NHS news review

Spread the love

 

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets

The banks have run the global economy into the ground. Bankers, encouraged by the government, gambled recklessly with our money, and they lost. Spectacularly. Remember 2008? In the UK, the government decided it had to step in with a bail-out because these banks were ‘too big to fail’. According to the Bank of England, the cost of this bail-out now exceeds £1trillion. The result is that all high street banks- from Barclays to RBS- owe their existence to public financing.

What did we get for our billions? A banking system that serves ordinary people rather than the super-rich? No. Regretful bankers who refuse to reward themselves with massive bonuses? No. How about increased financial regulation to ensure this crisis couldn’t happen again? No. The government has done nothing to stop it being business as usual for banks.

What’s worse, the money that was given to the bankers is the money now being taken from the poorest in society, guaranteeing a rise in poverty, debt and inequality. Nearly £7 billion will be paid out in bank bonuses this year. This sum is more than the first wave of public spending cuts. We are not all in this together because it’s us who will pay if education, health, housing, libraries, woodland and much, much more, disappears from our lives.

Who’s telling us we must make these cuts? A government led by a cabinet of millionaires, in bed with the bankers, which is now pulling off an audacious con-trick in front of our eyes.

This is how their story goes. The crisis was caused by a bloated public sector. We binged away all our money on luxuries like healthcare and free education and council services, care for the elderly, for people with disabilities, school sports and free school meals for children living in poverty. Now the country is bankrupt and we must repent, detox, cut back. We have to relinquish our welfare state to appease the circling money men. Welcome to the Age of Austerity but don’t worry because we are all in this together.

We say – don’t believe their lies. This is their crisis, but there is no austerity for the bankers.

 

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.


Hospitals cutting surgery follow-up checks to save cash – mirror.co.uk

By LACHLAN MACKINNON, Health Correspondent

Hospital bosses are facing claims they are cutting post-surgery care because it is an “easy target” to save cash.

The ratio of patient checks following operations has dropped over the past two years and looks set to be cut again.
Advertisement >>

Critics warned that patients are being discharged back to GPs too early and family doctors may not have the time, funding or necessary skills to deal with problems.

Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse magazine, which analysed data from all 168 acute hospital trusts in England, said: “Reducing post-operative checks has been seen as an easy target by NHS managers looking for efficiencies. Often they will leave patients short of the follow-up care they’d expect.”

Based on last year’s total of 10.1 million operations, calculations show there were 22.2 million post-surgery appointments.

This is 1.2 million fewer than would have been expected based on 2009/10 rates – and 1.6 million fewer than four years ago.

However, the drop may be even higher as the number of operations carried out on the NHS is increasing year on year.

But the Department of Health insisted: “All patients with a clinical need for a follow-up appointment in hospital should have one.

“We have not set targets to reduce such appointments and have no plans to do so.”

Patients denied operations at the last minute, say GPs – Telegraph

GPs say they are referring patients on one set of criteria, only for the patients to be told during pre-operative hospital checks that they no longer qualify.

Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said primary care trusts (PCTs) – which pay for pre-planned operations – were guilty of treating patients like “commodities”.

She said: “Patients must not be treated as commodities and pushed back and forwards.”

PCTs started tightening up on qualifying criteria for ‘elective’ operations at least a year ago, for example demanding that patients had to demonstrate higher thresholds of pain or disability before being allowed hip or knee replacements. Other common procedures affected include removals of cataract and skin tissue like bunions and gangalions.

Some believe this rationing is reflected in NHS statistics which show the number of overall referrals from GP has dropped in the last year.
Related Links

You might like:

* Stem cell test is ‘biggest breakthrough in treating heart attacks for a generation’14 Nov 2011(Telegraph Health)
* Teenager has operation in two hospitals at same time15 Nov 2011(Telegraph Health)
* Mirror trick could ease arthritis14 Nov 2011(Telegraph Health)

From the Web
FORM THE WEB
:

* Doctor: 4 Warning Signs of an Imminent Stroke20 Sep 2011(Newsmax.com)
* 10 Ways to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally01 Dec 1969(Lifescript)
* Improved Quality of Life After Tonsillectomy for Patients of All Ages03 Jan 2008(MedPage Today)

[what’s this]

However, this is the first time it has emerged that patients are being approved for referral, and later told they cannot have an operation.

