NHS advice, news, information, spin on the NHS

NHS advice, news, information, spin on the NHS.
Subscribe Twitter Facebook Linkedin

Archive for February, 2010

Stafford Hospital patients routinely neglected by cost cutting and targets

February 26, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

NHS Stafford Hospital patients were “routinely neglected” after management became preoccupied with cost-cutting and targets. Appalling standards of care put many patients at risk, and between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected in a three-year period from 2005 to 2008, the independent commission found.

The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Stafford Hospital, lost sight of its responsibility to provide safe care, the damning report found.

The probe was launched into events at Stafford Hospital after another report last March from the Healthcare Commission revealed a catalogue of failings at the trust, which also runs Cannock Chase Hospital.

The, inquiry chairman Robert Francis QC made 18 recommendations for both the trust and the government in his final report after hearing evidence from more than 900 patients and families.

But Julie Bailey, who founded the campaign group Cure The NHS after the death of her mother at the hospital, described the report as “absolutely outrageous”, adding: “All he’s done is recommended another independent inquiry.”

Mr Francis, presenting his report at a press conference near Stafford, said: “I heard so many stories of shocking care. These patients were not simply numbers, they were husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents.

“They were people who entered Stafford Hospital and rightly expected to be well cared for and treated. Instead many suffered horrific experiences that will haunt them and their loved ones for the rest of their lives.”

He said evidence gathered during the inquiry into events at the trust between January 2005 and March 2009 had shown clearly that for many patients the most basic elements of care were neglected.

Patients were left unwashed, at times for up to a month, and food and drinks were left out of reach of patients, the inquiry found.

Mr Francis also identified a chronic shortage of staff, particularly nurses, as being largely responsible for the sub-standard care give to patients.

He also said that while many staff did their best in difficult circumstances, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion to patients.

Mr Francis said: “The evidence gathered by this inquiry means there can no longer be any excuses for denying the scale of failure.

“If anything, it is greater than has been revealed to date. People must always come before numbers. Individual patients and their treatment are what really matters.”

Health Secretary Andy Burnham said today: “This was an appalling failure at every level of the hospital to ensure patients received the care and compassion they deserved. There can be no excuses for this.

“I am accepting all of the recommendations in full.”

Mr Francis recommended that the Department of Health launches an independent examination of how regulators and bodies such as strategic health authorities monitor hospitals, with the aim of learning lessons about how failing trusts are identified.

Today’s report found patients were left in dirty bedding and were caused “considerable suffering, distress and embarrassment”.

It said: “Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to. Patients were often left on commodes or in the toilet for far too long.

“They were also often left in sheets soiled with urine and faeces for considerable periods of time, which was especially distressing for those whose incontinence was caused by Clostridium difficile.

“Considerable suffering, distress and embarrassment were caused to patients as a result.”

The inquiry also found that the attitude of some nurses “left much to be desired”.

It added: “Some families felt obliged or were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.

“Some staff were dismissive of the needs of patients and their families.”

From:

Competition in NHS makes hospitals better, study says

February 25, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

Competition produces better managed hospitals which, in turn, produce better outcomes for patients, according to new research from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.

With the role of choice and competition in the National Health Service still highly controversial – the British Medical Association is currently running a large campaign against the commercialisation of the NHS – the research provides “clear cut evidence that competition between hospitals produces benefits,” Carol Propper , one of the study’s authors, said.

The study interviewed managers and clinicians at 100 big NHS hospitals, using a mildly adapted version of a standard measure of management performance that is widely used to assess private sector companies.

It compared the quality of management with a small range of clinical outcomes – such as deaths from heart attacks and emergency surgery, or hospital-acquired infections – and the scores given to hospitals for quality of care and financial management by the NHS inspectorate, the Care Quality Commission. It then looked at how many local rivals the hospitals had.

The conclusion, Professor Propper said, is that “better management produces better hospitals and competition between hospitals produces better management”.

