Emergency patients are being let down by the health service because managers are more concerned with meeting targets by treating those with appointments, the heads of Royal Colleges warn.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, some of the country’s most senior doctors say they are “deeply frustrated” at the low priority given to Accident and Emergency.

Targets concerning waiting times and cancelled operations, introduced under Labour, result in managers pushing doctors to operate on patients whose care has been pre-planned, in order to avoid financial penalties. But they can also mean that those who come in as emergency cases are stabilised and admitted but then left to wait for surgery.

Studies have shown that elderly people with fractured hips who do not undergo surgery within 48 hours are less likely to regain full mobility. Younger patients with shattered pelvises, from motorcycle or horse-riding accidents, are less likely to walk again if their operations are delayed.

A report published on Thursday criticised care for the elderly, finding that two thirds of those who died within a month of surgery had not received proper care and that they had often been left in pain.

Most of those patients were being treated for bowel conditions or broken hips, which are usually admitted as emergency cases.

John Black, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said the report echoed concerns that surgeons had been raising for some time.

In the letter, Mr Black said: “It is a source of deep frustration to our members that hospitals have become organised to deal quickly with elective operations at the cost of properly managing emergency care.”

The Coalition’s reforms of the NHS could help by making hospitals more accountable to GPs for the care they provide, he said.

The letter was signed by Peter Nightingale, president of the Royal College of Anaesthetists; Peter Kay, president of the British Orthopaedic Association; Finbarr Martin, president of the British Geriatric Society; Mike Horrocks, president of the Association of Surgeons; and Clare Marx, the Royal College of Surgeons’ lead representative in matters of patient safety.

Mr Horrocks said: “In recent years, the NHS has been set targets for elective operations to bring down waiting lists.

“This has been fantastic for patients with non-emergency conditions, but came at the detriment of those who require urgent treatment as hospitals focused on hitting those targets.

“The new government has committed to moving away from targets and towards measuring and rewarding hospitals who deliver good outcomes and this report should provide further evidence that this approach is correct.”

Under Labour, patients had to be treated within 18 weeks of a referral by their family doctor.

Surgeons have told the Telegraph that this resulted in extreme pressure to operate on any patients in danger of failing to meet that target, ahead of cases that came in as emergencies.

Any pre-planned operation that was cancelled was recorded and the data published. The patient then had to be rescheduled within 28 days, adding to the pressure to give elective operations priority, doctors have said.

Mr Black added: “Surgeons have been saying for some time that emergency surgery is a Cinderella service in the modern NHS.

“We will only solve these problems if focusing on emergency care becomes a priority in the boardroom as well as the ward.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “It can be so debilitating for someone who has a fracture to be left for a couple of days or longer, waiting for an operation when the trust is focused yet again on meeting these pernicious targets. It is an appalling way to determine who gets care. An emergency should be an emergency.

“The financial rewards for elective surgery are more lucrative for the trust than for emergencies and that is why trusts continue to focus on elective treatment. We cannot make savings by putting patients through unnecessary pain and suffering.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Emergency-patients-let-down-by-targets-say-surgeons

Nearly 100 bereaved relatives and victims of the Stafford NHS scandal are to be paid a total of more than £1 million following Britain’s largest ever group claim against a single hospital.
In total, 97 families of patients who died and victims who survived “appalling” standards of patient care will receive compensation payments, of up to £27,500.

Lawyers for the victims said the failings of Stafford Hospital left patients degraded and humiliated, and amounted to human rights’ abuses.

The trust has offered a total compensation settlements of £1.1 million, which the families are expected to accept, and apologies in each case. It did not accept the failings were breaches of human rights.

A public inquiry into the worst hospital scandal in more than a decade opens next week.

Last year, inspectors found that hundreds more patients died than would have been expected at the hospital between 2005 and 2008, amid “appalling” conditions.

Dehydrated patients were forced to drink out of flower vases, while decisions about treatment for Accident and Emergency patients were left to receptionists.

