Safe in our Hands

Generali

It seems it's not only the nursing and medical staff that behave badly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9903392/NHS-trust-spent-2m-keeping-skilled-surgeon-off-work.html

An NHS trust spent at least £2 million of taxpayers’ cash preventing a highly-regarded consultant surgeon from working after management took a dislike to him, a tribunal has heard.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

It seems it's not only the nursing and medical staff that behave badly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9903392/NHS-trust-spent-2m-keeping-skilled-surgeon-off-work.html

Yes, you have to question whether the managers who made this decision had the interests of the NHS in mind or were purely covering up their own failings.

I understand from a friend who is a senior official of a very moderate trade union that the public sector now regularly abuses compromise agreements in their efforts avoid losing cases at Employment Tribunals. Private firms have always made such judgements on commercial grounds but sometimes did them to cover up mistakes.

Generali

It looks like Bolton have been trying to hide their poor performance by lying about how people died:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/put-patients-first/9913889/Growing-fears-of-Bolton-hospital-death-rate-cover-up.html

As many as half of patients recorded as having blood poisoning at the Royal Bolton Hospital in 2011/12 may have in fact suffered from less serious conditions, found the report by Dr Foster.

It is investigating concerns that staff at the hospital mid-coded patients to mask high death rates.

Septicaemia is coded in a different way to other illnesses, means resultant deaths have a far lower effect on hospital mortality figures.

In 2011/12, 1,419 patients died at the hospital, just slightly above the expected figure of 1378.

What they don't make very clear is that a death from septicaemia doesn't count towards your hospital mortality statistics so if you 'misclassify' (lie about) a death as being from that then it doesn't count as someone dying.

Mrs_Bones

Generali wrote: »

It looks like Bolton have been trying to hide their poor performance by lying about how people died:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/put-patients-first/9913889/Growing-fears-of-Bolton-hospital-death-rate-cover-up.html



What they don't make very clear is that a death from septicaemia doesn't count towards your hospital mortality statistics so if you 'misclassify' (lie about) a death as being from that then it doesn't count as someone dying.

Things such as this are starting to be looked at but it's way to slow. Plus even when mistakes and errors are found, it's rare that anyone is held to account.

My mum died of septicemia a few years ago. I wasn't happy with the care she received at the time and did complain but it got brushed aside in a lot of bureaucratic talk about all correct procedures being followed etc. As I was suffering badly from grief I didn't follow things through.

Roll on to the current time and in the wake of Mid Staffs several hospitals are having their high death rates looked at again. My local hospital is one of them, it's reported that the deaths from septicemia are way above average. Obviously their so called 'correct procedures' are not that brilliant.

I've since had several relatives go into the hospital and the care seems to go from bad to worse. In the latest National NHS Staff survey just published by the Care Quality Commission it's recorded that staff would not recommend the hospital as either a place to work or somewhere they would be happy for a friend or relative to receive treatment.

My dad's now been told he needs an hip operation and even though it's much further away we've manage to get him in to a different hospital where the reports are much much better. Not everyone can travel though for treatment, it's terrible if the only choice you have is a hospital even it's own staff wouldn't recommend.

Wookster

Vivatifosi, your stories above really are quite astonishingly appalling.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You mean that they were happy to negotiate a sizable pay off to terminate their contract through their union or solicitor. All of a sudden they have a personal conscience.

Sums people up these days. Look after no 1 first.

That's a bit unfair sir. Most of these people will have families and responsibilities. Confidentiality clauses are normal in compromise agreements and there is no magic money tree for whistleblowers, they have to earn a living like the rest of us.

The worst part of all of this is that no one is allowed to challenge how the NHS is organised, despite how appalling bits of it are. What will it take before people actually realise change is necessary?

Wookster

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Care, compassion and bean counters are incompatible. Patients aren't commodities.

That's just not true RE "bean counters."

Good accountants are as much about reporting performance (including non financial KPIs) & risk management as about balancing the books.

grizzly1911

Wookster wrote: »

That's just not true RE "bean counters."

Good accountants are as much about reporting performance (including non financial KPIs) & risk management as about balancing the books.

Took you a bit to catch up, what you been doing?;)

Good being the operative word. It also depends what they are being rewarded and targeted for.

grizzly1911

Wookster wrote: »

The worst part of all of this is that no one is allowed to challenge how the NHS is organised, despite how appalling bits of it are. What will it take before people actually realise change is necessary?

Sounds a bit like the banks and regulation. No one has been brought to book there either.

I do appreciate we are talking lives in this case.

I have made the point before that poor care can't be condoned. I do,. however, wonder how many elderly sick people would have passed away, albeit with more dignity and comfort, regardless of a coding process. What is the primary cause of death rather than secondary issues, which although they could have been managed better, would not have made a material difference to the result?

Certain posters here seem to think that withdrawal of care for the elderly would benefit the economy. Not a view I endorse.

PaulF81

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Sounds a bit like the banks and regulation. No one has been brought to book there either.

I do appreciate we are talking lives in this case.

I have made the point before that poor care can't be condoned. I do,. however, wonder how many elderly sick people would have passed away, albeit with more dignity and comfort, regardless of a coding process. What is the primary cause of death rather than secondary issues, which although they could have been managed better, would not have made a material difference to the result?

Certain posters here seem to think that withdrawal of care for the elderly would benefit the economy. Not a view I endorse.

Perhaps if the mountains of cash thrown at the NHS were spent more efficiently, we would see a better return on investment.

If that isn't possible, the only solution is going to have to be service rationing, no Matt how unpalatable that is to some. The other option is state bankruptcy to pay for the delusions of an ageing population wanting to live forever.

Generali

PaulF81 wrote: »

Perhaps if the mountains of cash thrown at the NHS were spent more efficiently, we would see a better return on investment.

If that isn't possible, the only solution is going to have to be service rationing, no Matt how unpalatable that is to some. The other option is state bankruptcy to pay for the delusions of an ageing population wanting to live forever.

The NHS is simply too big to work. The NHS costs roughly double per head what I spend on health insurance for a family of 4.