GPs told Pulse, a magazine for doctors, that the practice was going on in London and Buckinghamshire.

Dr Jim Kennedy, medical director of the local medical committee (LMC) for Berks, Bucks and Oxon, said: “Patients have gone down the [care] pathway after being accepted under old thresholds and suddenly are denied care using a different threshold. That is clearly unfair.

“Our main priority is to make sure if a patient is admitted under one set of criteria, those rules are applied throughout the process.”

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

The battle for the NHS is far from over | Allyson Pollock | Comment is free | The Guardian

The Lords may yet succeed in rewriting the health and social care bill, but they must truly understand the stakes

Critics of the controversial health and social care bill were taken aback by the partisanship of peers when debate moved to the House of Lords two weeks ago. Amendments by Lord Rea to reject the bill altogether, and by Lords Owen and Hennessy to send parts to a select committee for more forensic scrutiny were defeated after energetic whipping by party bosses.

But all is not what it seems. For many peers it was not pro-competition sentiment that caused them to oppose the amendments but the so-called Salisbury convention, according to which the Lords does not throw out legislative measures trailed in manifestos.

Nor is the battle over by any means. Many peers are determined to rewrite the bill, and the list of amendments for debate on the floor of the house is building daily. More than 350 amendments have been tabled, and more are expected during the debate. The royal medical colleges, professional bodies and the general public have registered their concerns about competition, loss of professional autonomy, conflicts of interest and rank commercialism. The amendments include proposals to delete or alter clause 1 of the bill – which abolishes ministerial responsibility for the health service – and to ensure principles of comprehensive care are written into the legislation.

Professor Malcolm Grant’s evidence to the commons health committee last week adds fuel to the fire. Health secretary Andrew Lansley’s nominee for chairman of the NHS commissioning board, which will run the marketised system, revealed the extent of the legislative chaos when he said that the bill was “completely unintelligible” and with the £20bn efficiency target a “double hammer” for the NHS.

The scale of criticism underlines the constitutional and epochal character that the debate has assumed. Few by now are in any doubt that the England’s social contract is potentially redrawn by measures that shred a public institution designed for universal healthcare.

However, the response brings difficulties of its own – peers have been inundated with advice from thousands of correspondents. Finding a clear line through a bill of such length and complexity that has been amended by the government right up to the last minute was always going to be a huge challenge. But without that clarity, opposition forces will be disorganised and voting patterns a lottery.

The solution to the overload is for peers to work out a clearer understanding of what’s at stake. Put simply, the legal effect of the bill is to abolish the statutory basis of a national health service by repealing duties to provide a comprehensive and universal service. The change is effected by creating clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) with an obligation to cover fewer services and responsibility for fewer patients and residents than primary care trusts (PCTs). Whereas PCTs act on behalf of the secretary of state, CCGs will exercise functions in place of him or her but without a clear primary legislative framework. The bottom line is that commissioners and providers in the new market will have freedom to select patients and services on financial grounds and to redefine eligibility for NHS care and in so doing introduce charges for care.

The blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for funding and provision will make it almost impossible for parliament to hold health bodies accountable for the various elements of their expenditure or for the secretary of state to carry out his or her duty to promote a comprehensive health service throughout England.

The key features of the bill are therefore the move from comprehensive, universal, geographical duties and the assignment of extraordinary discretion to CCGs and the NHS commissioning board. These elements are laid down largely in part one of the bill. It is vital that amendments focus in the first instance on clause 1, which deals with the existing duties of the secretary of state, and clause 10, which sets out the new powers of CCGs.