Up to 1,200 patients may have died needlessly over the period, as managers attempted to cut costs and hit targets.

The settlements for the group of 97 cases, including 84 deaths, covers failings as recent as this year, and dating back to 2002.

Among those to receive a payment is Heather Wilhelms, 55, who lost her mother, father, and husband at the hospital in the space of 18 months.

Her mother’s ovarian cancer was missed, while her father was sent home without treatment days before he died, after blood poisoning went undetected.

Nine months later, her husband died from lung disease in wards which his widow described as “filthy”. She told how her loved ones went to hospital for treatment and one by one, came out in their coffins.

The compensation payouts range from £1,000 to £27,500, with an average payment of just over £11,000 for bereaved relatives and those who survived failings in care.

Emma Jones, from lawyers Leigh Day & Co, which represented the families, said the action was believed to be unprecedented, with the 97 cases representing the largest group to be offered payouts by one hospital.

She said lawyers argued that the hospital’s failings were so basic and substantial, that they amounted to breaches of patients’ fundamental human rights.

Miss Jones said: “This was about basic neglect; food and drink placed out of reach, buzzers unanswered, people left after soiling themselves.

“In some cases we argued that the poor treatment caused the deaths – in many, the argument was that basic fundamental human rights were being denied – that people were being degraded, neglected and humiliated.”

Often, when elderly people die following failings in hospital, compensation is low, especially if no spouse is bereaved.

The lawyers said the case was significant because the arguments had centred on how badly patients had been treated, rather than proving their deaths had been hastened.

“For the relatives it was never about the money but more a recognition that their mum, or dad should never have been left to suffer in that way,” said Miss Jones.

She added: “We don’t know of any bigger group claim against any one hospital, we think this is unprecedented.”

The Labour Government refused to hold a public inquiry to find out what went wrong, and to prevent a repeat of the scandal.

Since taking power, the Coalition Government has ordered such an investigation – one of the key demands of The Sunday Telegraph’s Heal Our Hospitals campaign – which is due to start taking evidence next week.

On Saturday an inspection report revealed that the hospital is still failing to meet most basic standards of patient care.

The Care Quality Commission said it had concerns about the care and welfare of patients, and respect shown to them, its safeguarding of patients from abuse, the management of medicines, the safety of premises and equipment, staffing and complaints.

Inspectors said the trust had made progress, and that some of the concerns involved changes which would take time to “bed in”.

Last week it emerged that the trust had paid a locum Accident & Emergency doctor more than £5,000 to work a single 24-hour shift, in response to a sudden staffing crisis.

Julie Bailey, who founded local campaign group Cure the NHS as a response to the standard of care given by the hospital to her own mother, who died in 2007, said: “The size of the group exposes the scale of this crisis; it is an absolute disgrace that in the 21st century, the most vulnerable people were treated so appallingly.”

She added: “For relatives who have gone through this, no amount of money can ever compensate for what happened to their loved ones.”

Mrs Bailey said there were many more relatives and victims who had never received a penny. “Every day, someone comes to me who has never even spoken before about what they went through.

“There are so many people suffering as a result of this scandal, and no one has been held to account for what we are going through.”

Antony Sumara, Chief Executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, said: “As always, I offer our sincerest apologies to the families concerned, for the distress caused by the poor care their relatives received at our Trust in the past.

“We have made a lot of progress over the last year in improving the care for our patients and will continue to focus our efforts on building on these improvements and making sure that they are sustained.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Almost-100-victims-of-Staffordshire-scandal-receive-payouts-after-unprecedented-group-claim

NICE the killer quango wants to waste taxpayers money by suggesting that the NHS should bribe fat people to lose weight and smokers to quit, and give children toys for eating their fruit and vegetables.The Killer Quango- the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE) was set up in early 1999 by the labour Secretary of State for Health Frank Dobson and has since condemned hundreds of cancer sufferers to early deaths and blighted thousands to painful existences by restricting payments- creating postcode lotteries for health care.

