More than 660,000 people were brought back to hospital last year within 28 days of leaving, statistics show, sparking allegations that patients are being “hurried through the system” so the NHS can meet waiting-list targets.

The official figures show that some NHS trusts have seen their emergency readmission rate rise more than threefold over the past decade – while some hospitals have seen only a modest increase.

Last night, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said that the “hugely distressing” trend must stop.

“Patients have a right to expect that when they go in for treatment that they are looked after properly and that the treatment they are given helps them to recover,” he said.

“Having to be readmitted and treated all over again is hugely distressing. These figures show how Labour’s obsession with waiting time targets meant that patients were treated like parts on a production line to be hurried through the system rather than like people who need to be properly cared for.”

The Department of Health has released detailed information on the number of emergency readmissions in every area across Britain.

The figures show that 620,054 patients had to be readmitted in 2009-10 – compared to just 348,996 a decade before, a 78 per cent increase. Over the past five years, there has been a 31 per cent rise and a five per cent increase on the previous 12 months.

The data also highlights the widespread regional variations. The rate of readmission in the Kensington & Chelsea PCT area has risen by 287 per cent over the past decade to 1,582 people.

However, North Lincolnshire PCT has only experienced a 3.37 per cent rise over the same period.

Hospitals within the Hampshire PCT area readmitted 13,239 people last year. The nearby area covered by the Isle of Wight PCT only had to readmit 1,098 people.

The figures, do not include patients suffering from cancer or mental health problems or maternity patients.

Most of the areas with the highest increases in readmission numbers are in London and the south east, where pressure is greatest on the NHS. The Department of Health has analysed the social make-up of each area and concludes that the so-called “thriving London periphery” – the relatively wealthy commuter hinterland around the capital has suffered the biggest recent deterioration.

About 10 million people are admitted to hospital wards each year. Critics claim that government targets, such as the demand that patients be admitted to hospital for treatment within 18 weeks of seeing their GP, mean hospital managers are pressured into releasing patients early to make beds available.

Earlier this month, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Government is moving from a system of targets for hospitals based on waiting and treatment times – to a system of so-called “outcomes” which measures the success of treatment.

In a criticism of previous targets which he blames for the increase in emergency readmissions, Mr Lansley said: “Instead of focusing on the results which actually matter for patients, they focused on narrow processes to the detriment of patient care. That is why we have taken action to address these increases in emergency readmissions.

“One of the new goals we are setting the NHS is reducing emergency readmissions. In order to help achieve this we have created a re-ablement fund of £300 million and we have taken action to stop hospitals being paid when they readmit a patient after discharging them too early. These steps will turn Labour’s poor performance around.”

Under the Government scheme, hospitals will effectively be responsible for people’s care in the weeks after they return home and will be financially penalised for discharging patients too soon.

From:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Scandal-of-NHS-production-line-as-readmissions-soar

Comprehensive data on hospital death rates, the individual performance of GPs and surgeons and patients’ experiences under their care are to be published in an attempt to improve standards.

Mr Lansley has set out 60 benchmarks that will replace Labour’s system of targets and will be used to define success in the NHS.

These include a commitment to preventing unnecessary early deaths, a pledge to enhance the quality of life for people with long-term conditions and a drive to ensure that people have a positive experience when using the health service.

If the new standards are achieved, 24,000 early deaths a year could be prevented from cancer and other long-term conditions, Mr Lansley believes.

In addition, fewer people with long-term conditions including asthma and diabetes will be treated in hospitals, he will claim, while patients undergoing routine hip and knee operations will no longer be left in pain or unable to walk.

Access to NHS dentists will also be improved, he will say.

The Cabinet minister said the record on unnecessary early deaths varied across specialties as he urged the health service to focus on “what really matters” – the results achieved for patients and their experiences while being treated.

“If you look at the question of how many patients in this country die who could live if they got the best health care, it is literally over 10,000 patients a year if we were simply to get to a place which is better than the average across the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.”

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Lansley says his tenure as Health Secretary will have been a “failure” if the 60 new “outcome” targets do not improve by the next election. He pledges that the benchmarks will now “define what the NHS is setting out to achieve”.

“We have to clear the decks and be clear this is what we are focusing on,” he says. “People say in three and a half years’ time, in 2015, at the next election, how will we know whether you’ve succeeded or not? The answer is ‘have the outcomes improved?’

“It will be my failure if we haven’t improved them and the NHS should feel that it has not succeeded, that is what we are setting out to do.”

Next week, the Government will set out current performance for each of the 60 indicators. It will then set out national targets for improvement “by the time of the next election and beyond”.

The new NHS Commissioning Board and the Care Quality Commission will also intervene directly to address problems that are highlighted by the data.

In today’s interview, Mr Lansley says that the long-running row over NHS reform must end and the health service must concentrate on improving patient care.

“We’ve really got to get into the big picture, which is delivering improvements in the results we achieve for patients right across the board,” he said. “We know that we can do it.”

The benchmarks will be monitored partly through studying clinical data – for example, to ascertain whether mortality rates for cancer, liver and heart disease are improving — and partly through surveying patients to gauge whether they were satisfied by the standard of care they received and the speed of their recovery.

The Health Secretary says: “This is literally saying to patients ‘if you were in hospital, if you were being looked after by your general practitioner was the service and experience you had good or not?’ It’s not like some other kinds of medical model where you kind of treat people and they get better. This is different.

“This is really where you begin to kind of focus on the experience of care.”

For the first time, the views of bereaved relations and even children will be surveyed so that the quality of NHS care from early years until death can be assessed.

“We’ll be undertaking a consistent national survey of the bereaved relatives of people who received end of life care,” Mr Lansley said. “Asking them, after a suitable passage of time, what was their loved one’s experience of care and how well were they looked after towards the end of life.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Andrew-Lansley-sixty-step-plan-to-help-NHS-focus-on-what-matters

When a BBC Panorama programme contacted 85 hospital trusts with PFI deals, it found 80 of them said they were having to make increased payments due to inflation.

When most of the deals were set up, inflation was low and the outlook was for that to continue well into the future.

Most trusts decided not to protect their debts from rising inflation, against the advice of the Treasury.

By contrast, the companies building the hospitals insured themselves against losses due to inflation.