Reports of drastic cuts to NHS frontline services lie behind the extreme urgency with which the government is pushing its changes. Cuts on the scale envisaged are only possible if the duties laid on government by parliament are abolished. So it is the bill or the NHS; the people will rely on the crossbenchers to decide their fate.

• David Price, a senior research fellow at Edinburgh University, contributed to this article

Kingston Hospital may be hit with more cuts (From Kingston Guardian)

Kingston Hospital could be hit with more swinging cuts as the NHS faces another £6.5m reduction in spending across its services.

The savings outlined for 2012-13 are on top of this year’s £6m target and form part of a national Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) efficiency programme.

Draft plans show £3.3m of the potential identified savings will come from acute care at hospitals.

Another £650,000 will come from mental health, including the reprovision of rehabilitation units from Rose Lodge in New Malden and Fuschia ward in Tolworth Hospital.

Some of the money will be saved from reducing the number of people with minor injuries going to accident and emergency (A&E) and spending less on expensive drugs, although those figures have not been decided yet.

A spokesman for NHS Kingston said: “We will work closely with partners to minimise the effect on front-line services.

Patients waiting too long at A&E « Express & Star

Seriously ill and injured patients at New Cross Hospital are waiting too long to be seen in accident and emergency – with the situation worsening in recent weeks, a new report reveals.

The latest figures revealed at a meeting of the hospital’s trust board today show the majority of such patients waited up to 52 minutes for an initial assessment by a nurse in September.

This is almost 10 minutes longer than in August, when the majority waited up to 43 minutes.

NHS targets state such patients should be seen in under 15 minutes to reduce risks.

An initial assessment determines the priority patients are given.

The delays are on top of the time it takes doctors to treat or admit a patient to the hospital.

During September the average wait for treatment or admission was one hour and 12 minutes.

This means an average wait of more than two hours.

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

Dr. Clare Gerada was featured in yesterday’s NHS news review discussing the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill incentivising GPs to restrict treatment and the consequent pressures on the relationship between GPs and their patients. The RCGP Annual Conference at Liverpool is to discuss similar issues later today

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/PDF/Programme%20for%20web%20OCT.pdf

The moral maze: the affordability of future health care

Chair: Dr Richard Horton, Editor, Lancet

Panel of speaker to be confirmed:

Baroness Julia Cumberlege
Dr Clare Gerada, Chair of Council, RCGP
Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman, NICE
Ben Page, Chief Executive, Ipsos MORI
Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of Council, BMA

Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) accuses the ConDem coalition of destroying the NHS.

Conservative election poster 2010

A recent news article about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

BBC News – SNP conference: UK government ‘breaking up NHS’

Scotland’s health secretary will accuse the UK government of trying to break up the NHS, in her speech to the SNP conference.

Nicola Sturgeon will tell delegates in Inverness that health service reforms in England amount to an experiment in privatisation.

Scottish ministers say they will protect NHS spending.

Deputy SNP leader Ms Sturgeon will also pledge to stop pensioners languishing in hospital beds.

The UK government’s controversial Health and Social Care Bill aims to increase competition and give clinicians control of budgets.

It says the changes are vital to help the NHS cope with the demands of an ageing population, the costs of new drugs and treatments and the impact of lifestyle factors, such as obesity.

But the legislation has already been substantially altered, following criticism from NHS staff and Liberal Democrat MPs.

Ms Sturgeon, who is also Scotland’s deputy first minister, will tell day two of the conference: “It now seems inevitable that the Tories, aided and abetted by their Liberal partners, will break up the NHS in England.

“Let me make this clear, the NHS in Scotland will remain a public service, paid for by the public and accountable to the public.

“There will be no privatisation of the NHS in Scotland.”

The health secretary will say: “I say that not out of blind ideology, though I have always thought that the ideology of a health service in public hands and free at the point of need is a rather fine one, I say it because I have no doubt that our NHS can and will outperform the privatised experiment south of the border.”