Now during the credit crunch nice want to waste millions of taxpayers pounds bribing people when earlier pilot studies showed that there were high drop out rates and up to 80% failed to reach their targets.

The advice, which will be published by the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure, has been greeted with anger by critics who claimed such “bribes” were draining the public purse of money which could be better spent elsewhere.

The study examined a series of schemes, including one in Kent which pays dieters up to £425 for losing weight and another in Scotland which gives pregnant women shopping vouchers worth up to £650 for quitting the habit.

It also looked at programmes in Oxford, Manchester, London and Bangor in Wales, where schools have been given toys such as juggling balls, stickers and pencils to children who have eaten their fruit and vegetables.

Fiona McEvoy, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said state funds should not be used to pay people to change their lifestyles,

She said: “Bribing people to lose weight or quit smoking is nothing but a quick fix which patronises the individuals in question and drains much-needed money away from the public purse. At a time when cancer drugs are being denied to sufferers due to lack of funds, many will be disgusted to learn that NICE are considering such a costly approach.”

Other schemes examined in the report include a pilot in Manchester which rewards overweight parents for walking their children to school.

As part of a £30m project, supermarket points are given to unfit people who attend keep-fit classes, weight loss clubs or go for a run in the park.

Overweight people gain credit points they can cash in for groceries just for turning up, with extra rewards depending on how much weight they lose.

In Newcastle, Bristol, Torbay, Manchester and Bury St Edmunds, those aged 16 to 22 are given subsidised gym membership if they visit at least once a week.

However, the report found limited evidence about whether the schemes make a difference.

In the Scottish antismoking project, for instance, the study acknowledged that four fifths of the women in the £43,000 scheme were smoking again within three months of giving birth.

The recommendations from NICE’s independent citizens council do not constitute its official advice to the NHS. Its board will launch a public consultation on the matter before considering the paper, which would inform future guidance.

However, the rationing body has already supported financial rewards for heroin addicts.

Originally NICE recommended that addicts who attended treatment programmes should be given the chance to win prizes, such as televisions and MP3 players.

The body dropped the idea following a public outcry but instead recommended that shopping vouchers worth up to £10 could be awarded to those who completed programmes, or showed they were clear of drugs.

NICE has been widely criticised for refusing to pay for dozens of cancer drugs on the grounds of cost. Medicines rejected include the drugs Avastin for advanced bowel cancer and Nexavar for advanced liver cancer.

Last year the institute fuelled controversy when it ruled marriage guidance counselling should be funded by the NHS, and supported the use of acupuncture for back pain, despite finding there was no good evidence it worked.

The report follows a three day meeting of NICE’s citizens council, where members were asked to vote about the use of incentives.

“More than 60 per cent said they were in favour of such schemes, as long as they were only used as a “last resort” and were not exchangeable for tobacco or alcohol.

Sir Michael Rawlins, the chairman of NICE said: “We clearly face several public health challenges in today’s society, some more obvious than others, and we must seek to improve these in ways that are likely to achieve the best outcomes to those affected.

“The majority of the council has voted in favour of the use of incentives under certain circumstances, but this clearly remains a divisive issue”.

Public consultation on the report starts today.

From:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NICE killer quango taxpayers-bribes-for-obese-and-smokers.html

Health Direct finds this new waste of taxpayers money a disgrace. Research in pilot studies has clearly showed that bribing people to lose weight and stop smoking DOES NOT WORK in the vast majority of cases.

On June 10, 2010 Health Direct published research :Nanny state cash bribes for good health fail three quarters of patients at http://www.healthdirect.co.uk/2010/06/nanny-state-cash-bribes-for-good-health-fail-three-quarters-of-patients.html

A Department of Health spokesman has already described them as an undesirable use of money and should only be adopted as a “last resort”.