The PFI deals, under which companies build hospitals to be leased back by the NHS, typically run for 30 years.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who now chairs the Public Accounts Committee, admitted to the programme: “We should have been much more transparent about the costs. I think we got the balance wrong.”

Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the committee, said he thought taxpayers were being “ripped off”.

A spokesman for the Treasury said that protecting PFI debts against inflation was “not mandatory … because it is subject to individual authorities undertaking their own project assessments”.

He added said: “The Government has consistently expressed concerns about the misuse and costliness of PFI. That is why, less than two weeks ago, the Government launched a fundamental review of the PFI model, which will see the end of PFI as we know it.”

The governance board of the programme will now be scrapped, and local trusts will be given the freedom to develop their own versions of the electronic care record rather than having the rules dictated by Whitehall. A new Cabinet Office oversight committee will monitor future IT investment to ensure money is not wasted.

But many trusts across England have large contracts with private suppliers to supply their care record systems, and their cancellation could leave taxpayers even more out of pocket.

The Department of Health’s own chief information officer, Christine Connelly, told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee in May that a £3bn deal with CSC to deliver systems in the north, midlands and east of England would cost more to get out of than to keep going.

She said: “Potentially, if you ask me about the absolute maximum, we could be exposed to a higher cost than the cost to complete the contract as it stands today.”

A decision will be made on the future of the contract later in the autumn.

However the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority said that some parts of the £12.7bn programme had worked and would be retained, including the NHSmail email system and the Choose and Book process of arranging hospital referrals.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “Labour’s NHS IT Programme let down the NHS and wasted taxpayers’ money by imposing a top-down IT system on the local NHS, which didn’t fit their needs.

“We will be moving to an innovative new system driven by local decision-making. This is the only way to make sure we get value for money from IT systems that better meet the needs of a modernised NHS.”

Roger Goss, co-director of the pressure group Patient Concern said: “Thank goodness politicians have decided to stop money being poured into a huge bottomless pit. Now we must pray that they don’t sanction pouring it into endless incompatible regional pits.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Dismantling-NHS-computer-scheme-could-cost-more-money

The trusts in jeopardy include Barts and the London, Oxford Radcliffe, North Bristol, St Helens and Knowsley, and Portsmouth.

Between them the trusts run more than 60 hospitals which care for 12 million patients.

There is already evidence that waiting lists for non–urgent operations have begun to rise as hospitals delay treatment to save money. Adding to this are growing fears over the impact of the financial crisis on care this winter.

Under the PFI deals, a private contractor builds a hospital or school. It owns the building for up to 35 years, and during this period the public sector must pay interest and repay the cost of construction, as well as paying the contractor to maintain the building.

However, the total cost of the deals is often far more than the value of the assets. As a result, Mr Lansley says, the 22 trusts “cannot afford” to pay for their schemes, which in total are worth more than £5.4billion, because the required payments have risen sharply in the wake of the recession.

Mr Lansley said: “Over the last year, we’ve been working to expose the mess Labour left us with, and the truth is that some hospitals have been landed with PFI deals they simply cannot afford.

“Like the economy, Labour has brought some parts of the NHS to the brink of financial collapse. Tough solutions may be needed for these problems, but we’ll help the NHS overcome them. We will not make the sick pay for Labour’s debt crisis.”

He said hospitals would not be allowed to collapse financially.

“There are many hospitals that are well run, do not have a legacy of debt and do have projects which are perfectly sustainable. My point is that we have looked since the election and are working together with individual trusts to arrive at a place where they are financially, and in terms of the quality of their services, sustainable for the future. We can only do that if we work closely with them,” he said.

“This is about making very clear that we are not only working on unsustainable PFIs, but also working with legacy debt that the NHS has been left with, working on the IT programmes which were on an unsustainable scale of contractual commitments that didn’t meet the need of the NHS’s customers.

“Across the board, we have to tackle Labour’s legacy of poor value formoney and debt.”

Over the next few weeks, Department of Health officials and executives at the 22 trusts will develop detailed plans for dealing with the crisis. Their proposals are expected to include significant cost–cutting and the renegotiation of PFI contracts.

Money will also be moved from NHS trusts that are in better financial shape to cover the debt costs at those that are struggling. However, officials are braced for the need to use Whitehall funds to bail out some hospitals.

Among the trusts which have contacted Mr Lansley to inform him of their severe financial problems are several London institutions, including South London Healthcare, Barking, Havering and Redbridge, and North Middlesex.

Outside the capital, other trusts to have approached the health department include Wye Valley, Worcester Acute Hospitals, Mid Yorkshire, and Walsall.

After the general election last year, Mr Lansley ordered officials to establish why some NHS hospitals were under–performing. The health department is assessing the financial position of every hospital. It is understood that the PFI costs have emerged as a leading factor in poor patient care in some areas.

The Health Secretary decided to disclose the list of hospitals in difficulty and is expected to announce the rescue plans for each trust next month.

Taxpayers are having to pay more than £200 billion for schools, hospitals and other projects whose capital value is little more than £50 billion.

In one example, a hospital in Bromley, south east London, will ultimately cost the NHS £1.2 billion, more than 10 times what it is worth. Another hospital was charged £52,000 for maintenance that cost £750. The annual cost of the schemes is almost £400 for each household.

The public payments for PFI deals are typically linked to inflation and therefore the cost to taxpayers has increased by up to a third since the beginning of the credit crisis, according to the National Audit Office. Last month, MPs on the Treasury select committee effectively called for a moratorium on new PFI projects, which it said were “like a drug” as the costs were not apparent at the outset.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, has tightened the rules on the deals.

Earlier this year, John Healey, the shadow health secretary, admitted in an interview that Labour ministers had failed when negotiating the multi–million pound schemes for hospitals.

“There is definitely a case for saying we were poor at PFI, poor at negotiating PFI contracts at the outset,” he said.

Companies who run PFI schemes boast profit margins of up to 71 per cent on the projects, but have come under growing pressure from MPs and ministers to return some of their “windfall profits”.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-hospitals-crippled-by-PFI-scheme

Obese patients who enrol on commercial programmes such as Weight Watchers lose twice as much weight as those just given advice by the nanny state and doctors research suggests. 

This is twice the 4.9lb (2.25kg) shed by those who received weight-loss information at their local doctors’ surgery.

In addition, those on the Weight Watchers programme had lower cholesterol levels and smaller waist measurements, making them at lower risk of developing diabetes and heart disease.

