What will replace targets and terror?

The new Secretary of State's revisions to the 2010/11 NHS Operating Framework have been published today and, as expected, the government is scaling back access targets.

Central performance management is to be taken away immediately from the 48-hour target for primary care and the 18-week target for elective care. The four-hour A&E target gets a stay of execution, but only for the rest of this year, and with a reduced threshold of 95 per cent. The goal is to free the NHS from 'clinically unjustified' process targets and their associated bureaucracy, so that it can focus more on other aspects of quality, particularly clinical outcomes.

So how will providers respond to these changes? The temptation to allow waiting times to rise, particularly given the pressure to make financial savings, will be strong.

However, the Secretary of State is at pains to stress that this is not the message he wants to send, saying, 'this is not a signal that a deterioration of patients' experiences is acceptable' and, with a double negative, 'this is not a signal that clinically unjustified waits are acceptable'. In other words, while the pressure from the centre is gone, providers should still see enabling patients to get prompt access to care as important.

Free from departmental diktat then, how will providers be held to account for their waiting times in future? The theory is that a combination of local GP-commissioners, greater publicity about waiting times and other performance measures, and patient choice will together deliver local accountability and ensure that waiting times do not rise.

But the NHS does not have a strong track record on effective local accountability, and we know from our recent research that patient choice has yet to succeed as a lever to improve quality.

A non-executive director of a trust I know recently described the strength of the signal on waiting times from the Department of Health as being like having Wembley next door on cup final day (maybe that should be updated to a stadium full of vuvuzelas); the signal coming from patient choice and patient feedback is more like having a mouse in the corner of the room.

Shifting this balance of power to patients will take time, and may never deliver the same powerful incentives that central targets have done. Removing targets will certainly cut bureaucracy, and avoid the risk of hitting the targets, but missing the point. The big challenge now is to amplify the voice of patients and the public that will take their place.

Read our response to the revised Operating Framework

Keep up to date

Subscribe to our email newsletters and follow @TheKingsFund on Twitter to see our latest news and content.

Comments

#146 Trevor

Your point about how weak patient choice is as lever is well made. However, pejorative language like "terror", associated with meeting targets is unhelpful. A major reason your Trust's Chief Exec and Ops Director are highly paid is that they are accountable for services meeting these standards.

It is clear this government has minimal regard for universal NHS service standards or entitlements, and wants to dilute political accountablilty for these if possible. Yest ask clinicians and they will tell you what gets measured gets managed - which is why the basis of all national clinical audits is clear, measurable standards or targets.

#147 Lilly

Another clear example of the lack of understanding at the very top of Government of how important is systems feedback. Locally, Trusts and Hospitals will not know, even if they wanted to know, how well they are doing. As for comparing with others and possibly learning how to be better - forget it!

Patients can not individually exert pressure on the hospitals. They have no coherent structures or a strong body locally to devise own criteria of satisfaction.

What are Kings Fund suggestions? Any real action?

Add new comment