implementing service changes.

"Despite drafting in specialist expertise from the private sector and the NHS, the assumptions underlying the contract's cost structure were not tested.

"Instead, the contract - which was not remotely ready - was rushed through without due regard for protecting taxpayers' money."

A joint statement from the two organisations behind Uniting Care, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said: "We believe that the report is balanced and provides clarity on the reasons why the contract ended."

The CCG is yet to comment.

That came from a BBC news article.

Neil Harris
(a don't stop till you drop production)
Home: helpmesortoutthenhs.blogspot.com
Contact me: neilwithpromisestokeep@gmail.com

Monday, 16 February 2015

Privatisation hits the most vulnerable and we pick up the tab: Vista Independant healthcare.













Vista Independent Hospital: Patients moved after violence concerns 


Patients have been moved out of a mental health hospital that was criticised over a "disturbing" number of violent attacks.

A Care Quality Commission (CQC) report said Vista Independent Hospital at Winchfield, Hampshire, recorded more than 300 violent incidents.

NHS England said its decision to move patients was to ensure they were "safe and well cared for".

Hospital owner Vista Healthcare has not yet commented on the move.

A second CQC inspection was carried out earlier this month.

A spokesman for NHS England said Vista Healthcare has "failed to maintain safe standards of care and treatment for the vulnerable patients in its care".
'Considering further enforcement'
"Commissioners, working with the Care Quality Commission have acted promptly and already begun the process of transferring these patients, some with complex needs, to centres that can provide care to the appropriate standards," he said.

CQC inspectors - whose initial unannounced visit in November was made after concerns were raised - found multiple breaches of care, safety and health regulations.

It recorded 334 incidents of physical abuse or violence involving patients in seven months. There were 272 incidents of physical assaults on staff reported, with some needing hospital treatment.

The CQC said police had been involved in 22 incidents. The regulator formally warned Vista Healthcare, owned by Fairhome Care Group, to make urgent improvements.

The inspection also raised concerns over staff numbers, training and leadership.

A second inspection was carried out by a team of eight inspectors over three days from 3 February.

A CQC statement following that inspection, said: "We have discussed our findings with the provider and commissioners, and we are now considering whether further enforcement action is appropriate."

The hospital is registered for up to 69 patients with mental health needs or learning disabilities.

Neil Harris
(a don't stop till you drop production)

Home:  helpmesortoutthenhs.blogspot.com

Contact me:  neilwithpromisestokeep@gmail.com

Thursday, 16 October 2014

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)
 

Thursday, 14 August 2014

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

Sunday, 15 December 2013

SERCO Busted.


The current mantra, constantly chanted, is that private enterprise is more efficient and better than services provided by the state sector.

As a result, newspapers and politicians who are all thinking about the potential profits they can make, are demanding more and more NHS services should be provided by profit making companies rather than ourselves (the state).

Whatever – we pay anyway; it’s just that if it’s a company we pay for the fat profits on top.

Remember SERCO? They are a massive multinational company who started by providing security services and now do anything and everything.

They are also fraudsters – their electronic tagging of people on bail or on community sentences turned out to be billing us for people in prison and the dead. The Police are currently investigating.

They also had a go at health services – failing to provide G.P. cover in Cornwall and getting exposed by Margaret Hodge in Parliament.

Meanwhile here is my award for the ‘2013 Bernie Madoff award for Creative Public Relations’ -

"The services we deliver in Cornwall and Braintree are no longer core to the future delivery of our healthcare strategy."

Here’s the article in full and well done to The Guardian for breaking the story in the first place;

.

  The Guardian                                                        

 Sean Farrell      

 

 The Guardian, Friday 13 December 2013 14.29 GMT     

 

Serco has agreed to the early termination of its contract for out-of-hours GP services in Cornwall after the company left the county short of doctors.

 

The embattled outsourcing company also said it would stop running Braintree hospital in Essex as it pulls out of managing GP services and large hospitals. It follows a review of Serco's healthcare operations.

 

On Thursday the company, along with G4S, was forced to hand over its electronic tagging contracts to rival Capita following fraud allegations over the way they charged the government.

 

Serco said the Cornwall and Braintree contracts and a loss-making agreement for community healthcare in Suffolk would cost it £17m in one-off charges.

 

The company said: "Serco has agreed with NHS Kernow to bring forward the end of its contract for GP out-of-hours services in Cornwall. Serco's operation of the contract to date has experienced some operational challenges."

 

A Guardian investigation revealed in May that Serco had falsified its performance data for the Cornwall contract when reporting to the local NHS trust so that it appeared to meet targets that it failed to achieve.