If you would like to tell the killer quango NICE what you think of this scheme, comments should be sent to Clifford Middleton, Research and Development Project Manager at clifford.middleton@nice.org.uk by 5pm on Friday, 26 November 2010.

If email is a problem for you, please send your comments in a letter to Clifford Middleton at:

NICE,
MidCity Place,
71 High Holborn,
London WC1V 6NA.

The £12.7bn scheme to give every patient in England an electronic medical record will cease to be a centralised national programme, Simon Burns, the health minister, has announced.
Instead, the job will be devolved to the NHS, with hospitals allowed to introduce “smaller, more manageable change” using “a more plural, supplier base” than the two main contractors BT and CSC.

The moves will save another £700m on top of the £600m that the Labour government said it would cut from the cost of the programme, Mr Burns said in a written ministerial statement.

According to Christine Connelly, the health department’s director-general for informatics, the £1.3bn savings to reduce the programme’s overall estimated cost to £11.4bn will come from a variety of sources.

They include an anticipated – though still to be negotiated – £500m cut in the cost of CSC’s £3bn deal to supply systems to most of the north, east and west of the country; a £112m saving already booked from reducing the scope of BT’s deal in London; and £200m being taken out of the national programme’s own costs.

In addition, there will be an anticipated £500m reduction on an estimate that it would cost the NHS locally £3.5bn to install the systems.

The “core assumption” of the programme will now be one of “connecting all systems together rather than replacing all systems,” Mr Burns said, allowing NHS trusts to keep those that match modern standards while moving forward “in a way that best fits their own circumstances”.

The promise of a more devolved approach was welcomed by critics of the programme and the NHS Confederation. But both struggled to be clear about the implications.

Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the Commons’ public accounts committee, said: “The big unanswered question is when it is all finished, what will we have got for all the money? There is still some £5bn in the programme to be spent, but it was meant to deliver something very special.”

Mr Burns said that in spite of “more plural” suppliers, the existing contracts with BT and CSC that have huge penalty break clauses “will be honoured”. Frances Blunden, the NHS Confederation’s IT specialist, said it was “a fair question” to ask “where will money come from for a wider choice of suppliers if the existing deals are to be honoured?”.

The statement does, however, represent something of a U-turn for the Conservatives, who had threatened ahead of the election to scrap all the programme’s central databases. The existing national infrastructure is to be kept, although a review of the national summary record is still underway, focusing on its contents and patient consent.

“The early indications [from the review] are that we are past the point of should we or shouldn’t we have one,” Ms Connelly said, “although that question will be asked”.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/785e2f70-bc41-11df-8c02-00144feab49a.html

NHS Hospitals will face financial penalties if patients are readmitted as an emergency within 30 days of being discharged, under new government plans.
The scheme was unveiled yesterday by Andrew Lansley, in his first major speech as the new health secretary.

Hospitals in England will be paid for initial treatment but not paid again if a patient is brought back in with a related problem, he said.

It has been argued that patients are being discharged early to free up beds.

The Conservatives have said cuts to the number of hospital beds under Labour put pressure on NHS staff to discharge people without support.

Between 1998-99 and 2007-08, the number of emergency readmissions in England rose from 359,719 to 546,354. But there was also a significant rise in the number of procedures performed over the same time period.

Readmissions as a percentage of all patient discharges went up marginally, from 8% in 1998-99 to 10.5% in 2007-08.

Speaking about his vision for the NHS, Mr Lansley called for patients to be given more control over their healthcare.

And he said hospitals would have the responsibility of looking after patients’ health and well-being for up to a month after they are discharged.

Currently primary care trusts and GPs look after patients once they are discharged from hospital.

Under the new plans hospitals would receive funding for the first hospital stay plus treatment for the patient’s first 30 days after discharge.

Mr Lansley promised to “empower patients as well as health professionals” and “disempower the hierarchy and the bureaucracy”.

He said: “We need a cultural shift in the NHS. From a culture responsive mainly to orders from the top-down, to one responsive to patients, in which patient safety is put first.