Hospitals “with higher management scores have better clinical outcomes, shorter waiting times, better financial performance and higher staff satisfaction,” the study concludes.

Management was better where senior managers have some clinical training – a finding that reinforces repeated government attempts over recent decades to involve clinicians more in management. But it also concludes that “competition has a large effect in improving managerial quality in hospitals”.

How it does so remains open to question, the study says. It may be that the market reforms in the NHS, with money attached to each treatment, mean “hospitals now have an incentive to provide better care to attract patients”.

In areas with a relatively large number of competitors, it may be easier to assess performance by comparison with neighbours. Or it may be that a competitive environment provides an attractive market for good managers.

“With more hospitals nearby, it is easier for managers to look out for better employment opportunities.”


From:

Warning over primary care trusts in commissioning health services

February 24, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

Primary care trusts, which commission services for patients from the public, private and voluntary sectors, are at risk of breaching NHS competition rules in a “significant” number of cases. 
The warning comes from the panel set up to advise health ministers on the application of competition in the NHS.

It is the latest twist in a deepening row over whether the government is seeking to squeeze out non-NHS providers – including the not-for-profit sector – in the battle to win contracts for providing publicly-funded healthcare.

In September Andy Burnham, health secretary, appeared to overturn existing policy when he said the NHS should henceforth be regarded as the “preferred provider” of healthcare.

However, almost four months after Mr Burnham pledged the rules governing the bidding process would be rewritten to reflect the new approach, nothing has emerged. 

The Department of Health recently said that they would be published “in the coming weeks” – leading to speculation that they might not emerge before the election, or before the panel issues its initial judgment in March.

That means the panel must make its judgment based on the competition rules currently in force – prompting the warning from Andrew Taylor, the competition panel’s chief executive, that PCTs may be making decisions that reflect Mr Burnham’s rhetoric but flout current rules.

Mr Taylor said problems it had observed included “excluding potential bidders on grounds unrelated to their ability to deliver the services tendered, and failing to select the bestperforming service provider as the preferred bidder”.

However, in a sign of the growing tension between the panel – set up by Alan Johnson, when health secretary – and current health ministers, the health department has publicly rejected that view.

A spokesman said it appeared to be based “on anecdote”. The Co-operation and Competition Panel had presented “no evidence” from its casework in a report on its first year’s work “to suggest poor procurement practice by commissioners”, he said.

The spat comes as the panel is investigating a crucial test case in which Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT said it could take bids only from NHS organisations to run its provider arm.

From:

Watchdog says failure by trusts to comply with alerts is unacceptable by risking patients’ lives

February 23, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

Hospitals were accused of putting patients’ lives at unnecessary risk after research revealed they were failing to comply with NHS orders designed to prevent deaths from mistakes involving drugs, surgery or equipment.

Information released by the ­Department of Health after a freedom of information request showed that hospitals were not complying with safety alerts issued by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA).

The NPSA’s chairman, Lord Patel of Dunkeld, told the Guardian that the behaviour of the trusts was unacceptable and endangered the health of patients.

“It’s not good enough,” he said. “What’s the point of us developing these alerts if they don’t pay any attention to them? Alerts are produced to reduce risk and hopefully avoid many deaths, so not to implement them to me is alarming. If they aren’t implemented then they run the risk of harm occurring and the danger will continue.”

The Department of Health research revealed that:

• 104 hospitals and other providers of NHS care in England have not confirmed they have implemented an NPSA alert issued in March 2007 to ensure that ­injectable medicines are used more safely – even though new systems are meant to be in place by March 2010. 

The alert came after 25 patients died and 28 others experienced serious harm in 18 months.

• 25 NHS organisations have not ­confirmed compliance with an NPSA safer-practice notice designed to reduce the risk of patients ­falling out of bed. It was issued after about 90 patients who rolled out of bed on to the floor in ­hospitals, mental health and learning disability units, fractured their neck or femur; 11 of them died.

