Tag Archive: patient care


Experts are warning that poor communication between hospital staff and with their patients is far too common and deeply damaging. According to the findings of a confidential review patients left out of the loop and staff clocking on and off without a handover was commonplace. Change in the hospital team structure over recent years has seen individual clinicians become “transient acquaintances during a patient’s illness rather than having responsibility for continuity of care”, says the NCEPOD report. It found a co-ordinated handover of patients between night and day staff only occurred in a quarter of the teams. In 13.5% of cases lack of communication compromised continuity of patient care.

In just over half (53%) of cases there was an apparent lack of input from senior doctors “leading to delays in giving patients timely and appropriate care”, report author and surgeon Ian Martin said. And 30% of the patients were not seen by a consultant within the recommended 12 hours after admission. In a fifth of patients who were not expected to survive on admission there was no evidence of any discussion between the health care team and either the patient or relatives on treatment limitation. Many “do not attempt resuscitation” orders were signed by very junior trainee doctors. NCEPOD chairman Professor Tom Treasure said the report vividly revealed the challenge medical teams face in making the transition between saving life and allowing natural death. “It should be ensured that patients achieve the best quality of life until they die. Effective team working and communication with patients, relatives and carers are fundamental to getting this right.”

Director of the Patients Association, Katherine Murphy, said: “These findings run the risk of undermining basic confidence in the NHS. Some of the examples are shocking. “NCEPOD is the nearest the NHS has to airline ‘near miss reporting’. Its findings must be acted upon, or problems will continue to plague vulnerable patients and their families.” John Black, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said doctors had long been concerned that the loss of team working in hospitals had fuelled the risk of poor communication, and sub-standard patient care. He said the implementation of a 48-hour working week under the European Working Time Directive almost certainly meant that the problem had got worse since the latest study was carried out. Professor Black said the only way to address the problem was to opt out of the directive.

A Department of Health spokesperson said measures had been introduced to improve care – including an end of life strategy – since the report’s survey was carried out. “We are putting in place an extensive programme of health and social care training to support end of life care provision, including pilot projects to support the development of communication skills. He added that evidence from hospitals already implementing a 48-hour week showed a drop in mortality and no evidence of harm to patients. “Working together with the local NHS and the Royal Colleges we have set up a rigorous quality assurance process to give us an accurate picture of how EWTD is being implemented and so we can provide support where it is needed.”

Under a new Strategic Health Authority Initiative nurses will be able to compare the quality of patient care against other trusts in England. The initiative ‘Energise for Excellence in Care’ is designed to improve fundamental nursing care, it is hoped that the tool should be available on website for the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement after it has been adapted.

The new tool is based on the ‘acuity/dependency’ tool which was developed by the Association of UK University Hospitals, which helps to categorise patients depending on their conditions (for example ‘stable’ or ‘unstable’) which can then be used to help inform staffing levels, skill mix and workforce development needs.

It is hoped that the new tool will enable nurses to deliver evidence-based care, that will include the development of new services where appropriate. In order to improve quality patient care indicators are key according to Lord Darzi’s Next Stage Review of the NHS, which was published summer 2008. In May 2009 a list of over 200 indicators that could be used to improve services across the NHS was published by the Government.

The Chief Executive David Nicholson will take personal responsibility for the ‘quality, innovation, productivity and prevention’ (or QIPP). It is also the focus of the DH management board. The Department of Health funded initiative; “Energise for Excellence in Care” is being led by senior nurses. Although it is hoped that this initiative will help the QIPP initiative it is important to stress that it also has wider goals, such as getting the nurses to focus on the things that really matter to patients. The initiative is also designed to give nurses permission to say what needs to be done and encourage nurses to reflect on the quality of the care that they are providing.