This change of direction will send a ripple through hospital managers with some enterprising chief executives will see it as a chance for hospitals to extend their services into the community.

If they are to provide extra follow up care, and bear the cost of unavoidable complications, hospitals will be hoping to see that reflected in the price they are paid for each operation.

England is unique in the UK in paying its hospitals for each treatment they carry out, a system called payment by results.

This will be the main lever which the Health Secretary can use to change the incentives in the system.

He said that targets focused on processes, data returns and more Department of Health circulars would not achieve these aims.

“Over the last ten years emergency readmissions have increased by 50 percent. Not, it seems, primarily because patients were more frail, but because hospitals have been incentivised to cut lengths of stay and send patients home sooner – process targets creating risks for patients.

“So in addition to getting rid of these targets – we’re going to ensure that hospitals are responsible for patients not just during their treatment but also for the 30 days after they’ve been discharged. It will be in the interests of the hospital for patients to be discharged only when they are ready and safe.”

And if a patient is readmitted within that time the hospital will not receive any additional payment for the additional treatment – they will be focused on successful initial treatment, he said.

Nigel Edwards, policy director of the NHS Confederation, which represents most NHS trusts, said the proposal to withhold money for readmissions was a good idea.

“The principle of offering this, as long as we don’t have hospitals getting in the way of GP care, is a perfectly sensible one and certainly one we see in other countries.”

Dr Anna Dixon of the King’s Fund said readmissions can occur because of a lack of proper care provision in the community. And she warned that abolishing targets might lead to a rise in hospital waiting times.

The British Medical Association’s Dr Hamish Meldrum agreed saying: “This could result in patients being kept in hospital longer than necessary, when it might be better for them to be at home.

“We should remember that there can be a range of reasons that a patient is readmitted, many of them beyond the control of the hospital.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “We have always campaigned for patient safety to be at the forefront of services and withholding payment to fix poor outcomes and giving patients more information to help them make informed decisions about their care are significant steps towards this.

“We welcome a much greater emphasis on the patient experience and a focus on patient needs and helping patients play a bigger role in shaping their health service.”

From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10262344.stm

The NHS is facing upheaval and cutbacks as a decade of budget increases comes to an end and £20 billion of savings must be found over the next five years.

Despite pledges from Labour and the Conservatives to protect front line services, there is evidence that their promises may have come too late.

A list of cuts has already been identified – including job losses, banning certain operations, closing casualty departments, downgrading maternity services and reducing the number of junior doctors. But these have been mostly quietly ignored by the three main parties.

The Conservatives pledged to stop all closures until they could be reviewed but, with billions of pounds of savings needed to cope with growing demand, cuts and closures are almost inevitable.

David Cameron emphasised that he was personally in favour of the NHS, after his experiences with his disabled son Ivan, who died last year, to combat arguments that the health service was not safe in Tory hands. The party manifesto contained promises about dentistry and round-the-clock GP services which appear too expensive in the current climate.

Both the major parties were accused of chasing the “fear of cancer” vote. The Tories said they would fund cancer drugs turned down by Nice, the health rationing watchdog, but did not mention drugs for other illnesses such as arthritis or dementia.

Labour said cancer patients would see a specialist and have test results back within a week. The party was criticised for unveiling its manifesto at a new hospital in Birmingham. It is against the rules to use NHS premises for election events.

But Labour pointed out that the hospital was still in the hands of the private finance initiative organisation – a policy which means the NHS will be repaying billions of pounds for new hospitals for decades.

Nick Clegg refused to ring-fence NHS spending given the size of the national debt.

The Liberal Democrat campaign focused on cutting waste on managers, scrapping regional strategic health authorities and pledging more power to communities to direct the health service locally.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/General-Election-2010-cuts-inevitable-as-NHS-must-make-savings

On election day Health Direct quotes this cancer specialist- The internal market has been a costly disaster. Let the professionals manage medicine.