Academics commenting on the study say public sector health services – such as the NHS – should consider paying for patients to attend private weight-loss classes than providing treatment themselves.

The study was carried out by Dr Susan Jebb at the UK Medical Research Council in Cambridge and colleagues but funded through a grant from Weight Watchers itself to the MRC.

It states that 1 billion people worldwide are overweight and 300 million obese, putting them at high risk of illness and early death and placing a heavy burden on healthcare systems.

The researchers took 770 overweight and obese patients, mainly middle-aged women, in Germany, Austria and Britain and gave half of them free access to a Weight Watchers programme while the others received “standard care” through their GP.

Those on the commercial scheme were encouraged to attend weekly weigh-ins as well as counselling and group support meetings, and were able to monitor their food intake and activity levels online as well as access meal ideas and take part in community discussions.

After 12 months, weight loss among those in Weight Watchers was “significantly greater” than those given GP advice, and they were twice as likely to have lost more than 5 per cent of their initial bodyweight.

In addition, their insulin, glucose and total cholesterol levels were found to be lower while their waist circumferences had dropped by an average 2.2in (5.60cm) compared with 1.2in (3.16cm) among those on the GP course. Both groups ended up with lower blood pressure.

The researchers say the commercial programme could be more successful at changing people’s behaviour because it offers more frequent weighing and peer support.

The paper claims it could also prove cheaper, at about £50-60 for 12 weeks, because it involves larger groups of people.

The authors conclude: “Data from our study suggest that referral by a primary health-care professional to a commercial weight loss programme that provides regular weighing, advice about diet and physical activity, motivation, and group support can offer a clinically useful early intervention for weight management in overweight and obese people that can be delivered at large scale.”

Kate Jolly and Paul Aveyard from the University of Birmingham write in an accompanying opinion piece: “Evidence that weight loss achieved by fairly brief interventions can be sustained long term without continued support would be valuable.

“However, present evidence shows that the commercial programme assessed by Jebb and colleagues provides a more effective weight management service than does primary care, and is widely available. Such programmes are likely to be an important component of the medical management of obesity in primary care.”

Previous research had suggested that nanny state schemes to “bribe” the obese into losing weight, currently on trial in the NHS, were just as effective as programmes such as Weight Watchers.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Weight-Watchers-twice-as-effective-as-advice-for-obese

The Public Accounts Committee says that although £2.7bn of taxpayers’ money has already gone on the scheme, it is unclear what the benefits have been and so ministers should think about whether the rest of the cash could be better spent elsewhere.

Although the intention was to create a single network that would allow NHS staff across England to access any patients’ details, the report says this will not happen now and the country has been left with a “patchwork” of costly and fragmented IT systems whose future is uncertain because of reforms to the health service.

The chief executive of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, also comes in for criticism for failing to oversee the project properly while civil servants provided “late, inconsistent and contradictory” information to the MPs’ inquiry.

Margaret Hodge, the committee’s chairman, said: “The Department of Health is not going to achieve its original aim of a fully integrated care records system across the NHS. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all system in the NHS was a massive risk and has proven to be unworkable.

“The Department has been unable to demonstrate what benefits have been delivered from the £2.7 billion spent on the project so far.

“It should now urgently review whether it is worth continuing with the remaining elements of the care records system. The £4.3 billion which the Department expects to spend might be better used to buy systems that are proven to work, that are good value for money and which deliver demonstrable benefits to the NHS.”

The integrated electronic care records system was a central part of Labour’s £11bn National Programme for IT in the NHS, which was set up in 2002 and faced repeated criticism since then over its cost and technical problems, most recently from the National Audit Office.

In the report the MPs say the intention to allow rapid sharing of patients’ records was “worthwhile” but the Department of Health has been unable to make it work.

They claim that creating a single system was always a “massive risk” especially as clinicians were not asked for suggestions on its operation.

In the north, midlands and east of England just 10 of 166 trusts have received only a basic system, while no mental health body has received one. Dozens of different interim and local schemes have been devised, at greater cost.

Whitehall officials are said to lack “basic management information” on the number of systems built and their cost, even though there is a body overseeing the whole project with 1,300 staff that has spent £820million.

Sir David Nicholson was accused by the committee of having “lacked the capacity to meet his responsibilities fully” as Senior Responsible Owner for the scheme, leading to “increasing costs and delays”.

The Department of Health is now trying to renegotiate some contracts and is working on a slimmed-down “menu of modules” that hospitals can choose for their patient records systems, but there is no guarantee the systems will work with each other.

In addition, the Strategic Health Authorities responsible for delivery of the programme are being scrapped and there is “considerable uncertainty” over how the new NHS bodies will adopt the IT systems and how much it will cost them.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “This is yet more evidence that Labour’s botched approach to IT in the NHS failed taxpayers and failed patients. Their one-size-fits-all IT programme has once again been found unworkable.

“This Government is taking action where Labour failed. Already, we have reduced expenditure on Labour’s costly IT schemes by £1.3 billion. We are making sure that systems are not imposed on the NHS from the centre which organisations do not want. And we will shortly announce our plans for even stronger action to deliver value for money for taxpayers and the NHS.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-should-consider-abandoning-7bn-IT-project.html

The National Audit Office also said some patients would not even get one as large chunks of the NHS had pulled out.

In conclusion, the NAO said the system was not providing value for money – something the government rejected.

The Electronic care records are the key part of the overall £12.4bn NHS IT project.

The scheme was launched in 2002 by Tony Bliar with the aim of revolutionising the way the health service uses technology and also includes developments such as digital x-rays and fast internet connections.

It is the third time the NAO has looked at electronic records – and each time the findings have been more damning.

The report from the NAO presents a depressing account of delays, contractual wrangling and technical glitches.

The original vision for the scheme was compelling – a national network connecting hospitals, GP practices, ambulance services and mental health trusts, and an end to the tortuous paper trails that have caused frustration and misery for doctors and patients alike.

But the complexity and cost of the scheme meant it was always seen by many as a high risk strategy. And when it ran into trouble the plans were scaled back, and the original vision set aside.

Many GPs and hospitals are now working with different systems, prompting the NAO to question whether further investment in the national programme would be pouring good money after bad.

The latest report details a range of problems that the programme is struggling with.

In London, all GP practices and more than half of hospital trusts have pulled out, while in the south three-quarters have. However, this has not been accompanied by a proportionate drop in cost.

