Menu

Home

Blog

Private Eye

Bristol Pathology Inquiry

FOI Balls

Books

News

Videos

Biography

Contact

Press Info

Tour Dates

Interview Feature

Press Quotes

Tour Reviews

Merchandise

July 23, 2010

Dr Phil’s Private Eye Column Issue 1268, July 21, 2010
Filed under: Private Eye — Tags: , , — Dr. Phil @ 2:20 pm

OXFORD HEART INQUIRY LATEST

Just had a phone call from a very reliable source about the Oxford heart inquiry, due to report on Thursday, I believe. Apparently big failures in clinical governance and oversight at trust level, lessons not learned from Bristol etc but despite that, the Oxford unit has asked to be allowed to continue paediatric cardiac surgery. I strongly believe it should remain suspended pending the findings of the latest paediatric cardiac services review. Decision rests with the SHA. Who will take these decisions when there’s no SHA?

 Medicine Balls: The White Paper

How does Andrew Lansley’s Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS compare to White papers past? Frank Dobson’s  1998 bestseller, ‘A First Class Service – Quality in the new NHS’  gave us 191 mentions of ‘quality’ and promised to ‘publish outcomes to end unacceptable variations in health care.’ A decade later, Lord Darzi gave us ‘High Quality Care For All’ with 359 exhortations of ‘quality’ and a warning that the ‘unacceptable variations that have grown up in recent years must end.’ Lansley is also a firm believer that the way to achieve ‘quality’ (110) and to end ‘unacceptable services’ is to publish ‘outcomes’ (85). But after 13 years of Labour, we have precious little access to robust and valid comparisons of different clinical services. And without outcomes, offering patients ‘choice’ (Darzi 62, Lansley 84) is pointless, and you can’t ‘commission’ (Lansley 184) excellent services.

 There will always be variation in healthcare, and collecting and analyzing outcomes to try to understand which variations are due to chance and which to unacceptable practice is both complex and expensive. Labour made little headway and most commissioning was done on the basis of cost. So various PCTs gave Out of Hours Services to a company called Take Care Now because the price was right and they sounded as if they cared. Alas, they employed overseas doctors who didn’t know the patients, didn’t know how the NHS worked and didn’t understand how to use drugs like diamorphine. Dr Daniel Urbani killed David Gray by injecting him with ten times the safe dose because he was exhausted, had poor English and the drug was not routinely used in Germany. Prior to his death, two other German doctors had made similar errors (without causing death) but despite warnings from one of its own doctors that ‘it was only a matter of time before a patient is killed’, Take Care did not take note.

 One way to stop doctors giving ten times the dose of diamorphine is to not allow them to walk around with it in their bags. I’ve only ever carried one 5mg ampoule, so why Dr Urbani had 50mg or more on him is a mystery to most GPs. Lansley said before the election that he was going to put GPs back in charge of commissioning out of hours care, and it makes sense that clinicians should help commission and manage the services they know most about. Indeed Lansley is very big on services being ‘clinically commissioned, credible, approved, led and justified.’

 But just who are these clinicians? Midwives get 1 citation in Liberating the NHS, nurses 2, pharmacists 2, consultants 5 and GPs….. 75.  ‘Manage’ gets 43 citations but ‘manager’ only 3. GPs, apparently, can do it all by organizing themselves into ‘consortia’ (new entry, 64). Lansley has picked up the Tory baton from where it was discarded 13 years ago, just as fund-holding GPs were pooling themselves into multifunds, only to be scrapped by Labour and replaced by PCTs. In seven years as shadow health secretary, Lansley has had his ear bent incessantly by GPs complaining about the control-freakery and lack of clinical understanding of PCTs. So he’s calling their bluff, taking out the Strategic Health Authorities and the PCTs, and giving GPs the responsibility for commissioning nearly everything, while saving £20 billion and making sure the mighty Foundation Trusts don’t hoover up what’s left.

 GPs have always seen themselves as NHS gatekeepers, managing as much illness as possible in the community to present precious NHS resources being squandered in expensive hospitals. But emergency admissions to hospital are up by 12% and unless GPs can put a brake on this, they’ll be taking on an impossible job. It’s a bit like being handed the steering wheel just as the runaway coach approaches the cliff edge. And amidst all the financial pressure, it’s hard to see who will find the money to collect and analyze comparative outcomes in a meaningful way to guide commissioning and choice. Lansley’s catch phrase of ‘no decision about you without you’ sounds great for patients (217). But when they ask me which of my local hospitals is best for, say, hip replacements and which is ‘unacceptably poor’, I haven’t got a clue. And I’m supposed to be in charge. Now I must find out which consortium I belong to.