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

The government’s preferred candidate to head the NHS Commissioning Board has described the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill as “unintelligable” despite being coached by the Department of Health.

Increasing waiting lists.

Frenchay Hospital in North Bristol to be ‘part-privatised’.

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

Health Bill ‘unintelligible’ says controversial new NCB chairman | GPonline.com

The new chairman of the NHS Commissioning Board (NCB) has been accused of lacking experience and understanding of the NHS and has described the Health Bill as ‘unintelligible’.

Members of the House of Commons health select committee were split along party lines over the appointment of Professor Malcolm Grant.

All three Labour committee members present at a hearing with Professor Grant voted against endorsing his candidacy for the role. But the two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat MPs present backed him, along with committee chairman Stephen Dorrell, also a Conservative.

An amendment backed by the Labour MPs warned that Professor Grant ‘demonstrated a lack of experience of NHS structures and processes’ and did not demonstrate a ‘robust understanding of the issues affecting the NHS’.

He had acknowledged being primed with answers by the DoH before facing the committee of MPs, was unclear about his role and about how the NCB would secure service changes locally, it said.

The amendment pointed out that he had referred to the Health Bill as ‘unintelligible’ and said that he had not convinced members of the committee that he would be ‘an effective counterbalance to executive members’ of the NCB.

Related: ‘Unintelligible’ health bill is chance to empower GPs, says prospective NHS Board Chief – Pulse

Waiting times on NHS show a 60pc jump « Express & Star

The number of NHS patients waiting longer than a year to be treated in the Black Country and Staffordshire has jumped by almost 60 per cent, new figures revealed today.

The only hospital to cut the number of patients waiting longer than a year was Stafford Hospital, where the numbers fell from 45 down to 18.

Nationally, thousands of people are being left to wait for longer than a year because hospitals prioritise those patients they can treat within Government targets and, therefore, avoid health authority penalties.

The NHS should treat every patient within 18 weeks of them being referred by their GP.

If hospitals miss the targets they can be penalised but there is no incentive to treat those waiting beyond the target times.

Cambridge News | Health-and-Beauty | Health-News | £14m cuts axe set to fall on mental health services

MENTAL health services will be slashed across Cambridgeshire in a bid to save £14 million, if proposals are given the go-ahead.

A 13-week public consultation has been launched as local health providers announced a host of proposed facility closures and mergers as part of a three-year cost-cutting measure.

The plans involve reducing eight inpatient wards to six, which will reduce the number of beds available from 28 to 16.

Concerns over plans to ‘part-privatise’ Frenchay Hospital (From Gazette Series)

Concerns over plans to ‘part-privatise’ Frenchay Hospital

CONCERNS have been raised over NHS plans to ‘part-privatise’ one of the region’s oldest hospitals.

Councillors in South Gloucestershire said they had been shocked at news the contract to run Frenchay Hospital would be outsourced to the private sector when it is downgraded to a health and social care unit.

Cllr Ian Scott (Labour, Filton), said: “This revelation came completely out of the blue.

“I don’t think anyone ever expected that the new community hospital at Frenchay would not stay entirely within the NHS.”

North Bristol Trust (NBT), which currently runs Frenchay, has announced that although doctors, therapists, staff operating diagnostic equipment and secretarial support will be NHS, the overall running of the community hospital will be operated privately when it opens in 2014. In addition, nurses in charge of 68 beds at a new rehabilitation centre will also be private. NBT chief executive Ruth Brunt said the move would make the project financially viable.

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

The Guardian reveals the extent of NHS cuts under the ConDem coalition government.

GPs are striking patients off their waiting lists. There will be an incentive for GPs to strike ill and consequently more expensive patients off their lists. While the vast majority of GPs are very good and concerned with the needs and welfare of patients, some are not.

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

Revealed: how NHS cuts are really affecting the young, old and infirm | Society | The Guardian

Services slashed affect patients on frontline such as pregnant women and elderly despite assurances they would be protected

Birth centres are closing, patients are being denied pain-relieving drugs and leaflets advising parents how to prevent cot death have been scrapped because of NHS cuts which are increasingly restricting services to patients, evidence gathered by the Guardian reveals.

