This site is intended for health professionals only
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

Hospitals axe 1.2m follow-up appointments in a year

16 Nov 2011

Exclusive GPs are being dumped with a huge wave of work from secondary care after hospitals cut back the number of follow-up appointments they carried out by more than a million last financial year, a Pulse investigation reveals.

An analysis of data from all 168 acute hospital trusts in England reveals the ratio of follow-up appointments to surgical procedures has plummeted by 4.3% in the last year, and 5.9% over the last two years, as managers impose a series of brutal efficiencies.

Based on last year's total of 10.1 million operations in the NHS, there are calculated to be 22.2 million follow-up appointments – 1.2 million fewer than would have been expected based on 2009/10 rates, and 1.6 million fewer than under 2008/9 rates.

In 2008/9 the so-called ‘new to follow-up ratio' was 2.36, but by 2009/10 it had dropped to 2.32 and it plummeted in 2010/11 to just 2.22. The overall drop included steep falls at Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, where the ratio dropped from 2.87 in 2008/9 to 1.78 in 2010/11, and at Ealing Hospital NHS Trust, where it fell from 2.51 to 1.84.

Pulse's analysis of the data, provided by the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, came as one LMC warned its PCT was sharply cutting funding for follow-up appointments at local hospitals this financial year.

Gloucestershire LMC reported that NHS Gloucestershire was reducing by an across-the-board percentage the number of follow-up appointments it was prepared to commission.

An LMC meeting last month heard 900 rheumatology follow-ups would be cut, with dermatology, urology and other departments also affected. The LMC said it was ‘concerned patients with chronic conditions could be prejudiced by being discharged to GP practices where there might be neither the skill nor the capacity to treat them'.

Dr Philip Fielding, chair of Gloucestershire LMC, said: ‘This is another of the games hospitals play to save money. Readmissions are obviously a concern because they are more expensive than follow-up appointments. Everything has workload implications for primary care at the moment. There comes a time when enough is enough.'

NHS Gloucestershire refused to say by what percentage it had cut funding for follow-ups, but locality commissioning director Mark Walkingshaw said: ‘We work with acute providers and GP commissioners to, where it is appropriate to do so, reduce the  number of follow-up outpatient appointments.'

A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘All patients with a clinical need for a follow-up appointment in hospital should have one. We have not set targets to reduce the number of follow-up appointments and have no plans to do this.'

Dr Michelle Drage, chief executive of Londonwide LMCs, said: ‘It's part of a whole range of things hospitals are up to to save money. As a result, patients get poor continuity of care.'

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, Work for health provider,
16 Nov 2011
I completely agree that cutting follow-ups in no good for patient care, but where I work, it is nothing to do with "dumping" on GPs by colleagues in secondary care. Consultants are being put under enormous pressure by the CCG to do this (please note, that's the GPs, not the PCT)

We are allocated arbitrary, unsubstantiated, new-to-follow-up ratios, and told we will have our income slashed to 30% of the original tariff if we exceed these.

Despite the GPs being advised these targets are clinically unsafe, we have been signed up to them regardless. So look to your leaders, and the impossible financial pressures we are all working under, for the root cause of the problem
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
16 Nov 2011
What a disaster the English NHS has become. Commissioning, Trusts, Arbitrary drone-led targets.

No wonder we are leaving England in droves for sunnier climes. Take heed D'oH morons.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Paul Joshi, GP,
16 Nov 2011
I had a 79 year old ex RAF veteran delivered a letter saying that they are cancelling his follow up from Cardiology where he was referred for suspected angina as he DNA`d 5 appointments -which he never had. It was delivered on the day everone claimed to honour War heros. He was in tears- he says he would rather be dead than DNA his appointments without reason. I have every reason to beleive him as he is of the old school that doctors are busy and should not be disturbed unless its an emergency and so would not have DNA`d.

I am obviously writing to the consultant and the LMC regarding same.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
16 Nov 2011
This policy is led by the DoH not CCGs or PCTs. However, before we get too tied up in acronyms we should look at why organisations behave as they do. In the case of a cash strapped Trust that is tagetted to balance its books - what do you expect of them? GPs will have to balance their books too and so the game of cat and mouse will continue.

If you want to stop the game, stop the stupid system that drives the game - PBR, Choice, FTs, AQP, commissioning, providing...........

PCT Finance Manager
Average (3Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
16 Nov 2011
Well said PCT Finance Manager, spot on.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
16 Nov 2011
Perhaps someone could tell me why there is a massive variation in first to follow up ratios for the same specialties and case mix with absoultly no correlation between higher rates of first to follow up and patient outcomes.

This is a blunt instrument used because more precise ones have failed. It is nothing to do with the DH. It is driven by local contract negotiations which are now the responsibility of Primary Care Clinical leaders.

If anyone can think of a better way of reducing the ineffective use of resources caused by clinically un-productive follow ups I am sure everybody would be delighted to here about it.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Nick Chiappe, GP Partner,
16 Nov 2011
There is no doubt that early discharge from clinics and preventing interconsultant referrals casuses more work for GPs and increases the risk that patients concerns will be assessed inappropriately when specialist expertise is required. (The GP reviewing a wound or post op condition will not always recognise the significance of problems).