If nurses are consistently providing high quality care it may reduce costs for the NHS as fewer mistakes will be made and morale will improve as it is well known that low morale is detrimental to productivity and in this case patients. For more information see How morale levels affect the workplace

We all know that good communication is key but it is not always practised as the coroners reports are showing, there seems to be a high number of deaths which could have been avoided. Since the rules were changed last year, coroners have been able to write detailed reports following inquests that highlighted a risk of more deaths occurring. Coroners reported that better communication could reduce the number of deaths occurring in hospital.

Out 207 reports between July 2008 and March 2009, 58 arose from hospital deaths, 19 were classed as mental health related, 19 were associated with community healthcare and emergency services and 11 were linked to drugs and medication.

So what is good communication?
Good communication is sharing information is a clear and concise manner with everyone who is involved in the care of the patient, it is also ensuring that the patient fully understands what is going; obviously in emergency situations this is not always possible at the time but after the emergency has passed they need to be told what is going on. This will minimise the chance of the patient possibly taking the wrong medication or committing suicide because they become depressed.

There are a number of courses available which are designed to help improve communication skills. One particularly good one is done by Medicology, Communication Skills for Doctors.

According to analyst Roy Lilley unregulated pharmaceuticals may be permitted to increase the NHS drugs bill with little benefit to patients. He claims that the drugs will become more and more expensive; but we will by them regardless he says that we are essentially writing the pharmaceutical companies a blank cheque which is rather worrying, considering that at present, drug companies are reluctant to launch new drugs in the UK at prices below “global market value” because much of that market is influenced by UK prices.

The aim is to fast track new medicines that could be blocked by NICE on the basis of cost and effectiveness. A former drug company boss, Lord Drayson, has been given the task of promoting life sciences as potential big earners for Britain with the backing of Lord Mandelson, who sees pharmaceuticals as key to the revival of the UK economy.Reports suggest that Lord Drayson favours a system where NICE would appraise the drug after 3 years in the hope that the company would have made substantial profits and so may be willing to drop the price.

Based on the evidence, if Lord Drayson is successful we could see pharmaceutical companies rushing drug after drug in quick succession without them being thoroughly tested. Another big concern is that the prices of these drugs will have very little regulation, these costs are likely to be passed on to patients by taxes being raised which would make them experience even more financial hardship. So the theory that they could be the revival of the UK economy is flawed. Granted they may make more money but that doesn’t really help the general public.

The Social Market Foundation claims that forcing patients to pay for appointments would help the NHS to cope in times of financial hardship. Both the government and doctors are against such a move, one doctor says: “All patients have a right to free healthcare that is based on their clinical needs, not the size of their bank balance.”

The Social Market Foundation base their argument on the fact that while funding is guaranteed until 2011, many are expecting the budget to be frozen or cut after that. They state that the only way for the NHS to cope was to raise taxes to put more money into the system, limit demand or work more effectively. Those who support this idea say that charging people would make them think twice about whether their visit was essential, they argue that the move is not about making money but a small charge like this could help reduce appointments by about 5%. They also say that children and those receiving tax credits should not be charged and said the think-tank was opposed to fees being levied on any form of emergency care.

Those who oppose the scheme claim that charging for appointments would undermine the doctor patient relationship and may put some people who need the care from coming to the surgery. They also argue that it is against the founding principles of the NHS, which is free healthcare for all. However there is a flaw in this argument as the NHS already charges for prescriptions and dental treatment.

If the movement to charge patients is introduced are we not simply privatising healthcare? In many other countries there is no free healthcare, but there is help for those on low wages so it could work. It seems to me that we are merely shifting the financial burden to the public. It also means that those who have to see the doctor on a regular basis as a result of an existing conditions such as diabetes would end up spending a fortune

Personal budgets have been used in social care since the mid 1990s and ministers claim that they can encourage patients to get more from the NHS. Evidence shows that personal budgets have allowed people in social care to be more imaginative and use funds more “carefully” than the system did. It is said that the personal budget programme employed in social care includes direct cash payments to the individual as well as budgets that a patient can put in the hands of a social care professional.