 

It had won the contract with a bid that undercut the local GP co-operative by £1.5m. Whistleblowers later raised the alarm over safety, highlighting an occasion when only one GP had been on duty for the county for the night.

 

The revelations triggered an inquiry by the parliamentary accounts committee. The committee said Serco's service was substandard and was highly critical of the company's treatment of whistleblowers.

 

Serco's UK boss, who appeared before the committee, left the company in November, a month after group chief executive Chris Hyman unexpectedly quit.

 

Problems in Cornwall added to the company's woes in the UK. In July the government accused it and rival outsourcer G4S of charging to electronically tag offenders who were in fact dead or in prison. The Cabinet Office has barred both companies from bidding for new state contracts while it reviews their operations, and has ordered them to clean up their businesses.

 

Serco said NHS Kernow would look for another company to provide an "integrated service" before the contract expires in May 2015. The company's agreement to run Braintree hospital will last until December next year.

 

Valerie Michie, managing director of Serco's healthcare business, said: "The services we deliver in Cornwall and Braintree are no longer core to the future delivery of our healthcare strategy."

A spokeswoman for NHS Kernow said there had been problems with Serco's service but that it had improved. Serco will continue to run community healthcare services in Suffolk, but the business has not produced the profits it had hoped for.

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)
Kernow is Cornish for Cornwall.

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Speedwalking through the sleaze.


Sometimes it’s good to look into the future, sometimes it’s just as useful to look back into the past.

I’ve found the website www.spinwatch.org  really useful in researching articles. Its feisty reporters and excellent database provide an insight into the sleazy world of political lobbyists for hire.

I came across it when I was using a different site www.powerbase.info which does the same valuable job in exposing the sordid activities of the world of public relations (“match me, Sidney” – you’d have to be of a certain age or have an addiction to black and white films to get that one).

Anyway, back to Spinwatch. There is a really interesting video made by Tamasin Cave and posted on something called ‘Vimeo’ the link is;


Tamasin Cave goes for a speedwalk through the streets around Westminster, the home of Government and health provision. It was made in 2011, so the Health Minister, Andrew Lansley has bitten the dust but the subject matter hasn’t. It’s a tour of all the lobbying firms, the PR companies and the private healthcare providers who were queuing up in 2011 to get their hands on NHS money.

She also goes through the political contacts and her colleague delights in setting out the ministerial contacts (old and new) that make it possible for private investors to milk our NHS.

A couple of months ago, the biggest ever contract was put out for tender in a way that meant no NHS organisation could compete. £800 million of our money. After you’ve watched this excellent video you’ll understand why and will be able to follow what makes the money flow.

Neil Harris

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

Thursday, 29 August 2013

More benefits of contracting out.


Here’s another good example of what good value contracting out services to private companies can be.

SERCO is a massive multinational, one of its contracts is taking prisoners from police stations to courts to prisons.

If they miss a targeted delivery, if they aren’t making enough revenue – what do they do?

They fiddle the figures.

m

It’s Ok, Boss -

I’ll Cooka Da books

Do you think I’m worried about being sued?

Oh no, I don’t think so – because they called the Feds in.

Have a look at this article from The Independent, I think the confusing reference to £40 million is to the profits made from the contract;

Fraud alleged in Serco prisoner escort contracts

Services giant agrees to repay past profits from its £40m-a-year contract and forgo all future earnings

Cahal Milmo   

Wednesday 28 August 2013

 

Serco, one of Britain's largest companies, is to be investigated for fraud after the Government and the services giant called in police to examine irregularities in records kept for its £285m prisoner escorting contract.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling announced that the company has agreed to repay past profits from its £40m-a-year contract and forgo all future earnings after an investigation suggested records relating to the delivery of prisoners to courts had been falsified by members of its staff.

 

Mr Grayling said the review by Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials had not found evidence that knowledge of the alleged malpractice reached the boardroom of the company, which last year had revenues of £4.8bn, but warned Serco that it faces being frozen out of all future public contracts.

 

Serco is one of two companies, along with G4S, which are also being investigated for allegedly over-charging the taxpayer in the “low tens of millions” to monitor non-existent electronic tags on prisoners, some of which had been assigned to dead detainees.

 

The Prisoner Escort and Custodial Services (PECS) contract is one of a gamut of public sector deals held in Britain by Serco, which earns hundreds of millions of pounds a year for providing services ranging from border controls to managing London's cycle hire scheme.

