The NHS under the coalition government: Part two: NHS performance

PS Agree with Nick's comments above and loved working as a DN being GP attached. Just a shame no one seems to realise what is being lost, and how difficult it will be to rebuild community services.

Seemingly no one is is cognisant of the impact of cutting front line staff in the community. Despite noted increases in nursing staff there are 3000 fewer community nurses (all types excepl HVs) and nearly 2000 fewer qualified District Nurses (the nursing equivalent of a GP). You can discuss GPs vs consultants till the cows come home- if there's no improvement in community nurse numbers or adequate social services, A&E will continue to be overused and hospital wards overburdened. There's no need for great new schemes, but a desperate need to support these crucial out-of-hospital services that are being systematically destroyed as funding is diverted to those with the most power and the loudest voice

Comments above regarding minimal deficits, increases in NHS doctors and left wing media bias seem extraordinary in pointing the finger yet again at lack of productivity in NHS.
Hospitals being forced into bankruptcy by PFI debts they have not incurred; falls in doctor:population and hospital bed:population ratios to virtually the lowest in OECD and Europe; five years of almost daily, factually inaccurate media denigration of the NHS and its medical staff; outsourcing and fragmentation of medical services and pathways to private companies despite repeated records of failure and fraudulent behaviour; failure to address A+E overflowing due to reduction in inpatient capacity; failure to match funding to the rhetoric of "transferring care into the community"....these are all a result of the active choices of a neoliberal government in denial, but seemingly determined to commercialise England's health service, whatever the consequences.
We are losing the infrastructure comprising the best health service in the world, but the argument continues to revolve around the design of the furniture.

There have been over 4 new consultants appointed to the NHS every day over the life of this government - a real achievement by any standards. However despite this, performance has deteriorated.
This suggests 3 possible reasons -
1) Appointment of consultants is inversely proportional to NHS performance (which seems counter-intuitive)
2) We would have been a lot worse if they hadn't been appointed - which is not supported by the initial improvement over the first 3 years of this parliament.
3) The most likely, yet most surprising conclusion, is that further consultant appointments are not related to NHS performance (as measured currently).
So are we measuring the correct things?
Or is the fact that the number of GPs has dropped in real terms of this parliament's lifetime significant? (Compared over 4 per day new consultants, we have barely managed 1 new GP every two days in the same time period!).

Our local hospital in Chester has been missing targets both for A and E, and for starting cancer treatment. It used to meet targets in both areas, and the failure to meet them has started in the last few quarters. I wonder whether the gentleman who accused the BBC of left-wing bias would be happy to have the start of his own treatment delayed, were he unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with this disease?

This King's Fund report is a very fair assessment of the past five years, as is Dr Crawford's comments. It never fails to amaze me how well the healthcare workers do despite the ever-tighter budgets and bitching from the press - both of which must be morale-sapping!! Now we are in for weeks of false promises from those hoping to persuade us to vote for them. Our NHS should be removed from the political arena and meddlesome politicians!!

This is lengthy but worth a read!

To interpret this report one needs to be aware of two things. Firstly, the way we fund health services in this country, by everything having to come out of a tightly-controlled budget, means that the defining characteristic of the NHS is that it is a competition between patients for resources. Contrast this with systems which involve invoicing for items of service at a realistic price; each patient generates new resources for the provider organisation.
Secondly, there is Goodhart’s Law, named after a Bank of England economist. “When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure.” The introduction of targets meant that patients using those parts of the service to which they apply become especially competitive; in this report we have surgical waiting, emergency department throughput times and cancer management. Of course, there is everything right about patients’ care meeting those targets but because we use attainment of the target as a measure, and Trusts need to be able to quote favourable results by these measures, patients who use other parts of the service find that resources are diverted. It was more important in Mid Staffs to employ nurses to get through a surgical list quickly than to give food and drink to patients on the wards for the elderly.
So, as financial pressures have developed over the past five years Trusts have protected elective surgery and cancer services; attainment of those targets failed to measure the true overall performance of the NHS. The finances have now deteriorated to the point where they cannot be protected any longer.
Patients requiring mental health services have never benefitted from targets in that way, so they are much less competitive. Those services have been plundered to support the others. Only now is this being recognised; I have long been aware that my cancer patients were not receiving anything like the amount of psychologist support that is appropriate. I suggest that over the last few decades access to mental health services would be a better measure of NHS performance than surgical waiting times.
The competitive nature of access to healthcare means that competitive people are at an advantage; Assertive, aware and affluent people will always out-compete the deprived in society. The one area where the playing field is most level is the emergency department. It is really no surprise that those who find their requests for GP attention are considered uncompetitive by the triage system end up in the ED. And patients who cannot be discharged from the ward because no appropriate out-of-hospital. Service is available out-compete those in the ED needing a bed. The effects are there for all to see. And as the Prime Minister will doubtless remind us in the next few weeks, as he did last night, when it comes to attention in the DE a very sick child with a prominent politician for a father will always trounce the competition.
Of course, when a Trust exceeds its income the deficit is required to be recouped in future years. This means that future patients are not merely competing with each other but also with past patients. They are also competing with the PFI provider.
There were no surprises for me in this report.

The BBC'S 'hatchet job' referred to by the last contributor is typical of the left wing bias shown by the organisation. There has been an increase in the negative reporting of Government actions and particulally those of Premier Cameron.

On the whole a very balanced presentation.

The BBC online piece with the headline "NHS problems 'at their worst since 1990s'" looks like a hatchet job.

Surely you overplay the financial deficits issue? The net deficits across the system this year are likely to end up being some small number of £100 millions. This is pretty much a rounding error across the £113 billion overall NHS budget.

Yes, things are tight but where is the surprise in that?