• 81 hospitals and other care providers had not taken the “required actions” outlined in patient safety alerts covering opioid (painkilling) medicines. The alert was originally issued in July 2008 with a deadline of January 2009; the 81 had not complied by 29 December 2009.

• 10 NHS trusts have not said they have complied with a February 2005 alert on nasogastric feeding tubes, which can sometimes be wrongly placed into the lungs during insertion. Errors involving the feeding tubes caused at least 11 deaths before the alert came out, according to the NPSA.

Patel acknowledged that complying with alerts can be difficult for the NHS. “They can’t be implemented overnight because they involve system changes, for example to IT systems or clinical practice. But having said that, the level of implementation is not good enough and needs major improvement,” he added.

The research, sought by the patient safety charity Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA), also reveals that 50 trusts have not showed they have ­followed the NPSA’s advice in 2008 on hand hygiene, which is a major source of hospital-acquired infections; 37 have not taken steps set out in 2006 to improve the safety of blood transfusions; 56 did not comply with 2009 advice on reducing the risk of children being injured or killed by parents with mental heath conditions; and six have not implemented a 2008 alert on avoiding patients undergoing brain surgery accidentally having burr holes drilled in the wrong side of their head, as at least 15 did between 2005 and 2008.

Peter Walsh, AvMA’s chief executive, said: “The fact that so many NHS bodies are failing to act on potentially life-saving alerts from the NPSA is shocking. It is putting lives at unnecessary risk and adds insult to injury for patients who have been harmed or lost loved ones as a result of NHS lapses in safety.”

Lisa Richards-Everton, whose husband, Paul, died in July 2007 after a drugs blunder while he was a cancer patient in Birmingham’s Heartlands hospital, said the report was shocking. 

“It shows how the government and the NHS are failing everyone,” she said. “The systems that are currently in place are inadequate and urgent changes need to be made. These are people’s lives we are talking about; everyone deserves to be safe in hospital. We trust adequate safety measures are in place, but clearly this is not the case.”

In addition, a total of 119 trusts did not comply with a 2008 NPSA alert on the risk to patient safety of not using the NHS number as the method of identifying patients nationally across England. That was despite the NPSA declaring that local hospital patient numbering systems involved “real danger to patients of serious harm or death”.

The Department of Health revealed which NHS trusts had confirmed they had complied with the 53 patient safety alerts the NPSA issued between 2004 and 2009. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust had not implemented the largest number: 37.

However, after becoming aware that the charity planned to publicise the department’s data, the trust recently told the NHS’s central alerts system that it had in fact complied with most of the 37. A trust spokesman said that its adherence to NPSA alerts had been examined by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the NHS watchdog in England. “The CQC found absolutely no issues of concern and gave the trust a clean bill of health,” he said.

Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust in south London had not acted upon the joint second highest number of alerts: 31. Joy Ellery, its director of knowledge, governance and communications, said it had delayed notifying the central alerts system because it took the alerts so seriously.

“We are so thorough with implementing safety alerts that until we’ve complied with them fully, we don’t sign them off. We have now signed off a number of the 31 and are down to 18 that haven’t been implemented.” Asked if 18 was still poor, Ellery replied: “I would like it to be better.”

The DH said it expected all NHS trusts to comply with safety alerts and to record and action them. It will issue the health service with a reminder about the need to update the alerts system reliably and as soon as possible, a spokeswoman said.

The new responsibility on all NHS trusts from April to register with the CQC will make mandatory the reporting of threats or potential threats to patient safety, she added.
 

From:

Hospital made profit on NHS drugs sold abroad

February 22, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

A Surrey hospital sold millions of pounds worth of NHS medicines abroad during the past year, despite official warnings calling for an end to such arbitrage for fear it could lead to shortages for British patients.

The Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford confirmed a report in the Health Service Journal that it had made £300,000 in profit by exporting £4.6m in medicines in the 10 months to January.

The revelations precede a conference convened next month by Mike O’Brien, the health minister, designed to clamp down on such “parallel trade” after pressure by the pharmaceutical industry. They provide a clear example of NHS entities trading for profit, despite a statement by the Department of Health to the Financial Times last week that it was unaware of any particular examples.

The weakness of sterling against the euro has turned the UK into a low priced source of medicines in the past two years, allowing intermediaries to buy them for resale at a higher price elsewhere in Europe, such as Germany.

The UK was formerly a net importer of drugs from lower-priced countries such as Greece, as part of the widespread practice of parallel trade, transferring potential drugs company profits into the hands of intermediary traders.

While individual pharmacies and some drugs wholesalers have long taken part in this cross-border arbitrage, which is legal under European Union law, the government became concerned in recent months at the possible involvement of NHS hospital pharmacies. The chief pharmacist wrote to them last July, calling the practice “irresponsible”.

The arbitrage runs the risk of creating medicine shortages in the UK. Officials were particularly concerned because of extra pressure on medical services caused by the flu pandemic. 

Bad weather in recent weeks also caused breaks in the normal drugs supply chain, causing stock shortages that could have threatened patients’ lives.

Monitor, the hospital regulator, said it had inspected the Royal Surrey’s practices in preparation for its conversion into a foundation trust in December but found no fault with the practice.

“As long as what they are doing is not illegal and doesn’t affect their ability to focus on NHS patients, it is not an issue for us,” Monitor said. It cited other commercial activities, such as childcare, while saying that car parking had become subject to ministerial  scrutiny.

The hospital said it had discontinued the parallel export of medicines last month in response to negative publicity and when a shift in exchange rates made the practice less lucrative. It said it was satisfied it did not run the risk of forming any medicine shortages for NHS patients.

The Department of Health told the FT last week that it had “received anecdotal evidence of NHS trusts being approached to become involved in such activities but has no concrete evidence that NHS trusts are involved”.

The department said that it was “aware of a report that a hospital has considered trading in medicines for short-term financial gain. Such activities are wrong and threaten the medicines supply chain and patient care.”


From:

Victims misdiagnosed by doctor paid £4m in compensation

February 19, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

The victims of a doctor who reduced children to “zombies” after misdiagnosing them have been paid more than £4m in compensation.

Dr Andrew Holton mistakenly declared more than 600 patients epileptic during one of the biggest cases of misdiagnosis in the history of the NHS.

Many of them were prescribed a debilitating cocktail of drugs when in fact they were only suffering from headaches or simply badly behaved.
 
In total, 105 pay-outs have been made to former patients of Dr Andrew Holton who were treated by him at Leicester Royal Infirmary between 1990 and 2001.

The amounts paid out have varied from sums of just a few thousand pounds to one of around £240,000.

Dr Holton was suspended in 2001 after a series of complaints dating back to 1995.

An inquiry found he had misdiagnosed 618 cases and put 500 children on the wrong doses of medication.

In January 2006 the General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice Panel ruled that his professional performance was “seriously deficient”.

But he was later allowed to return to work with certain conditions – including one banning him from working with children – placed on his registration.

Dr Holton, now 56, misdiagnosed 618 youngsters while working as a paediatric neurologist, prescribing many a mix of anti-convulsant drugs.

Even his own colleagues raised concerns about his “individualist” methods as early as 1998, yet he was allowed to continue working in virtual isolation.

Only afterwards was it revealed he had no formal qualifications in paediatric neurology.

Parents said the medication caused their children to suffer side-effects, such as black-outs and drug-induced hazes.

Solicitor Jane Williams, from law firm Freeth Cartwright which has handled most of the compensation cases, said: “The families have been able to sit down round a table with three independent consultants and it takes as long as it needs to.