Meanwhile, the contract covering the rest of country is currently being renegotiated. Even after such a scaling back, roll out in places that remain part of the system is still proving difficult.

The NAO said it doubted the final deadline of 2016 – which is already six years later than originally envisaged – would be met.

And even in those trusts that have electronic records, there are problems. For example, some hospitals have struggled to introduce electronic prescriptions.

The NAO said the difficulties were caused by a range of factors, including the government being too ambitious, difficulties with technology and the complexity of the NHS.

The problems have prompted some critics to call for the entire scheme to be scrapped – although this is something the NAO stopped short of suggesting.

The government has already announced there will be a review of the project. This is due to start next week.

Tory MP Richard Bacon, a member of the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee and long-standing critic of the plans, said: “It is perfectly clear that throwing more money at the problem will not work.

“This turkey will never fly and it is time the Department of Health faced reality and channelled the remaining funds into something useful that will actually benefit patients. The largest civilian IT project in the world has failed.”

But the Department of Health said while the original vision “was flawed”, the project still had the potential to deliver value for money.

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, of the British Medical Association, said: “We cannot turn the clock back, but this report provides useful lessons on how best to use resources in the future.”

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13430375

Labour ministers only paid £5 billion of the £65 billion “spent” on building more than 100 hospitals between 1997 and 2010.

The rest of the money, some £60 billion, must still be repaid by the taxpayer – with some of the gigantic debt lasting for more than 30 years.

The highest profile case concerns Barts and the London NHS Trust project, signed by ministers 2006, which provided two new hospitals in the capital.

By the time the coalition took office four years later nothing at all had been repaid – leaving an outstanding bill of £5.3 billion.

Jesse Norman, the Conservative MP, accused Labour of “extraordinary hypocrisy”. Their PFI bill for hospitals will cost every working family in Britain £3,600, according to Mr Norman’s figures.

PFI schemes were started by the last Conservative government under John Major in the early 1990s. However, they mushroomed under Labour with Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, using them as a way of meeting his own public borrowing rules.

Under the schemes, instead of the government raising money upfront, a private company is given a lengthy contract to build a school or hospital and then provides related ‘services’ to the public sector.

The Government leases the building for the length of the contract before it goes back into public ownership.

Any change, however small, to the building or service provided can be charged at sky high rates, allowing the company to make a huge profit.

New analysis of official figures shows that Labour initiated PFI contracts to build 103 new hospitals between 1997 and 2010. The party proclaimed at the time of the last election it has been responsible for a “new generation” of hospitals in Britain.

The total “unitary charge” payments for these hospitals was £5.1 billion. However, many projects will not be fully paid off for more than two decades – with the last one not “completing” until 2048.

The total accumulated “unitary charge” payments for the hospitals will be £65.1 billion – meaning that only 7.8 of the total was actually paid for before Labour left office.

Costs have escalated because of rising fees and additional charges for maintenance, cleaning and catering.

According to official figures, the NHS currently pays back £1.25 billion each year – but this figure will increase until 2030 when it is expected to hit £2.3 billion.

The Barts and the London NHS Trust project, to develop Barts into a “centre of excellence” for cancer and cardiac treatment and to build a new hospital at The Royal London , was started in 2006 – but payments will not even commence until 2013-14 and will not be finished until 2048.

By that time, it will have cost £5.3 billion despite only having a “capital value” of £1 billion, according to the Treasury.

Poorly negotiated PFI contracts have already led to examples of waste including Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich having to have 64 visits a year from pest controllers even if there are no pests to control. When there are pests, the trust must pay for further visits.

In another example, officials at the Central Middlesex Hospital in north west London said that, on average, contractors charged it £210 to install an electric socket.

Senior Labour figures including Gordon Brown strongly defended using PFI schemes while in power but, more recently, leading shadow ministers have admitted errors.

John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said earlier this month: “There is definitely a case for saying we were poor at PFI, poor at negotiating PFI contracts from the outset.”

Andy Burnham, a former health secretary who is now shadow education secretary, said last year: “We made mistakes. I’m not defending every pen stroke of the PFI contracts we signed.”

Mr Norman, a member of the Treasury select committee, said: “This shows extraordinary hypocrisy. The last Government claimed to be investing in public services.”

“In fact their true investment was less than less than one tenth of what they claimed. Labour didn’t manage to pay for even one new PFI hospital on their watch.”

“Labour maxed out the nation’s credit card with a £60 billion bill for new hospitals, loading future generations with staggering debt repayments.”

“After bringing the country to the brink of bankruptcy, they now have no credible plan to clear up the mess they left us with.”

“Their approach – to spend less without making any reforms at all – would leave the NHS in crisis.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Labour-left-taxpayer-60billion-bill-for-new-hospitals

Private contractors who agreed PFI deals with the Labour Government are set to make billions of pounds in profit, with some due to see returns of up to 71 per cent.

In the first of a series of reports, The Daily Telegraph discloses the heavy costs and administrative burdens caused by PFIs. The deals are a way of building large public projects using private finance, which were relied upon by the Labour government. The disclosures will lend weight to MPs calling on PFI companies to refund a share of their profits to the taxpayer.

The PFI deals include:

• A hospital which charged £52,000 for a job that cost £750. Demolishing a shelter for smokers resulted in the PFI contractor charging £2,600 a year for the “extra cleaning”.

• A hospital in Bromley, south London, which will cost the NHS £1.2 billion, more than 10 times what it is worth.

• Military dog kennels which would have ended up costing more per night than a room in the Park Lane Hilton, London. The deal to replace facilities at the Defence Animal Centre in Melton Mowbray resulted in the sacking of the contractor and the scrapping of the contract.

Under a PFI, a private contractor builds a school, hospital or other asset, then owns it for typically between 25 and 35 years, effectively renting it to the taxpayer for that time. In exchange, the contractor has responsibility for maintenance.

Treasury papers suggest that payments on PFI contracts already signed run until 2048. The Daily Telegraph has uncovered deals, signed in the late 1990s, which include special clauses meaning that they last for up to six decades.

So a 21 year-old leaving university this year will pay taxes for the PFI until they are almost 70. By then, some of the facilities will have been obsolete for years. Political pressure on the PFIs, introduced by John Major but greatly expanded when Gordon Brown was chancellor, was mounting last night after The Telegraph established the scale of profit-making by some of those involved.