The NHS’s £20bn savings drive also means new mothers receive fewer visits from health visitors, support for problem drinkers is being reduced and families are no longer being given an NHS advice book on bringing up their baby.

People with diabetes and leg ulcers are seeing less of the district nurses who help them manage their condition; specialists delivering psychological therapies are under threat and a growing number of hospitals are reducing the number of nurses and midwives to balance their books.

The disclosure that the savings drive is affecting so many different areas of NHS care has prompted claims that pledges by the prime minister and the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, that the frontline would be protected despite the NHS’s tightening financial squeeze cannot be trusted. One of David Cameron’s election pledges was: “I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”

Inquiries by the Guardian into the impact of the quest to deliver £20bn of “efficiency savings” in the NHS in England by 2015 also shows that walk-in centres are closing and anti-obesity programmes are being scaled back and hospitals reducing the number of nurses and midwives they employ, despite rising demand for healthcare and an ongoing baby boom.

Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “Andrew Lansley promised the NHS cuts to save the £20bn would be in bureaucracy and waste and would not come at the expense of the frontline. But the evidence we are getting on a daily basis is that the impact is on the patient and frontline services.”

“Ministerial promises aren’t being kept. We are getting the complete opposite of what we were promised. We were promised no cuts to frontline services and no impact on the patient’s journey. Instead we are getting cuts in many, many services and the impact on the patient is huge.”

Related: £20bn NHS cuts are hitting patients, Guardian investigation reveals | Society | The Guardian

Thousands of patients struck off by their GPs – Health News, Health & Families – The Independent

Family doctors are adopting a zero-tolerance approach to patients who displease them by striking them off practice lists, in breach of NHS regulations.

The tough “one strike and you’re out” approach led to a 6 per cent rise in complaints to the Health Service Ombudsman about patient removals last year, which accounted for more than one in five of all complaints about GPs.

In one particularly stark case, a terminally ill woman was struck off a GP practice’s list after her daughter changed the battery on a device delivering an anti-sickness drug instead of waiting for the district nurse to change it for her. The revelations come in a highly critical report which lambasts the NHS for its failure to deal adequately with patient complaints.

Overall, the NHS paid out £500,000 in compensation to patients for poor complaint handling by staff, following investigations by the Ombudsman, Ann Abraham. “The NHS is still not dealing adequately with the most straightforward matters. Minor disputes over unanswered telephones or mix-ups over appointments can end up with the Ombudsman because of knee-jerk responses by NHS staff and poor complaint handling,” Ms Abraham said.

GPs have always had the right to strike patients off their lists, which reciprocates the right of patients to switch GPs. But the rules require doctors to issue a warning and discuss matters with the patient before the axe falls, except in cases of aggression or abuse.

The finding that some doctors are acting precipitately highlights the vulnerability of patients at a time when GPs are set to acquire major new powers under the Health and Social Care Bill currently going through the Lords. Ms Abraham warned: “As GPs prepare to take on greater responsibility for commissioning patient services, some are failing to handle even the most basic complaints appropriately.”

In the case of the terminally ill woman, a district nurse reported the incident to the practice who discussed it with her daughter. The practice decided “the doctor-patient relationship with the family had broken down” and removed not only the daughter, but also her sister and their mother from the practice list. The family was given no warning of the practice’s intention, nor an opportunity to respond to it, as required by NHS regulations. The practice removed the women’s terminally ill mother even though she had played no part in the disagreement.

Following the Ombudsman’s inquiries, the practice apologised and drew up plans to avoid a repeat. Ms Abraham said: “In the cases we have seen, GPs have applied zero-tolerance policies without listening to and understanding their patients or considering individual circumstances. Decisions to remove a patient from their GP’s list can be unfair and disproportionate, and can leave entire families without access to primary healthcare.”

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingNHS news review