There are also some unnecessary follow ups which have historically taken place . Some GPs believe the only way to balance the budgets is to prohibit this "hospital generated expenditure". These GPs are overepresented on clinical commissioning groups and in NHS management. At first thought, it appears obvious that if GPs do the work for nothing, it will save money to the NHS (the so called ever increasing efficiency). However, increased workload to practices does affect their ability to do other non contracted workload, since most GPs I speak to feel they are working at or close to their maximum. There are likely to be unforseen negatives of a transfer of work and responsibility to the GP. (to the GP, the practice, and patients.

Just as the hospital trust board is not "the consultants", the clinical commissioning groups are not "the GPs". It is vital that consultants who believe patients need specialist follow up communicate this to GP colleagues, and that GPs who feel unprepared to deal with difficult cases report these problems too. Work is being dumped on GPs, but it is not (generally) the fault of our esteemed consultant colleagues . I hope that in future CCGs will create a notional cost for GP time in making their decisions, which can help them to understand the potential effects of workload transfer.
Average (4Votes)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
16 Nov 2011
Good points Nick Chiappe - you are seen as a 'free' alternative to Acute care by policy makers. Most Business Cases regarding taking work out of hospitals factor little or nothing in for additional costs in Community and Primary Care.

Re anon PCT's point about CCG influence in contracting - we haven't had a contract round in which CCGs have taken the lead. They will start to influence the next contracting round but only to a limited extent. The policy that is causing Acutes to cancel follow ups is the DOH's and relates to reduced payment for activity over a threshold. anon Consultant made this point earlier.

PCT Finance Manager
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Other healthcare professional,
16 Nov 2011
This is also putting pressure on community intermediate services. We are under constant pressure to accept referrals that have a complexity outside our referral criteria because they have been discharged from the specialist hospital teams after their allocated follow-ups.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Patrick Drennan, Salaried GP,
16 Nov 2011
I don't think it has anything to do with PCTs or GPs, more to do with that in a world where new appointments/operations are targets that incur financial loss if not met, and follow ups which don't, the outcome is inevitable. Look at my local hospital Derriford, where follow ups in Oncology, Opthamology, Rheumatology, Cardiology, are routinely running way behind, have done for 3 years, and patients are fobbed off by department secretaries overloaded with requests. I now refer patients on to PALS to chase, but it is a national scandal which the politicians don't want to acknowledge, the managers don't want to highlight as they lose their jobs, the GPs are now so disillusioned and apathetic they don't bother to complain, and it's all being done under the banner of rationalization of resources and in the best interest of patients. I am extremely glad I'm retiring soon, but apprehensive about what standard of care I can look forward to!
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Sessional/Locum GP,
17 Nov 2011
I have routinely had patients who go to pain clinic coming back complaining that they are to be followed up in a year's time and that if the problem gets worse to get the gp to refer them again as new patient as waiting time for new patient appt is much less...what a waste this whole shebang is turning out to be....
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Other healthcare professional,
17 Nov 2011
And once dicharged should anything be a miss then GPs will need to refer as a first appointment, at a higher cost, to get the care the patient used to get as follow up therefore having a a perverse affect on finances. Just as reducing GP first appointments and early (preventative low cost interventional minor) referrals - will result in higher cost EL IP and ultimately greater NEL IP activity and costs. It is secondary care that is driving the costs of the system and not GPs but GPs are a much better scapegoat than Politicians and consultants because patients can walk in and demand service anytime, or completely miss out the GP and head for A&E ... Kerching.

The aregument of appropriate or not appropriate does not hold water when there are waiting lists because it is a green light to ship everything minor out into community (whose funding has not increased for years) or GP whose funding will go down in real terms, whilst acute trusts focus ont he high cost high profit procedures and if the CCG dont integrate by investing what little they have in privet profit making community services they will be racking up the excess bed day charges. The best business model of all is to get rid of the customers you cannot make a profit from and concentrate on those you can - this is the model for the NHS - unfortunately it is possibly the worst public service (healthcare)models.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
17 Nov 2011
"There are also some unnecessary follow ups which have historically taken place ."

I am sorry but there are not SOME unnecessary follow ups, there are huge numbers of unnecessary follow ups. We know this at a statistical level from the wide variation in specialty and casemix adjustsed analysis.

What is more we also know that there are a large number of scheduled follow ups which turn into DNAs because patients get fed up with having "come back and see me in 3 months" turning into 4 months when the appointment gets canecelled and then into 6 months and 9 months and then the letter gets lost.

Contractual first to follow up ratios is a very blunt instrument I agree but please don't think there isn't a problem. Simply putting your head in the sand and saying its just the DH/PCT/CCG leadership saving money is to fundementally misjudge the amount of wasted resources and wasted time this issue causes.
Average (0Votes)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.

POLL

Is self-care the answer to the NHS efficiency drive? Read the full story here