An almost unknown City company, Innisfree, with only 14 staff, is the largest single player in the PFI market, owning or co-owning 269 PFI schools and 28 hospitals.

According to accounts filed at Companies House, Innisfree’s profit margin was 53 per cent last year. A successful FTSE 100 company makes margins of around 6 per cent. David Metter, the founder and chief executive of Innisfree, owns almost three-quarters of the company and collected pay and dividends of £8.6 million last year.

“Innisfree have made money like it is going out of style,” said Jesse Norman, the Conservative MP for Hereford. “A tiny number of individuals have made more money for less work than any other group of people I can think of.” Innisfree said its directors were at a conference in Chamonix yesterday and unable to comment.

Mr Norman heads a new cross-party group of MPs demanding that Innisfree and other PFI beneficiaries return a portion of their profits to the taxpayer. “It’s a scandal that so many projects have been so expensive to the taxpayer,” he said yesterday. “There is a great deal of excess value in the PFI which should properly be shared with taxpayers.”

Labour’s last health secretary, Andy Burnham, who was in charge of 221 PFI projects, admitted last year: “We made mistakes. I’m not defending every pen-stroke of the PFI contracts we signed.”

Innisfree co-owns the Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley, opened in 2003, which cost an estimated £118 million to build and equip according to Treasury figures. However, Treasury calculations seen by The Daily Telegraph indicate the NHS will have paid Innisfree and its PFI partners a total of £1.21 billion for the hospital over the 35-year life of the contract, but this does include support services.

The National Audit Office says the deal will produce a return for the PFI contractors of 70.6 per cent.

Jean Shaoul, a professor of public accountability at Manchester University Business School, said using the private sector as an intermediary to raise finance to build hospitals and to run them is “far more expensive than if the Government were to do it itself”. Carl Emmerson, the acting director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Where you can be very confident about the service you want for the whole period of the contract, as with a road, it can work. In schools and hospitals, where needs change, it’s much harder to get value for money.”

In Belfast, a school closed after seven years but the PFI contractor must be paid £370,000 a year for the next 16 years.

From:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Private-Finance-Initiative-hospitals-will-bring-taxpayers-60-years-of-pain

But after reviewing the costs, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys Mental Health Foundation Trust decided to take advantage of a break clause in the deal.

It paid £18m upfront to get out of the PFI contract 23 years early, but it now owns the hospital outright and expects to save £14m over the course of the deal once maintenance and inflation is taken into account.

The move, disclosed in the Health Service Journal, comes after The Daily Telegraph uncovered evidence that hospitals are closing accident and emergency departments in order to pay the interest on PFI deals for new buildings.

Some PFI hospitals – built and run by private firms and effectively rented back to the state – will end up costing taxpayers more than 10 times their capital value.

“We concluded that the best option was to exercise what exists in the PFI projects, which is a clause called ‘voluntary termination’,” said Colin Martin, Director of Finance at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys trust.

“It effectively means we pay off the mortgage early.”

However he added that the trust – which runs mental health services in County Durham, the Tees Valley and along the North Yorkshire coast – did not regret the original deal and was committed to two other PFI deals.

“We wouldn’t have had the hospital if we’d waited for the traditional financing route,” Mr Martin said.

PFI deals became the preferred way of paying for public sector infrastructure projects under Labour, as they allowed new buildings to be constructed while avoiding large initial outlays of money.

Under the complex deals, private contractors carry out the building work then own the structure for up to 35 years, while the public sector body gives them annual interest and repays the capital sum as well as paying for maintenance.

However because of the length of the deals and the amount of interest involved, taxpayers end up paying several times the original value of the project.

In the first known example of an NHS hospital buying its way out of a PFI deal, the North-East mental health trust decided to purchase West Park Hospital outright.

It had agreed a 32-year deal with Norwich Union Public Private Partnership Fund to build the 116-bed facility, which opened its doors in 2004.

The hospital – which is also home to the trust’s headquarters – cost £16m to build but under the deal, the trust was paying the contractors £1.4m a year in interest payments and a further £600,000 in maintenance and paying back the principal.

In 2009, the trust reviewed its PFI deals and decided it had enough cash in the bank to pay the £18m break clause and so buy West Park outright. It gave the project company the required statutory notice and after the legal process was completed, the deal ended in December.

Treasury figures suggest it would have the remainder of the deal would have cost a further £32m, so it has saved £14m by getting out of it.

However it is unlikely the pioneering move will be copied by many other trusts, as most PFI deals are so large as to make early repayment impractical.

Aviva, the company that now runs the PFI firm that built West Park, was unavailable for comment.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Hospital-saves-14m-by-getting-out-of-PFI-deal

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

Margaret Hodge, the Labour chair of the committee, said that despite the doubling of the NHS budget and rising prosperity levels there had been “lots of reports and inaction about health inequality”.

“New Labour came in in 1997 and announced it would put reducing health inequalities at the heart of tackling the root causes of ill-health. But it was unacceptable that health inequalities only became a NHS priority in 2006, and primary care trusts not required to report on it until 2007. It was too late.”

The committee’s report found that, as a result, the gap in life expectancy between the poorest areas and the national average grew by 7% for men and 14% for women, and Labour missed its own targets on public health. It says that the Department of Health did not have enough resources and lacked leadership and a “clear focus on health inequalities”.

“This was a bad story … of missed opportunities,” said Hodge, who said the premature mortality amounted to 3,335 excess deaths across the country. There were not enough family doctors in poor areas and no ideas to prevent public health problems rather than reacting to crises in, for example, obesity.

The report says two-thirds of the poorest places in the country still had “lower levels of GP coverage than the national average of 60 GPs per 100,000 population”. In the north-east, the report said, this dropped as low at 25 per 100,000.

Hodge, a minister in the last government, said Labour should have forced GPs in “single-handed practices” to band together in bigger practices in poorer areas, and paid new doctors more money to work in difficult areas. Single-handed practices make up 22% of all GP surgeries in poor areas.

“We should have drawn up new contracts, closed down single-GP practices and basically told them who to hire and how much to pay them,” she said, pointing out 10 of the 146 measures outlined in a doctor’s contract rewarded physicians for focusing on the neediest groups.