 MD



  • Fiona Reynolds

    Dear MD/Dr Phil

    Your recent column in Private Eye made for interesting if disappointing reading. “Liberating the NHS” has so much more to offer than a simple analysis of how many buzz words were used. Was the use of a third of the column inches spent on counting phrases really a good use of your own wordcount?

    This White Paper spells the end of the NHS. While hospitals will exist as Foundation Trusts (i.e. independent organisations 'governed' by MONITOR with the Department of Health having no sway) and commissioning moves to GPs (private businesses), the rest of the NHS – bar a few agencies will no longer exist. So, what comes next? Privatisation, obviously and an American Healthcare system that the Americans are now trying to replace.

    The PCTs and Strategic Health Authorities will be wound up in 2013, retiring the NHS at the age of 65, which is almost fitting. Lansley has done what Thatcher failed to do. He has dismantled the NHS in one fell swoop and no-one seems to have noticed. I suppose you couldn't cover this as it is just too obvious a story.

    So here's to “Liberating the NHS” – champers all round at Mr Lansley's local Conservative Club. It's a good thing that they're hanging onto the NHS Litigation Authority. With everything else that is to be abolished, including the National Patient Safety Agency, the staff there are going to be busy.

    Perhaps you're intending to do a little more analysis in next week's edition?

  • Dr Phil

    Thanks for the feedback Fiona

    I take your point but none of this is new or unexpected. Labour brought in Foundation Trusts and private competition (PFI, ISTCs, Polyclinics, management consultants, privatised OOH/ pathology services etc etc) and were themselves toying with handing over commissioning powers to huge private multinationals. And they were pushing (but failing) to get 100% of GPs involved in practice based commissioning. Lansley is more following on from Blair and Milburn than changing things in one fell swoop. I personally think that integrated care is the way forward, with front line staff in primary and secondary care, and health and social care, getting together and controlling commissioning in the best interests of the area they serve, so patients get treated in the right place at the right time.

    With the Lib Dems swallowed up, there is no party offering any view other than the commoditisation of health but Lansley has been clever in appearing to hand over power to clinicians. I still remain doubtful that GP consortia will be able to control Foundation Trusts ( a bit like Doncaster Rovers v Manchester United). Far more constructive if they merged and co-operated, but I've said all this before in my columns and books, many times over.

    Phil

  • Fiona Reynolds

    Hi, Phil

    No, it's not new but it's a lot faster than anything that was being developed. Yes, I agree that New Labour created the foundations and (Foundations) for all of this but there was remained government control/tinkering and it wasn't moving at breakneck speed. This is so poorly thought out – the fact that the next consultation paper asks us to fill in the blanks, I offer as a suggestion that Lansley has not really done his homework whilst in Opposition. Whilst at times, I have complained of feeling like an extra in 'Brazil', the Lansley approach fills me with deep misgivings. As the current Conservative government – I see little input/criticism from the LibDems – are localising all action to distance themselves from cuts, this development is going to create still wider health inequalities (something to worry the Guardian readers) and generate a fun filled postcode lottery (something to send the Daily Mail audience apoplectic).

    I agree with you completely that joined up health care is going to offer the best deal to patients – it is far more logical to anyone who doesn't work within the NHS. The Public Health workforce are in a safer position than other NHS colleagues and the move to the Local Authority is expected and welcomed, taking us back to pre-1974. There still remains the debate of just what is “public health”? I have an unwelcome suspicion that Lansley views it as health education and leafleting. Which groups are going to move into Local Authority Land? Will the 4% that is ring-fenced be enough to cover all of the functions that will become the Public Health Service remit? For example, the Health Protection Agency is to become extinct so who will be delivering its functions locally?

    Your final point on whether the GP Consortia will be able to control the Foundation Trusts… well, the PCTs sometimes struggle. I am doubtful. There are some interesting views among GPs – some recognise what Practice Based Commissioning really is, and are nervous; some want nothing to do do with it because they are doctors and some wonder what the point of PBC is if there is a monopoly provider, i.e. the local Foundation Trust. On this issue of monopoly providers, there will be no patient choice. It is unlikely that the GPs will be directed to stimulate the market to support voluntary sector providers,and the directive for patient choice will eventually fall by the wayside – a market that provides choice is one that is wasting resources.

    Thanks for responding to my criticism so quickly.