 

The MoJ said an audit of Serco's contract for transporting prisoners between court and jails in London and East Anglia had found “evidence of potentially fraudulent behaviour” by employees. The alleged fraud concerns the recording of prisoners having been delivered to courts when they had not - a key measure of performance for the contract. An audit is understood to have produced evidence that the figures may have been manipulated to enhance performance and earnings.

 

Mr Grayling said: “It has become very clear there has been a culture within parts of Serco that has been totally unacceptable, and actions which need to be investigated by the police.

 

”We have not seen evidence of systemic malpractice up to board level, but we have been clear with the company - unless it undertakes a rapid process of major change... then it will not win public contracts in the future”.

 

Did you notice the reference to G4S?

This is SERCO’s rival in the provision of contracted out services to the government. Their ‘tagging’ department is being investigated for making up figures when they were claiming for work for installing electronic tags on sentenced criminals – they were making things up too.

But it’s OK, it’s only in ‘the low tens of millions’.

Neil Harris

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

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

The economics of contracting out NHS services to the private sector.


The cat is out of the bag. Here’s the perceived wisdom;

The NHS is a bad thing, it’s the ‘Big State’, its inefficient and it costs too much.

Private healthcare providers could do it all much better and cheaper.

Instead of the NHS/the State providing healthcare it should be commissioning private care providers to do it on their behalf instead.

Here’s the reality;

The Competition Commission (CC) believes that the main private healthcare providers (BMI Healthcare, HCA International and Spire Healthcare) have been overcharging their private patients by between £173 million to £193 million a year between 2009 and 2011.

These three companies dominate the market and as a result have bumped up their charges, or as the Competition Commission puts it they have; “been earning returns substantially and persistently in excess of the cost of capital” over those three years.

The overcharging is estimated to be around 10% to 11% of their private revenue although the Commission thinks that this may be an under estimate.

All three companies deny the allegations but an investigation will follow and is likely to throw up some more interesting figures.

This all came about because a smaller company, Circle which isn’t part of ‘The Club’, made a complaint to the Commission which blew the gaff on the ‘big three’

Chief financial officer Paolo Pieri said: “We are delighted that we have been vindicated by the Competition Commission and believe more patients will now be able to access our state-of-the-art facilities as a result of this ruling…..This report is clear that patients across the country have suffered higher prices and poorer care because of the monopolistic behaviour of private hospital providers. We now look forward to the Competition Commission pushing through these remedies with haste – including pursuing the maximum financial penalties – to finally ensure a fair deal for patients across the country.”

 

What all this exposes is that the private healthcare providers are ripping off their private patients and there is absolutely no reason to believe that they aren’t ripping off the taxpayer/NHS in the contracts they carve up between themselves when they do work for us.

So much for more efficient, cheaper, better.

Neil Harris

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

Saturday, 27 July 2013

End of NHS care.


Now it begins;
 
 
UHands Off
                 It’s our NHS.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group are putting out to tender £1 Billion of medical services in their area to private providers. This will cover ‘end of life care’ amongst other provision for the elderly.

It’s a 5 year contract worth £160 million a year for 5 years with a 2 year extension option.

Currently there are 6 separate contracts with the NHS, 4 hospital trusts, a mental health trust and a community services trust. The new contract is so large and the current suppliers so diverse that they will not be able to compete with the multi-nationals likely to win the contract.

Virgin Care which already has a £450 million pound contract in Surrey is eyeing up the profits, as is Circle which runs Hinchinbrooke Hospital and Serco which was recently exposed as providing inadequate GP cover and lying about it on it’s out of hours contract in Cornwall.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Nuffield Trust, the £100 Billion NHS budget now bleeds over £8.7 Billion in private contracts.

So what happens to the existing providers when the new contract is signed? Do the hospitals shut down, or do the new private bosses come in and take over the public assets that we used to own, using them to milk the profits without paying for the facilities.

In other words we pay, they profit.

I’m approaching ‘end of life’ care. I don’t want to get it from Richard Branson’s Virgin, Serco or G4S.

Neil Harris

(a don’t stop till you drop production)

Friday, 26 July 2013

The Keogh Review review, part 3.


The Good,the Bad and the Ugly

These are my conclusions about the report.

 

The Ugly

The 14 Trusts were failing 10 years ago, failing now and likely to be failing in 10 years time unless real changes are made.

A number of the trusts, despite prior warning of inspection, were still unsafe or not properly staffed when Keogh came calling.

If management couldn’t get its act together to sort everything out before an inspection, when would it?  Unless the management changes it is going to happen again, as soon as the Keogh spotlight has moved on.

The report doesn’t identify management or managing clinicians as a problem and it should have spelt that out. The problems start at the top even if they don’t finish there.