“Invariably, some parents feel guilty about what happened. With the panel, they get independent experts telling them it was not their fault.”

A total of £4.4m has been paid out since legal proceedings began in 2003. A further 89 compensation cases are expected to be decided by the end of next year.

An independent inquiry commissioned by the Department of Health criticised the hospital’s response and lack of effective management.

It found Dr Holton should have had extra training when he joined Leicester University Hospitals NHS Trust from Charring Cross Hospital, London.

Dr Holton now works as a consultant neurophysiologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust. A  spokesman for the trust said: “Dr Holton does not feel it is appropriate for him to comment.”

Last night a Leicester hospitals spokeswoman said: “Our solicitors are working hard to fully co-operate with claimants so that all outstanding matters can be brought to a conclusion.”

From:

Dementia costing UK £23bn a year

February 18, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

Dementia costs the country £23 billion per year- more than cancer and heart disease combined but receives a fraction of the funding, according to a new “wake-up call” report.

The number of sufferers at 822,000 is also 17 per cent higher than has previously been estimated and will pass the one million mark before 2025, the Alzheimer’s Research Trust (ART) said.

Revealing stark differences in research funding, it calculated that for every pound spent on dementia studies, £12 is spent on investigating cancer and £3 on heart disease.

Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the ART, called for greater resources to fight the condition, saying: “The true impact of dementia has been ignored for too long.

“The UK’s dementia crisis is worse than we feared. This report shows that dementia is the greatest medical challenge of the 21st century.”

She added: “If we spend a more proportionate sum on dementia research, we could unleash the full potential of our scientists in their race for a cure.

“Spending millions now really can save us crippling multi-billion pound care bills later.”

According to the report, which was prepared with experts from Oxford University, dementia’s overall annual cost dwarfs the £12 billion cost for cancer care and the £8 billion for heart disease.

The £23 billion is made up of £9 billion in social care costs, £12 billion in unpaid care and £1.2 billion in health care costs.

Each dementia patient costs the economy £27,647 each year, researchers found, nearly five times more than a cancer patient and eight times more than someone suffering from heart disease.

The expense is driven mainly by the extent of unpaid carers and long-term institutional care – in contrast to cancer and heart disease whose costs are mainly taken care of by the NHS.

Big differences in research funding were also revealed in the study, called the Dementia 2010 report.

At £590 million, cancer research funding is 12 times the £50 million devoted to dementia, while heart disease received more than three times as much. Only stroke research received less.

The report calculated that £295 is spent on research for every person with cancer, compared with just £61 for each person with dementia.

Alastair Gray, professor of health economics at Oxford University and report author, contrasted the perception of the disease with cancer.

He said: “Many of us know people who have had cancer or heart disease but have been successfully treated and survived, so there is a perception that something can be done, and that more research will allow even more to be done.

“In contrast there are no cures for dementia at present; there are not even many ways of delaying it or slowing it down, so there may well be a feeling of inevitability surrounding it.

“However the lack of of effective treatments is surely an argument for devoting more effort to research, not less.”

The report also documents a “diagnosis gap”, between the expected number of people with dementia and the number of patients with dementia on GP registers.

In England, it is estimated only 31% of people with dementia are registered on GP lists.

Reasons for the low rate include GPs’ lack of training and low confidence in diagnosing dementia.

Health minister Phil Hope said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I would fully agree that dementia is one of the most important issues we face as a population, particularly as more and more people are living longer.”

From:

NHS’s major trauma services – not good enough

February 17, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

England has an unacceptably poor service for dealing with major trauma, in spite of 20 years of reports identifying the problem, and a real terms doubling of NHS spending in the past decade, the National Audit Office found.

Some 450 to 600 lives a year could be saved, and much long-term disability prevented, if the NHS had an effective network of centres to deal with multiple injuries from road crashes, burns, blasts, serious falls and major crush injuries, the NAO said.