It’s election time, and our glorious political classes are marching forward on the massed ranks of the electorate with banners that claim that their party, only their party, will save the NHS.

Politicians clamour to praise its world-class status and laud the dedication of nurses and the skill of its doctors. And all parties are united in the view that, despite the need for austerity measures, frontline staff and services will not be cut. So where are the savings planned? Watch the hand and not the mouth.

When I started in medicine, the hospital was run by about three people. Things were so much more simple when doctors and nurses treated patients, doing their best without the guidance of guidelines and targets, doing their best … yes … to make the patients better.

How did we manage without forms to fill and waiting times compliance? Quite well actually. The medical director ran the medical side of things while matron and the accountant handled the rest. It wasn’t much of a business then: it didn’t have to be, because there was no internal market to manage.

The internal market — Mrs Thatcher’s plan to introduce efficiency by having hospital compete against hospital to provide patient treatment — has wreaked havoc. It has spawned a nation of administrators, here today and gone to another post tomorrow — while doing nothing to bring costs under control.

The internal market’s billing system is not only costly and bureaucratic, the theory that underpins it is absurd. Why should a bill for the treatment of a patient go out to Oldham or Oxford, when it is not Oldham or Oxford that pays the bill — there is only one person that picks up the tab: the taxpayer, you and me.

And there are big problems with the billing process. For example, if a patient is seen in an outpatient clinic then there is a charge made by the hospital for his or her first attendance — but follow-up appointments are not charged. And if many treatments are given in a hospital to a patient, only the most expensive of the treatment episodes is charged.

There are savings to be made. It is alleged that there are just 75,000 administrators at work in the NHS but this figure is laughably mythological. Doctors and nurses know that there are many more than this. They look around and see the numbers increasing.

One report by the Centre for Policy Studies published in 2003 indicated that there were 250,000 administrative staff employed in the NHS: at least one administrator for every nurse. In recent times the rate of increase of admin staff within the NHS has exceeded that of nursing staff.

There is a general feeling in the NHS of disempowerment of the professionals. People can’t face up to the incredible struggle, the disapproval that faces any of them if they have the temerity to suggest that things should be run differently.

The principle of care for all from cradle to grave is worthy and wonderful. But the current reality is a cradle rocked by accountants who are incapable of even counting the number of times that they have rocked it. The reality is gravediggers working with a cost improvement shovel made of rust.

Over the years politicians have made dramatic changes to the way that the NHS has been run. Recent changes have caused fragmentation and not led to any cost saving. Moving patients from one place to another does not save the nation’s money, though it might save a local hospital some dosh. So the internal market has failed because it does not consider the health of the nation as a whole, merely the finances of a single hospital department, a local hospital or GP practice.

So what should we do? Let us go back to the old discipline of the NHS. Let the professionals manage medicine, empower the professionals, the doctors and nurses and shove the internal market in the bin and screw down the lid.

At this election time please let us hear from all political parties that they will ditch this absurd love-affair with the internal market. Instead let them help the NHS do what it does best — treat patients, and do so efficiently and economically without the crucifying expense and ridiculous parody of competition.

Professor Jonathan Waxman is a consultant oncologist

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7112167.ece

Hundreds of cancer patients may have been left to die without access to life prolonging medication, despite the drugs being approved by the labour government.

A postcode lottery means hundreds of people are missing out on life-prolonging care

Now figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that a cancer patient’s chances of overruling health authorities who deny them access to drugs depends on where they live.

Some NHS trusts, such as Torbay in Devon and Salford in Manchester, granted all appeals while in others, such as Kingston in southwest London, only 7% were granted. In about one-third of trusts, fewer than half of the requests for drugs that can cost thousands of pounds a month were approved.

Access to cancer drugs has become an election issue, with the Conservatives saying they will ensure the National Health Service directs £200m more into supplying new drugs. The money will come from what the health service would otherwise have had to pay to meet Labour’s hike in National Insurance, which the Tories have said they would partially reverse.

