Govt "exaggerating" number of NHS staff
The government has published charts creating a distorted impression of employment in the Department of Health by exaggerating the increase in the number of staff over the past three years.
In last year's annual publication of the National Health Service workforce figures, reporting 2003 data, about 60,000 health workers were dropped from the previous years' figures. As a result, the published bar chart appeared to show a steeper rise in employment than had actually occurred, supporting the government's assertion that the extra resources pouring into the health service were being reflected in higher staffing.
The chart was described by independent statisticians as one of the most blatant misrepresentations of data seen in a government publication.
The department said it stood by "the validity of the presentation of the figures in the report", adding that "the graphs are a representation and not for research purposes or academics". It said anyone with a serious interest in the numbers would not look for them in the chart, which was designed just for "casual readers".
It added that no one had complained about the chart since publication and complaints about it were "petty".
This is not the first time statistics from the health department have come under fire. Problems in the past couple of years have included uncertainties about the star ratings for hospitals, early leaking of data to the press, the lack of coherence and accessibility of data on their website. The department has conducted very few "quality reviews" of its data. The unreliability of the hospital waiting list data (used to monitor the election pledge to cut lists) has entered statistical folklore.
Sheila Bird, who led a review of government performance data for the Royal Statistical Society, said it was "preposterous to present charts when you can't trust the figures", adding the document "fails to match the basic expectations on presentation" that the RSS would hope for. The Statistics Commission and the RSS are expected to raise the issue with the department.
Several other concerns were voiced about the presentation of data in the document. Alison Macfarlane, a health specialist at London's City University, said the claim that managers numbered only 35,000, about 3 per cent of the workforce, was also dubious. She said many bureaucrats were put into other categories, such as the 72,200 working in "hotel, property and estates", 92,300 working in "central functions" and 88,000 non-medically qualified people working in GP practices. The figure also excluded the record-keepers and secretaries among the 360,700 offering support to clinical staff.
Andrew Lansley, Conservative health spokesman, said he expected the government to present "a full and rounded picture" of the health service given the importance of health in the forthcoming election.
He wrote to Sir Nigel Crisp, NHS chief executive, to complain about what he felt was a distorted impression of improvements given in the latest NHS annual report and said he had yet to receive a reply.
The above was first published by the Financial Times today
In last year's annual publication of the National Health Service workforce figures, reporting 2003 data, about 60,000 health workers were dropped from the previous years' figures. As a result, the published bar chart appeared to show a steeper rise in employment than had actually occurred, supporting the government's assertion that the extra resources pouring into the health service were being reflected in higher staffing.
The chart was described by independent statisticians as one of the most blatant misrepresentations of data seen in a government publication.
The department said it stood by "the validity of the presentation of the figures in the report", adding that "the graphs are a representation and not for research purposes or academics". It said anyone with a serious interest in the numbers would not look for them in the chart, which was designed just for "casual readers".
It added that no one had complained about the chart since publication and complaints about it were "petty".
This is not the first time statistics from the health department have come under fire. Problems in the past couple of years have included uncertainties about the star ratings for hospitals, early leaking of data to the press, the lack of coherence and accessibility of data on their website. The department has conducted very few "quality reviews" of its data. The unreliability of the hospital waiting list data (used to monitor the election pledge to cut lists) has entered statistical folklore.
Sheila Bird, who led a review of government performance data for the Royal Statistical Society, said it was "preposterous to present charts when you can't trust the figures", adding the document "fails to match the basic expectations on presentation" that the RSS would hope for. The Statistics Commission and the RSS are expected to raise the issue with the department.
Several other concerns were voiced about the presentation of data in the document. Alison Macfarlane, a health specialist at London's City University, said the claim that managers numbered only 35,000, about 3 per cent of the workforce, was also dubious. She said many bureaucrats were put into other categories, such as the 72,200 working in "hotel, property and estates", 92,300 working in "central functions" and 88,000 non-medically qualified people working in GP practices. The figure also excluded the record-keepers and secretaries among the 360,700 offering support to clinical staff.
Andrew Lansley, Conservative health spokesman, said he expected the government to present "a full and rounded picture" of the health service given the importance of health in the forthcoming election.
He wrote to Sir Nigel Crisp, NHS chief executive, to complain about what he felt was a distorted impression of improvements given in the latest NHS annual report and said he had yet to receive a reply.
The above was first published by the Financial Times today
posted by Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic at
1:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home