Death rates from major trauma are 20 per cent higher in the UK than in the US, which has well organised trauma centres, and almost certainly higher than in Germany and some other European countries, according to spending watchdog’s research.

Victims of major trauma need specialist surgical teams that may include orthopaedic, cardiac and neuro-surgeons, but such consultants are not normally on duty at night and weekends when most major trauma occurs. 

Few hospitals have sufficient CT scanning available round the clock to help with diagnosis, and what data there is shows that barely a third of patients who need moving to a more specialist centre in fact get transferred.

Not enough of the patients who need a critical care bed get one, and access to rehabilitation services which can improve quality of life and reduce hospital stays varies widely, the NAO said.

Major trauma services are simply “not good enough”, Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said. They “have not significantly improved in the last 20 years, despite numerous reports identifying poor practice”.

The result is unnecessary deaths and disability and poor value for money, and while the health department has just appointed a national director for trauma it and the NHS “must get a grip,” Mr Morse said. Co-ordinated trauma networks need developing, with much better information on costs and outcomes. 

The performance of 40 per cent of hospitals cannot even be measured because they do not submit data to the voluntary network which does audit trauma care.

The NAO’s warning came as the department told primary care trusts they must do a better job of monitoring the quality of care delivered by out-of-hours GP services following the death of David Gray, a patient given a fatal overdose by Dr Daniel Ubani, a German flown over as a weekend locum by Take Care Now, Cambridgeshire’s private contractor for out-of-hours care.
 

From:

NHS spending squeeze to hurt PFI hospitals most

February 16, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

NHS hospitals built under the private finance initiative will face a much tougher time making the productivity and efficiency gains that are needed as public spending is squeezed, PFI experts and NHS managers are warning.

Under PFI, hospitals pay a single annual charge, typically for 25 or 30 years. It covers the cost of the capital, maintenance of the building and often other “soft” services such as cleaning, catering and laundry and sometimes equipment replacement.

While the soft service contracts are usually renegotiated every five or seven years, the main payments are fixed at the interest rates prevailing when the deal was done. In the current financial climate there is no possibility of refinancing them to produce lower annual payments, and the cost of buying out the contracts is prohibitive, according to PFI specialists.

Figures published by the Department of Health this week show big variations in the percentage of annual turnover that hospitals pay for their PFI buildings, largely depending on how extensive the rebuild was.

For some it is only 1-3 per cent but for others it is 10-12 per cent. For Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry, Dartford and Gravesham and Queen Elizabeth, Woolwich, it is 16 per cent and more. For Bromley Hospital it is almost 20 per cent of turn­over.

Traditionally, when spending has been tough, NHS hospitals have put back maintenance to retain doctors and nurses and other services.

“If you do that for too long, it is a thoroughly bad thing,” Nigel Edwards, head of policy for the NHS Confederation, said. “But for a year or two it can help you cope.

“But a hospital with a PFI scheme does not have that option. They are contractually bound to keep the maintenance up – and if you are spending 10 or 15 per cent on your buildings it means all the other efficiency and productivity gains you need have to come out of only 85 or 90 per cent of your budget.”

Hospitals without PFIs still paid a capital charge, so the comparison was not quite that bad, Mr Edwards said. “But some of these hospitals with PFIs are going to find it incredibly tough” to make their share of the £15bn-plus savings that the health department says are needed, he said.

Treasury officials privately acknowledge that there is an issue and hope PFI providers will prove flexible as public spending gets tougher. But David Florry, director-general of NHS finance, told MPs that while the level of cleaning of back-office areas, for example, could be reduced at the break points in the soft service contracts, there was no evidence yet that payments had gone down as a result.

William Moyes, chairman of Monitor, the foundation trust regulator, said lack of maintenance in the past had left the NHS estate in an appalling state. “On balance, having to keep up the maintenance is not a bad thing because it means patients will be treated in buildings that have been kept up to scratch.”