Those who support the idea of patients having their own personal budget have said that there is no reason why this should not happen in health, although it will need to be carefully introduced.

There are those who claim that the system who say that the system can be misused if you are simply giving patients money however the information on this scheme states that where direct payments are handed over to individuals the way they are used is carefully monitored and people receive help from professionals about what services are available. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents managers, states: “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest health outcomes are improved when the patient is directly involved in making decisions about their treatment and the way in which care is delivered by NHS staff.” Despite this there are a number of obstacles to overcome before the scheme can be launched nationally.

There are lots of questions from those who have their doubts about this new system such as, should patients be allowed to spend their personal budgets on non cost-effective treatments? or should individuals be allowed to top-up their care? Should patients be allowed to invest personal budgets to be spent at a later date? Dr Hamish Meldrum, who is the chairman of the British Medical Association, said the policy appeared to “further establish the idea of healthcare as a commodity”, which would not be in patients’ “best interests”.

Those who support the idea of patients managing their own budget claim that “Personal health budgets could revolutionise the way in which care is delivered, but they are not without risks.”

Niall Dickson states: “Getting the initial payment level right will be important as will deciding what restrictions to place on the kind of treatment a patient is allowed to purchase with tax payers’ money, and from whom.”

Ministers imagine that it will be of particular interest to those with long-term conditions such as diabetes and people using mental health services, for example, a person with diabetes may choose to use their budget to get treatment from a community clinic rather than being referred to a hospital specialist. Launching the Bill, Health Secretary Alan Johnson said: “People rightly have high expectations of the care the NHS offers, and they want more control over their own health – which is why this Bill will give more power to patients and drive up the quality of care.” Andrew Lansley adds: “Personal budgets have been at pilot stage since 2005. If Labour had stuck to their promises to deliver them then patients would already be benefiting”.

It would seem that the majority of people are dubious of this new scheme as it seems that they are worried about several factors:

  • It is essentially privatising the NHS
  • Some people may get a higher budget than others
  • Some people may use their budget to jump through the waiting lists for procedures

Without a detailed plan of how the scheme will actually work it is impossible to know whether the scheme will actually work basically I’m not sure if the scheme is good or bad. Although the evidence would suggest that there is the potential for the scheme to work I think it may cause some people to lose out or be unable to get the treatment they need.

We’ve all seen the media items on this topic but what exactly does it all mean?
According to some articles the UK’s Department of Health (DoH) is seeking urgent help to create a failure regime in the National Health Service, this is because the NHS is apparently over budget in several areas but this can’t be resolved through shifting the managerial responsibility in other words you are simply shifting the problem rather than solving it. Politics of today states that there is a noticeable commitment to the virtues of private enterprise and competition in the free market. However, there is no need for the government to relinquish control of the NHS. General health care for all is a widely accepted as a right in this country. If the government wants to improve the NHS they should raise taxes in order for the public to raise the standard of a national health care service for all. People have always paid for public services through taxation“ this is not a new radical solution. However in the current situation people will resent an increase in taxes as the prices are increasing as a result of the “credit crunch”. The nature of private businesses creates an environment of competition, as a result resources and facilities as companies compete for “business” and consequently facilities and services improve. These “funds” are essential to the NHS system can only raise the standard of treatment patients will receive.

On the other hand the privatisation of the NHS will result in an emphasis on efficiency and profit; the vulnerable and the poorest in society will suffer from such a scenario. The question of prioritising health care and rationing will always favour the rich, since targeting vulnerable groups will be an inefficient use of resources so it will result in the poorer people within society suffering as they will be unable to afford adequate healthcare this will create a vicious circle because the poor will perish then the next “level of in income” will become the poor and so in until eventually you end up in the same situation that you started with. So ultimately “you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t” because you need the funds to resolve some of the issues within the NHS but then a large percentage of society suffers if you privatise so either way you can’t win.