The drugs concerned have all been approved by the labour government’s National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (Nice). However, each of 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) in England is allowed to use its own interpretation of Nice’s regulations.

In some cases patients who have already had two courses of chemotherapy are not allowed the drugs; in other cases they must have tried cheaper alternatives before being eligible. Those who do not meet the conditions must appeal to an “exceptional case” panel.

Widespread variation in attitudes between health trusts emerged in research to be published in Health Insurance magazine. It asked how many “exceptional-case funding requests” for cancer were received by trusts in 2009.

It named five drugs, including Rituxan for leukaemia; Tarceva for lung cancer treatment and Revamid for blood cancer.

All such appeals were granted by 17 healthcare trusts, with the areas benefiting ranging from Walsall and Manchester, to Torbay and Suffolk. However, Kingston and Northamptonshire refused most of the appeals made to them.

Forty one of 122 primary care trusts that responded granted fewer than half requests. The figures present an incomplete picture because some trusts may prescribe medicines without the need for patients to appeal. Critics, however, say they still show unacceptably wide variations in practice.

Specialists also complain that the NHS trust officials who decide whether or not to grant the appeals are rarely experts in the disease, so they help to create the wide discrepancies.

Karol Sikora, a cancer specialist at Hammersmith hospital, west London, said his department has a wallchart that marks both sympathetic and unhelpful PCTs. “You find yourself talking to office temps and all sorts of unlikely people who are apparently making these life-or-death decisions,” said Sikora.

A survey by the RCN found thousands of jobs were already earmarked for cuts in an attempt to slash costs.

Health trusts are planning to cut thousands of staff “by stealth” to deliver £20bn of “NHS efficiencies”, according to a survey by the Royal College of Nursing. Labour reacted by promising that there would be more jobs in the health service at the end of the next Brown administration if it wins the election.

The move comes as Gordon Brown addresses the RCN’s four-day annual conference today. More than 4,000 nurses have gathered in Bournemouth for the event, which is expected to be dominated by NHS finances.

The nurses’ union has been riled by a warning from Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the health service, that up to £20bn of savings will have to be found by 2014.

A survey by the RCN of 26 of the 168 English health trusts revealed that 5,600 jobs were already earmarked for cuts in an attempt to slash costs. That figure could rise to more than 36,000 in a “worst-case scenario” if the trend was replicated across all hospital trusts, said Howard Catton, head of policy at the Royal College of Nursing. The loss of posts – including redundancies and staff not being replaced if they leave or retire – could happen over the next three years, he added.

In an online survey of 287 nurses earlier this month, the RCN said hospital wards were already operating with an average of 13% fewer staff than officially needed. Nine out 10 nurses said that patient care was being compromised by short staffing.

There is little doubt that the nurses’ union, which has 400,000 members, has political clout. Last year Brown became the first prime minister to speak at the conference in its 93-year history – to a warm reception by delegates.

Although health has not been a major focus of this election campaign, the issue of NHS job cuts is an explosive one for Labour. In 2006 the then health secretary Patricia Hewitt was jeered and slow-hand-clapped by nurses as she tried to address their fears about NHS deficits.

Andrew Burnham, the health secretary, told the Guardian that savings would come from wage restraint, cutting management costs by a third, and asking “some nurses and doctors to take on different roles in different locations outside of hospitals”.

“It is unlikely that we would need fewer people in five years in the health service. Labour will ensure sufficient funding to frontline NHS services so that they do not need to make any compulsory clinical redundancies and we will ask the NHS to co-operate across organisational boundaries and work towards ensuring this basic guarantee,” he went on. “Cutting doctors, nurses and frontline staff would be costly, counterproductive and would risk a return to the kind of NHS we saw under the Tories.”

The problem for Labour is that decisions on savings are being made at a local level. The RCN points out that managers at some trusts are already openly equating efficiency savings with job cuts.