The committee’s response comes as the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, is preparing a white paper on public health to be published this month. The report says that at present around 4% of the NHS budget is spent on public health, although actual spending is not easy to identify. It calls on the government to develop “transparency and accountability for this [money]“.

Hodge said the committee had identified three public health prevention strategies – stopping smoking, high blood pressure and lowering cholesterol – which cost £24m out of a total budget of £3.9bn. “But it was not spent. We are too reluctant to spend on prevention in this country and end up spending billions on treatments.”

The government welcomed the report, saying it was committed to renegotiating doctors’ contracts so that disadvantaged areas could deal with their population’s health needs. “We’ve already set out proposals for how areas with the poorest health will be given money to help them be healthy, and public health budgets will be ringfenced,” said Anne Milton, the public health minister. “We need a new approach to improve the health of the poorest, fastest.”

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/health-inequality-labour-margaret-hodge

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

It was previously reported that the new service may replace NHS Direct, but now the Department of Health has confirmed it will definitely do so.

The move comes as the government curtails public spending, even though it has promised to protect the NHS.

The change will not affect existing NHS helpline services in Scotland and Wales.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced the plan to scrap NHS Direct in England during a hospital visit.

NHS Direct currently employs more than 3,000 staff, 40% of whom are trained nurses. It is understood the ratio on the 1-1-1 helpline is “slightly less” in the pilot, but no figures are yet available for what will happen when the scheme is rolled out nationally.

Critics claim the change would undermine the quality of the service by reducing the number of qualified nurses answering calls, but chief executive of NHS Direct Nick Chapman told the BBC the new helpline would be better and more cost effective than NHS Direct.

In June GPs urged the government to get rid of NHS Direct, claiming it was not cost effective.

Roughly 14,000 people a day call NHS Direct for medical advice, with the service costing £123m a year to run.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of The Royal College of Nursing , said reducing the number of specialist nurses who worked on the new helpline was “short-sighted.”

He said: “We urge the government to consult fully and look at all the evidence before enacting changes which could leave people without expert advice from trained nurses.”

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nhs-direct-to-be-scrapped

The researchers concluded that the public would appreciate fewer contact points online but the digital communications review said there was not sufficiently strong evidence that there were too many NHS domains.

Instead the review said there was a need for a digital brand strategy with standards for all NHS sites. It said a central information role was “sound in principle but its adoption requires a general acceptance that it is the role of the centre to perform this organising function.”

EHI understands that the researchers suggested that the NHS may be spending too little on too many websites rather than too much.

The Precedent researchers said that two of most recognised health service websites, NHS Choices and NHS Direct, were often competing for attention and although NHS Choices focuses on health information and local service data and NHS Direct offers online diagnostic tools the differences in content between the two was not clear to patients.

They added: “NHS Choices and NHS Direct are both established as national sites with similarities of positioning, brand and audience. This confuses users about the ‘definitive’ access point for NHS information and the roles of each site.”

Research for the review also concluded that GP practices websites were also the weakest of the health service’s online offerings.

It added: “GP surgeries have by far and away the poorest sites, in that they have the largest percentage of problems identified. GP sites failed to provide the means to allow interaction with users.”

The researchers found that overall the NHS was failing to meet patients’ needs for online functionality such as online appointment booking, repeat prescription requesting, test result reporting and contact via email. Only 50.3% of sites included email addresses. “The NHS is not making itself easy to do business with,” the report said.

The research is also critical of the accessibility of websites and said that vulnerable members of the public were not been catered for with 30% of sites exhibiting at least one “notable deficit in standards” which might cover poor quality content, lack of NHS branding, poor navigation or out of date content.

The researchers said it was very difficult to estimate the cost to the NHS of the websites with responses to information on usage and cost received from only 188 out of 4,121 sites. However it estimated that the cost of running the sites “could be as high as £86m per year” and said costs could be higher as those figures did not include set up costs.

The digital review, however, said no broad conclusions could be drawn about value for money “given the relatively low cost of establishing and operating small, focused websites.”

The researchers claimed the public “struggled to locate the NHS online with a Google search” when searching on health-related terms and said the scale and depth of information on offer was daunting to many. It said patients also often ended up going to information offered by Wikipaedia, the charity sector and websites such as NetDoctor and PatientUK rather than the NHS.

The researchers said interviews with users revealed that the public wanted to see “one NHS” online which would tally with their perception that they were receiving care from “one NHS”.

The Department of Health said the white paper had outlined the government’s plan to being about an NHS information revolution to give people access to comprehensive, trustworthy and easy to understand information. Information on how this will be achieved is to be set out in the DH’s information strategy, due to be published in the autumn.

From: http://www.e-health-insider.com/nhs_%C3%82%C2%A386m_website_spend_confusing

The Tory analysis, based on figures for 2008-09, suggests that 6.8 million slots could have been made available to those without access to an NHS dentist had they not been used for excessive appointment-setting or needless splitting of courses of treatment into separate sessions.

The Tories calculate the cost to NHS patients of “unnecessary charges” at £117 million, up from £109 million the year before. The burden represents a fifth of the £572 million charged each year for treating NHS patients.

Andy Burnham, the outging Health Secretary, acknowledged last year that dentisty remained “unfinished business” after the failure of a new dentists’ contract to address problems with a so-called drill and fill culture.

An independent review ordered by the labour Government, led by Jimmy Steele, of Newcastle University, found that dentistry was too preoccupied with treatment rather than prevention, and that dentists should be paid according to the number of patients on their list and penalised for poor work that leads to repeated visits.

Professor Steele’s proposals, which were accepted by the Government and put into pilot schemes, include rewarding dentists for registering new patients and building relationships with existing ones. Income is determined by the size of the patient-list, quality of care and the number of courses of treatment.

Andrew Lansley, the Tory health spokesman, who acquired the figures from parliamentary questions in February, said that the lack of political drive to rectify problems with dentistry was shown by its absence from the manifestos of Labour and the Lib Dems.

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7115298.ece

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

Hundreds of chief executives, departmental directors and board members of hospitals and other NHS organisations have received extra payments of as much as £32,000 – the largest single year’s bonus unearthed by freedom of information requests submitted by the Liberal Democrats.

The £32,000 bonus went in 2008-09 to Beccy Fenton, deputy chief executive of the Heart of England hospital trust, who already earns £170,000 a year. She received it after generating almost £1m of consultancy work for her employers, including private sector contracts. The trust stressed last night that the £32,000 was a one-off sum for consultancy work.

