Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Will the Mid Staffs inquiry be the end of a terrible chapter in the NHS’ history – or the beginning?

  • Print
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

The publication last week of the Francis Inquiry report – and the response from the Government delivered by David Cameron – felt like a landmark moment in the history of the NHS. So much has been written by so many about its significance, what went wrong and what can be done to stop it going wrong again, that it’s hard to see what more can be said.

But there is one pressing question which could have a profound effect on the immediate future of the health service, and it’s the obvious one: how many more Mid Staffs could be out there?

In the wake of the Francis report it was announced that NHS medical director Sir Bruce Keogh would head up an investigation into mortality data at five hospitals which appeared to report unusually high death rates between 2010 and 2012.

Yesterday a further nine hospitals were added to that list, bringing the total under investigation to 14. According to estimates published in the Daily Telegraph, there could have been as many as 6,000 ‘excess’ patient deaths across those 14 trusts.

It’s important, at this point, to add a note of caution. As Dr Margaret McCartney noted in her recent column, HMSRs, or hospital standardised mortality statistics, come with a health warning attached. There are all kinds of possible explanations for outlying mortality rates – which is presumably why further investigation is required. But that said, it seems likely further concerns about hospital care will emerge.

A year ago this week, Pulse and its sister publication Practical Commissioning published the findings of an in-depth survey of 500 GPs, in which we asked them about the standard of care at their local hospital.

There’s no pretence, of course, that this kind of poll is statistically rigorous, but as a snapshot of the profession’s opinions about their local secondary care it was a useful one – and the findings were genuinely shocking.

One in seven GPs said one or more of the departments in their local hospital was ‘dangerously substandard’. One in ten GPs said one of their patients had died within the last year potentially as the result of substandard hospital care. A third had raised concerns with their local hospital, but fewer than half were confident their concerns would be acted upon.

It wasn’t all bad – 78% said they would recommend their local hospital to their patients. But in a substantial minority of cases there were clearly very real concerns. One in five GPs said they had confidentially warned patients about a hospital’s standard of care within the past year, and 21% said they would not want their own family being treated there. The anecdotes we collated – of patients going unfed and unwashed, of missed diagnoses and of diabolical communications – make for harrowing reading.

There will, of course, be far-reaching changes as a result of the Francis Inquiry, mainly within secondary care or the regulatory arena. In primary care, the key message for GPs seemed to be that they should perform an independent ‘monitoring’ role with regards to hospital standards and that they should speak out when they identified concerns.

But if the findings of last year’s snapshot poll are anything to go by, then GPs may struggle to make their voices heard. And the stories about substandard secondary care - never likely to have been limited to just one small hospital in Staffordshire – will run and run.

Steve Nowottny is the editor of Pulse. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenowottny or email him at steve.nowottny@briefingmedia.com.

Readers' comments (7)

  • Vinci Ho

    (1) I do think one can deviate from the fact that there was a major problem in management or problem of the culture of management in Mid Staff Hospital . Those with power and authority were serving a purpose of NOT to embarrass ministers as the government also hated being criticised for the care provided in NHS hospitals
    (2) Doctor and nurses are primarily employed to look after people . There is no clause in the contract to say they have to deal with politics and bureaucracy . It is distracting . Yes , shouting out for ' injustice ' and more specifically ' poor treatments of patients' is probably the only thing they could when things went really wrong . But this is probably not different from writing to your local MPs. After all , they have no political power
    (3) It is quality and code of conduct of these 'leaders' with power to interfere , which matters. If the spirit was to only give good news to their bosses and hence the government which is always run by politicians , there is nothing people lower down the tree can really do or say to influence.
    (4) My favourite quote from Analects of Confucius,
    ' A scholar must be resolute with great determination . He/ Her responsibility is a heavy one and the road is long. Practising and teaching benevolence is the prime duty. Isn't that a very heavy responsibility ? The duty must be carried out until the minute he/she dies. Isn't that a very long road?'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Correction in beginning
    I do not think, sorry

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bornjovial

    In my opinion the biggest worry about the Staffs scandal was the extremely poor quality of care that has been publicized. Although the investigation was kicked off predominantly due to the higher mortality, I believe that there are some hospitals which quickly d/s their dying patients to home/Nursing home and hence skew the statistics to be lower. If there are more elderly patients, less nursing home places, more GP referrals, absence of good palliative care facilities they will have an impact on the imminently dying being taken to hospital and hence skew the statistics.
    This is likely to only get worse with more elderly population, lack of nursing home places or nursing homes avoiding criticism by referring more to hospital , etc.
    HMRS`s may be a symptom of rot but it may lead to exactly what Hospitals should not do-massage statistics to avoid enquiry. They should concentrate on quality which in medicine is more abstract than a hotel or resort.
    This begs the question-Are CCG``s holding a poisoned chalice?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been deleted by the moderator

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Im sure there are as those at the top in the DH and NCB are still there and have the same if not more power as a result of the new Act. I also think that until consultants are held to account for the treatment thier patients receive then they will carry on as they have.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Editor
    Shouldn't you write an article about Gary Walker 's BBC radio 4 interview today?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely part of the answer would be to have a regulatory body for hospital managers with powers to deregister managers so they cannot work in their profession again.They should pay for it [like we do] and should be answerable to this body for any complaints re the management of hospitals be they vexatious or trivial [as we do].This would surely concentrate their minds somewhat.
    Also they should be subject to annual appraisal and revalidation as we are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (7)
  • Save