In an open letter to staff, the chief executive at Salford Royal, a foundation hospital, said: “We are about to enter a financial crisis that could ruin all that we have achieved … this means reducing costs by about £16m a year [and] providing safe standards of service with about 250 fewer people for each of the next three years.”

The market reforms that Labour implemented have made it possible for hospitals to identify savings easily. Dorset county hospital, which made 28 posts redundant in March, admitted that its strategy to “attract more patients” with 300 new staff had failed, leaving a putative black hole of £11m in next year’s budget. The hospital issued a blunt press release: “These extra patients never came and so we are left with rising costs but without the income to cover them.” .

The Conservatives say that their promise to outspend Labour on the NHS insulates them against the charge that the health service is not “safe in their hands”. They say that thousands of NHS medics will lose their jobs over the next five years under Labour’s “secret” cost-cutting plans, which would see 651 fewer doctors and 2,050 fewer nurses across England.

Disclosures made under the Freedom of Information Act at the request of the Tories show half of NHS trusts that responded were planning reductions in the numbers of full-time equivalent doctors and nurses.

The shadow health secretary, Andrew Lansley, said: “We will back the NHS. Conservatives will increase funding for the NHS each year in real terms. So instead of Labour’s cuts to doctors and nurses, we will support the recruitment of staff we need, like specialist nurses, midwives and health visitors.”

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/health-trusts-planning-job-cuts

A woman has been denied an operation on the NHS after paying for a private consultation to deal with her severe back pain after cancer.

Jenny Whitehead, a breast cancer survivor, paid £250 for an appointment with the orthopaedic surgeon after being told she would have to wait five months to see him on the NHS. He told her he would add her to his NHS waiting list for surgery.

She was barred from the list, however, and sent back to her GP. She must now find at least £10,000 for private surgery, or wait until the autumn for the NHS operation to remove a cyst on her spine.

“When I paid £250 to see the specialist privately I had no idea I would be sacrificing my right to surgery on the NHS. I feel victimised,” she said.

The case will reopen the debate over NHS policy towards patients who pay for some of their care privately. Following a Sunday Times campaign in 2008, the government ordered the NHS to stop withdrawing care from patients who received additional private treatment or drugs.

Cancer sufferers were being barred from further NHS treatment after buying potentially life saving medicines not offered by the health service.

Whitehead’s case, which has shocked her local Labour MP, reveals that patients who go private in despair at long waiting lists still risk jeopardising their NHS treatment. Department of Health officials admit it remains official policy.

Whitehead, 64, a former museum assistant from Yorkshire who works as a volunteer at a hospice, went to her GP in December for back pain. Because of her breast cancer history, she was immediately offered an MRI scan to check the disease had not returned. It revealed a cyst on her spine, pressing against her sciatic nerve. Her GP referred her to a consultant at Airedale NHS hospital.

She was told the next available NHS appointment was in May, so she accepted the offer of a private slot to see him the following week.

“My husband and I are retired and don’t have a lot of money, but I am in intense pain and couldn’t face the thought of waiting months just for an initial consultation,” she said.

The specialist promised to add her to his NHS waiting list for surgery. After two months, however, hospital managers told her she had been barred from the waiting list because she had seen the surgeon privately.

Now her only alternative to paying £10,000 privately is to go back to her GP, seek another referral to the same specialist, this time on the NHS, and face another 18-week wait.

“We will scratch together the money if we absolutely have to, but I feel it’s incredibly unfair,” said Whitehead. “I’ve paid full National Insurance contributions all my working life and feel I should get this operation on the NHS.”

Ann Cryer, who is standing down as Labour MP for Keighley, has written to the hospital urging it to reconsider. She told Whitehead that she had been “badly let down and ill advised”.

Bradford and Airedale NHS trust said it was looking into the case “as a matter of urgency” but added: “Anyone who chooses to pay for a private outpatient consultation cannot receive NHS treatment unless they are then referred on to an NHS pathway by their consultant.”

From:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7100968.ece