From:

More patients die as lone GPs cover thousands in opt out services

February 15, 2010 By: Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic Category: Uncategorized

Some parts of Britain are relying on just one out-of-hours GP at night to serve more than 240,000 residents.

An investigation by The Sunday Times into the inadequacy of round-the-clock cover has established two further deaths, including that of a three-year-old boy, after failures in the system.

Brighton, Bolton and Wigan are among the areas where a lone doctor is responsible for dealing with late-night emergencies. The news follows revelations last weekend that just two GPs provide cover for Suffolk and its 600,000-strong population on some nights.

Mark Simmonds, the Tory health spokesman, said repeated warnings about out-of-hours cover had gone unheeded by ministers: “It’s disgraceful that the government hasn’t taken action over this before.”

Brighton and Hove primary care trust (PCT) has one GP to cover an area with 248,000 residents on most nights. It claimed the doctor can receive as few as 10 calls each evening. However, in one case involving the trust, a three-year-old boy from Hove died from blood poisoning after the failure of the out-of-hours service.

The frantic parents of Joseph Seevaraj phoned the duty doctor at 11pm on a Sunday and asked whether they should take their son to hospital because he was vomiting and suffering from diarrhoea.

Joseph was already taking antibiotics for tonsillitis and the doctor advised his parents, Jean and Nicola, to wait for those to take effect. They watched over the toddler closely, but he died a few hours later.

A consultant in paediatric intensive care later said she believed the child would have survived if his parents had received proper advice from the out-of-hours service.

“He needed basic medical attention,” said Veronica Hamilton-Deeley, the coroner, at the inquest. “The failure to provide it was gross failure.”

South East Health, which provides round-the-clock services for Brighton and Hove PCT, said it had learnt from the incident in January 2008.

This weekend it emerged that only one GP serves 310,000 residents in the Wigan area on most nights, while 270,000 residents in the Bolton area also have to routinely rely on a single out-of-hours doctor.

In North Somerset there is just one GP for 200,000 residents on a week night. Cambridgeshire has three GPs at night, Norfolk has four and Cumbria has six.

Such skeleton cover was introduced when labour negotiated new contracts with GPs in 2004, boosting their average salary to more than £100,000 and allowing them to opt out of providing round-the-clock care.

While some PCTs say that just one or two GPs can adequately cover a population of more than 250,000, others have more doctors available for home visits.

Under South Birmingham PCT there are 11 doctors on overnight duty, each covering an average population of about 35,000.

Hampshire has 13 GPs on duty at night and Devon has eight, working at medical centres across the county.

Patients are often unaware if their local service is in crisis because most trusts do not publish performance reports. NHS Bristol said last week that a report on the quality of its out-of-hours GPs’ service was “confidential” and “commercially sensitive”.

Most round-the-clock services struggle to fill shifts with local GPs. Instead they use doctors from other parts of the country or foreign GPs who fly in for their shifts. A parliamentary debate was told last week of a case in Cornwall in which a patient had been confronted with a foreign doctor who used “an electronic word converter” to communicate. Other patients have complained of waiting eight hours for a doctor to arrive.

There have also been complaints that out-of-hours GPs do not have access to patient notes and sometimes fail to diagnose serious conditions. In one case, a doctor working as a duty GP in West Yorkshire was suspended from the General Medical Council register after he failed to examine an elderly patient properly. She died the next day.

Dr Krzysztof Robak, 62, commuted more than 175 miles from Surrey, where he worked for a diet clinic, to his Yorkshire employer, Local Care Direct. When he visited the 86-year-old patient, he failed to check her blood pressure or take her temperature and did not consider her seriously ill.

Local Care Direct, a non profit organisation which provides out-of-hours care services for 2.5m people in Yorkshire, said it had vetted Robak rigorously before employing him.

It said it did not consider that he had contributed to the patient’s death in July 2007, but it had raised concerns about his conduct.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7009692.ece