Anna Walker, who was chief executive of the Healthcare Commission until it was disbanded last year, earned the largest combined amount in the past three years – £68,150 on top of her six-figure salary. She received £22,375 in 2006-07, £23,000 in 2007-08 and £22,775 in 2008-09 for running the then NHS watchdog in England.

Norman Lamb, the Lib Dems’ health spokesman, condemned the payments as shocking. “These bonuses are utterly scandalous. People will be disgusted by the extent to which fat cats in the public sector have been enriched at a time when the NHS has denied people drugs that they need and access to treatments such as in mental health,” he said. “We thought it was just in banking, but the unacceptable bonus culture appears to be alive and kicking in the upper echelons of the NHS.”

This is the first time both the number of bonuses and their size has been disclosed. The Lib Dems sought information from every hospital trust, primary care trust (PCT), mental health trust and ambulance service in England, as well as other NHS bodies such as strategic health authorities.

While some pay no bonuses, many do. However, the figures do not reveal the full picture because some refused to disclose theirs and a few simply gave their chief executive’s salary band.

The £32,000 one-off bonus and the £68,150 over three years are large but not atypical.

Laura Roberts, chief executive of the Manchester PCT, received £25,732 extra in 2008-09, while Dr Patrick Geoghegan, her counterpart at South Essex Partnership mental health trust – who earns £170,000-180,000 – received £20,573 in the same year for helping it do well against NHS targets.

South Essex trust spokeswoman Maxine Forrest, said: “In 2008-09, to recognise the trust’s exceptional performance in national ratings, a one-off bonus was paid. Dr Patrick Geoghegan is chief executive of one of the most successful and highest-performing NHS organisations in the country.”

Paul O’Connor, a former chief executive of Birmingham Children’s Hospital, received a one-off £15,000 bonus in 2007 for helping it to achieve semi-independent foundation trust status within the NHS. He resigned late in 2008 after the Observer revealed doctors’ concerns that some care was sub-standard.

The chief executive of the Royal Berkshire hospital trust received £54,611 in bonuses over three years in 2007-09, while the chief executive of the Human Tissue Authority was given £37,895 in 2006-09.

Many chairmen, divisional directors and both executive and non-executive directors of NHS bodies also receive bonuses. The Royal Berkshire hospital trust spent £240,728 on bonuses in 2007-09, more than any other NHS body that provided figures. Eight executive directors shared another £186,117, as well as the £54,611 payment to the chief executive.

Large payments to senior figures in those three years were also made by the Healthcare Commission (£215,550), the London Ambulance Service (£130,646), the Hertfordshire Partnership mental health trust (£122,465) and Portsmouth Hospitals (£105,000).

All three main parties have pledged to slash NHS management and bureaucracy. “This is the first real analysis of the bonus culture at the top of the NHS, and it’s shocking,” said Lamb. “Bonuses of £20,000 or more are more than many NHS staff receive as their full year’s salary.”

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/25/nhs-bonus-liberal-democrats

New figures reveal the time spent by crews waiting outside hospitals for their patients to be admitted last year was the equivalent to funding 31 fully staffed ambulances to do nothing for 24 hours a day.

The statistics released by NHS ambulance trusts show the amount of time ambulances are forced to remain idle is increasing each year. In the first nine months of 2009 the total so-called “dead time” in England reached 284,000 hours — more than the whole of 2007.

The four hour target was introduced in 2004 in an effort to end the scandal of patients left on trolleys overnight waiting to be seen by doctors.

However, it has led to hard-pressed casualty departments refusing to admit patients until they can be sure they can be seen within the four hour limit. Waits of more than two hours occur in hundreds of cases each year.

Mike Penning, a shadow health minister, said: “It is a scandal that desperately needed frontline paramedics are trapped at hospitals around the country because of Labour’s fixation with the target culture.

“It can’t be right that bureaucracy has taken over from clinicians being able to put patients first, rather than watching the clock. Millions of pounds are being wasted and patients are suffering.”

The Conservatives have promised to slash the number of NHS targets and hand more power to doctors.

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7078867.ece

Until now, health ministers and officials have acknowledged that the world’s biggest civilian information technology project is running four to five years late, and have said they want to make £600m savings on the £4bn-plus worth of contracts held by CSC and BT to deliver it.

Up to now, however, no one has conceded that the programme will fail to deliver everything that was promised back in 2003 when the contracts were signed.

Following a revamped deal with BT – the London supplier, which has cut £112m or about 12 per cent off its contract – Ruth Carnall, the chief executive of the London strategic health authority, has said the spending reduction means “it will no longer be possible to provide the comprehensive solution that was anticipated in 2003″.

Not all NHS organisations in London will now receive the software needed to deliver the records, Ms Carnall makes clear in a letter to London chief executives.

Meanwhile, Christine Connelly, the health department’s chief information officer, has said that only about half of London’s 32 big acute trusts will now get the full solution. Others will be able to add clinical systems to existing patient administration systems.

In place of a dedicated means of sharing records across hospitals, and between hospitals and primary care – a key goal of the programme – London will have to rely on the national summary care record, Ms Carnall says. However, this contains little other than allergies and current medication, and does not yet carry referral or discharge information.

On top of this, the Tories have said they will scrap the national record if they win the election.

BT will no longer have to deliver new systems to London’s ambulance service or GP practices. And London can afford to pay for Map of Medicine, a decision support tool for treating patients, for only one more year, says Ms Carnall.

In much of the country, installations in acute hospitals are stalled after CSC missed a deadline to get its solution running at Morecambe Bay NHS Trust. The supplier risks being fired, but is likely to sign a similar, more restricted, deal if it does hit a new deadline for a successful installation.

Glyn Hayes, president of the UK Council for Health Informatics Professions, said it had been clear for some time that the programme was to be reduced. “But this is the first official admission that there are things it will not do that it was intended to do.”

It was unclear, he said, whether the Conservatives would in fact scrap the national record if they won. “But if they do, it knocks a hole in London’s plans,” because without it the capital had no easy means of transferring patient information between settings.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fba8e660-436d-11df-833f-00144feab49a.html

CSC, which holds the contract for two-thirds of England, missed the deadline to get the Lorenzo electronic medical record product up and running at the Morecambe Bay NHS Trust’s hospitals.