The managers get the big rewards, they should pay the price when things go wrong.

 

The Bad

Because it was so quick, the report does little except highlight areas of concern and raise good intentions for the future. These include;

The need to listen to patients.

Staff morale – every study indicates that low morale or alienation leads to increased mortality rates for patients.

Inadequate staffing levels – a danger for staff.

Too much reliance on agency staff or a high staff turnover to fill the gaps and ignoring the problems that forced staff to leave in the first place. Long service is a sign that people are happy. Happy people make happy patients.

Not enough consideration given to junior doctors and nurses – to tap their enthusiasm and idealism.

In short – too many question marks and too few answers.

 

 

The Good

As reports go, it was quick and decisive and Keogh identified the safety problems, taking action quickly.

As he says, after taking emergency action it’s time to debate what was going wrong and then check up on how the Trusts have acted following the review.

Plainly, managers need to be losing their jobs if it doesn’t improve – however much you argue about numbers, people have been dying. From the tone of the report, it is implied that there will be follow up action.

He wants Junior Doctors and Nurses to be involved far more than they currently are. The implication is that they are likely to be more up to date, more modern in their outlook, more committed and more concerned than their older, worn down colleagues.

He wants hospitals to listen to patients.

It gives every indication that Keogh wants to change things for the better. Let’s keep an eye out on what happens next.

My say;

For what it’s worth, my view is that there was too much time spent on whether the mortality figures are helpful or not – it’s a red herring. Mortality figures have proved to be a very useful indicator of problems, up till now. Unfortunately managers have realised that and have been massaging the figures, ‘gaming’ the codes. You can go on expensive courses to learn how to do it.

However, there are many other indicators and they are all of value.

Here’s three lists that the report took account of:

In-patient, Cancer survey, PEAT – privacy and dignity, Complaints about clinical aspects, Ombudsmans Rating, PEAT Environment, PEAT Food, Friends and Family test, Patient voice comments.

Then they looked at;

Harm incidents, ‘never events’, patient safety incidents, medical error, MRSA/ C-Diff infection rates, litigation, coroners concerns.

Then they looked at indicators of staff dissatisfaction and alienation;

Ratio of Nurses to beds, periods of working, vacancies unfilled, sickness rates, staff leaving rates.

As I found when I was analysing the never events, when you look at any one indicator it doesn’t obviously have much relation to any other indicator.

As I also found when I was comparing never events with mortality rates, a trust can succeed on some indicators, but failing on others can still be an indication that the trust is failing.

We need to be looking at the widest possible range of indicators, for patient outcomes, for staff alienation, for clinical excellence and pro-actively look for areas of concern.

The more indicators the better, the less likely they can be fixed. Broadly, if hospitals are failing on several indicators, its time to take a close look at everything else.

And that, I think, is what Keogh’s report is saying.

But;

My big problem is that nowhere is there any mention of democracy – of democratic control. Once upon a time, we paid the taxes, the government ran the NHS and was responsible for any failures. When things went wrong a minister had to resign. Now, Foundation Trusts are independent, the government is off the hook and we have no control. Neither do the local authorities, whose elected representatives used to have some influence. It seems that all we have left is to stand protesting at the hospital gates. Or Blogging!

You don’t have to be very political – ‘No taxation without representation’, cuts across left and right. At the very least, we need to take back control and ownership of our NHS, because we could have done a better job.

Then;

There is no mention of democracy in the workplace.

No mention of the Trades Unions and professional bodies representing staff – they should have a role.

There’s no breakdown of the workforce and the role that inequality, prejudice and bullying plays in creating alienation.

As I keep saying;

1) The majority of NHS staff are working class.

2) The majority of NHS staff are women.

3) The majority of NHS staff are from ethnic minorities.

But this report does not discuss equal opportunities and fairness at work or the climate of fear and division that there is, right now.

Then;

There are managers, often with little or no experience of running hospitals - ordering clinicians about. Once upon a time, Doctors ran hospitals, helped by administrators, who ‘administered’. I know which I’d prefer.

It’s not just Doctors – there are nurses, care assistants and all kinds of specialists. A hospital is a whole collection of competing specialisms and interests fighting for scarce resources.

And that’s not even taking account of healthcare outside of hospital, fighting over the same money.

What Keogh has done is lay down a marker – a brand new start. He’s opened a debate and we need to dictate the form that debate takes. Because if we do nothing the agenda will be set by NHS bureaucrats, hospital managers, a biased press, Big Pharma, private finance initiative rip-off merchants, and private healthcare.

Then we really will be left standing at the gates.

Neil Harris

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