    Fiona

    • Richard Blogger

      Hmmm as I mentioned above, I am somewhat wary when people seem to indicate that Foundation Trusts are some how the enemy. They are not.

      Let’s just have a little look at what they are (and MD rightly points out some of this in the latest Eye). For an NHS Trust you can attend all board meetings and see all board papers (except for ones that, under special circumstances, are confidential). At FTs the decision is up to the board and some FTs say that their board meetings/papers are confidential. In the case of my local trust they allow governors (elected by the public) into board meetings and governors are expected to report the meetings to the members (ie make the information public). That sounds sensible to me.

      We know that FTs are not perfect, what organisation is, ever? At the moment, if an FT fails then they can be de-authorised. This is effectively Monitor saying “we trusted that you could do this, but clearly we were mistaken”. The white paper says that NHS Trusts (ie non-FT hospital trusts) will be abolished and this means that whether they are capable of it or not, all hospitals will have to be FTs by 2014. Also it says that the de-authorisation power will be abolished. Hence a FT that fails is simply a failing FT and Lansley will not care less. As a patient I do not want the hospital providing my care to fail, but if it does I want to see the failing management replaced. This will not happen in Lansley-land.

      Further, the white paper says that FTs will be expected to become “employee-led social enterprises”. SEs (in this case, probably Community Interest Companies) are not publicly owned. This is Lansley washing his hands off of all public responsibility for providing healthcare in this country. As MD says in the latest Eye the public will not be allowed into board meetings, and the white paper says nothing about public governance (most likely Lansley will say that it should be up to the “liberated” trusts to decide, ie, no public governance). If you complain to your local MP or councillor about your local hospital they will do something (particularly the MP, s/he does not want to see a “Dr Richard Taylor” happening in their seat). If your hospital becomes a CIC the politician will simply say “they are a private company, try their complaints department or use your patient’s choice and go elsewhere”. This is called the free market, but when you are ill and in pain you just want to be treated. It is not like buying a car or getting your windows double glazed.

      CICs will not be subject to FoI requests. Guess what? Eight per cent of all FoI requests to the government are to the Department of Health (the largest number for any gov department). Hospitals becoming CICs will mean that those letters NHS will be removed from their signage, and with that we will lose many of the benefits that the NHS gives us. By the way who was the first Minister for the Third sector, the man who was in charge of creating CICs and the concept that potentially all of the NHS (community health services already have changed to CICs, and PCTs are now going in that direction) could be taken out of public ownership? Hmmm hardly deserving the epithet of “red”.

      I am also worried about training (I am not an MD, by the way). Postgraduate training for doctors in hospitals (and all nurse training) is paid by the Department of Health via the SHAs. The budget is about £6bn. This covers the training cost and a sizeable chunk of the trainee doctor/nurse salary when training. The white paper is rather coy about this, saying that trusts will have the responsibility for training and will have to discuss with the trainee about the funding. I interpret this to mean that there will be no central funding (how can there be since CICs are private companies; the government does not pay for the postgrad training of barristers in chambers, or architects working for a practice). The cost of postgrad training a junior doctor is about £350K. If the hospital has to pay that it will be the equivalent of say 65 hip replacements, or 470 cataract operations (operations that are *already* being rationed by GPs to save money). A district hospital will not want to train many doctors at that rate. If the doctor has to pay, well, imagine what it will mean: BMA says that a medic leaves uni with, on average, £40k debt and then they will have to take out a loan of £350k to train as a junior doc. £400k will mean that no one from a low income family will want to do it, and most middle class kids won’t want to do it either. It will be back to the days when hospital were Sir Lancelot Spratt toffs. Social mobility, anyone? LibDems must start to think very carefully about the consequences of these damaging policies.

  • Richard Blogger

    “I personally think that integrated care is the way forward, with front line staff in primary and secondary care, and health and social care, getting together and controlling commissioning in the best interests of the area they serve, so patients get treated in the right place at the right time.”

    Oh yes please! On the one hand as a patient I am pushed from provider to provider when really all I want is to be treated by the NHS. With the local PCT contracting out to multiple independent suppliers (many of which seem to be GPs, hmmm) I have to talk to too many different providers and too often their response is that such-and-such is not their responsibility and so I have to talk to someone else on the list.

    On the other hand I am an elected Foundation Trust governor and our trust will be taking over the local PCT community health services next April which means that we will be able to integrate the acute services and community services. Now you might say that the FT is too “mighty” but as a patient and service user of the trust I am relieved that finally some form of integration is happening.