CSC originally said the system would go live almost two years ago, in June 2008.

The failure is the latest crisis for the much-troubled programme which is running at least four or five years late.

CSC and BT, which covers London, had each been given a deadline to get new systems running smoothly in a big, acute, hospital, with the Department of Health warning last year that it would “look at alternative approaches” if that failed to happen.

BT has since installed a system at Kingston Hospital to the health department’s satisfaction. Christine Connelly, the department’s chief information officer, said it now needs to go through a due process under its contract with CSC which could yet see a new deadline set and met.

But if progress is not made, she told the Financial Times, the department has the option of cancelling CSC’s contract to install the systems in acute hospitals and letting hospitals choose from other suppliers.

Morecambe Bay, she said, remained keen to continue and under the contract CSC has to be given time to propose a fresh deadline for deployment, with the programme then assessing the credibility of that and whether to agree it.

“We have to walk through this step by step,” Ms Connelly said. “In a contract as large and complex as this we cannot just set a deadline and say that’s it. We have to act responsibly and not expose the department and the taxpayer to risk.”

But, she warned bluntly, “we cannot wait for ever”.

CSC has contracts worth about £3.3bn to install hospital, community, mental health and GP systems, with the latter elements progressing much better.

But Ms Connelly said if CSC’s plan was not credible the NHS had the option of cancelling the acute hospital part of the deal, thought to be worth around £1bn. CSC did not respond to attempts to contact it last night.

BT, having hit its deadline, has agreed a contract variation, signed yesterday, which the department said would save the NHS £112m, or about 12 per cent of the contract value, as part of the £600m savings the health service is seeking on the programme as a whole.

As part of the deal, BT is now signed up to install much fewer full systems in London, with about half the hospitals likely to add clinical systems to their existing IT arrangements, rather than replacing everything, Ms Connelly said.

Allowing hospitals to choose other suppliers is already starting to happen in the south of England, although the first contracts for that have yet to be signed. That should start to take place from May this year, she said.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6a9f7ee2-3d26-11df-b81b-00144feabdc0.html

For the first time in almost 90 years doctors will no longer simply certify whether a patient is fit for work or not, but will have a form allowing them to state whether the patient “may be fit for work” if certain conditions were met.

These include an employer offering a phased return to work, altered hours, changed duties or adaptations to the workplace.

There is considerable scepticism about the initiative as the employer does not have to take any notice of the “fit note”. But Dame Carol Black, the labour government’s health and work tsar whose 2008 recommendation led to the change, says she hopes the scheme will be the start “of a quiet revolution”.

The government, she notes, has spent billions of pounds on welfare-to-work programmes to get people off incapacity benefits and back to work. “But until now it has done almost nothing at the very start of the process that can lead people to dependence on long-term sickness benefits in the first place. The logical thing is to staunch the flow.”

Many people with back pain, neck pain, anxiety and stress are able to work with only limited adaptations needed from their employer, she argues.

Recent research by the insurer Aviva, however, shows two-thirds of employers have little or no knowledge of the change and how it will work for them. Just 5 per cent thought it would reduce absence rates that are estimated to cost the UK more than £100bn a year. The research also shows 57 per cent of employees do not believe their doctor is qualified to judge them fit for work.

The British Medical Association has supported the change in principle, but some GPs fear it could change their relationship with patients, turning them from patient advocates into judges of someone’s ability to work.

Dame Carol says she does not consider it “good advocacy” just to give people repeated sick notes when it is established that the longer people are off sick the less likely they are to return to work.

“What this is really about is a change of culture, and the way people think about work and what they can do,” she says. “It will be a slow revolution. I don’t expect rapid change. But it is the start of better early intervention.”

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5e715882-3a94-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html

The cash will be paid out over the next 25 years to cover the capital cost and services of the projects, with annual payments set to peak at just over £10bn a year in 2017.

The commitments, totalling £210bn, come as concerns are mounting that public services with big PFI projects may be at a disadvantage as the government seeks efficiency savings to help reduce the deficit.

PFI contracts usually include maintenance requirements that cannot be abandoned and must be paid for.

Although dangerous in the long term, the public sector tends to put off maintenance when expenditure is squeezed.

Treasury officials acknowledge that talks with PFI providers may be required to persuade them to offer more flexibility than the contracts stipulate.

The Budget report on UK infrastructure assumes the PFI will continue to provide finance for schools, hospitals and housing.

However, it warns that the massive demand for private capital to build energy, transport, waste and water projects – at £40bn to £50bn a year for the foreseeable future – means these “may compete for the same sources” of finance, at a time when the government plans to halve its own capital spending.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84618b94-383b-11df-8420-00144feabdc0.html

The continued decline in productivity will be an embarrassment for health ministers, since it shows that the huge increase in the numbers of patients treated as NHS spending has doubled in real terms has been outpaced by the growth in the service’s workforce and the volume of goods and services bought by the NHS.

The ONS has adjusted its measurements of quality, putting a value on any increase in short-term survival rates, health gains following treatment, shorter waiting times and some measures of the performance of primary care – for example, improvements in blood pressure or cholesterol levels.

Without that adjustment, the productivity fall would have been even steeper – 7.8 per cent since 2001.

The figures make grim reading for the NHS. Health ministers concede the service, which faces a real-terms freeze in funding, will need to make efficiency savings and productivity gains worth between £15bn and £20bn over the next few years.

Mike O’Brien, the health minister, said Labour had inherited a severely under-staffed and underfunded NHS, and addressing that had affected productivity.

He said: “Most economists, and HM Treasury, accept it is difficult to grow capacity and productivity at the same time, yet the NHS maintained virtually flat productivity [a 0.3 per cent a year decline] over the longest period of sustained growth in its history.”

The figures come, however, with some qualifications. The ONS has improved its measures of quality over the years but there are still significant aspects of quality that the data fail to capture.

For example, longer consultations with a family doctor would show up as a productivity fall, even if they left patients more satisfied and produced better long-term clinical outcomes. The NHS has also hired more specialist cancer nurses, who have improved the quality of care but not extended life expectancy, producing a productivity drop.

The ONS said yesterday that the quality measures were “the best we have at the moment but measuring quality [in the NHS] is very difficult”. Furthermore, while the figures are for the UK, no data are available for the productivity of care in Scotland.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67f8afe0-37b0-11df-88c6-00144feabdc0.html