They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting time targets.

It says “several interviewees” cited the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells [NHS Trust in Kent where 269 deaths during 2005-6 were caused by infection with Clostridium difficile bacteria].

“Managers crowded in patients in order to meet waiting-time targets and, in the process, lost sight of the fundamental hygiene requirements for infection prevention,” the report stated.

There were subsequent failings at health trusts in Basildon in Essex, and Mid Staffordshire. Filthy wards and nurse shortages led to up to 1,200 deaths at Stafford hospital.

Lord Darzi, the former health minister, commissioned the three reports from international consultancies to assess the progress of the NHS as it approached its 60th anniversary in 2008. They have come to light after a freedom of information request.

The first report, by the Massachusetts-based Institute for Healthcare Improvements (IHI), identified the neglect of patients as a serious obstacle to improving the NHS. “The lack of a prominent focus on patients’ interests and needs … represents a significant barrier to shifting the trajectory of quality improvement in the NHS.”

One heading in the report says: “The patient doesn’t seem to be in the picture.” It adds: “We were struck by the virtual absence of mention of patients and families … whether we were discussing aims and ambition for improvement, measurement of progress or any other topic relevant to quality.

“Most targets and standards appear to be defined in professional, organisational and political terms, not in terms of patients’ experience of care.”

This weekend it emerged the recommendations of the reports, intended to help the NHS improve, have not even been circulated.

The stark assessments, collected from leading NHS clinicians and managers, include:

A damaging rift between doctors and managers: “The GP and consultant contracts are de-professionalising, and have had the peculiar effect of simultaneously demoralising and enriching doctors. We’ve lost the volitional work of the doctors and far too many of us are now just working to rule.”

Pointless new structures. “Stop the restructurings. The only thing they generate is redundancy payments.” One body responsible for improving standards reported to five different ministers and had three different names in the space of 30 months.

A culture of fear and slavish compliance. “The risk of consequences to managers is much greater for not meeting expectations from above than for not meeting expectations of patients and families.”

The IHI report, whose interviewees included Lord Crisp, chief executive of the NHS between 2000 and 2006, also described a system of self-assessment where only 4% of trusts are externally inspected.

A similar picture emerges in the second report, by the US-based Joint Commission International. It says the “quality and integrity of [NHS]performance data is suspect”.

Dennis O’Leary, its lead author and an international expert on patient safety and improvement, said it was not intended as an exposé but as a series of useful suggestions for change.

“Our instructions were to pull no punches and tell it like it was, but the report wasn’t overstated,” he said. “It was how we saw things based on interviews with more than 50 people.”

The third report, by the US-based Rand Corporation, expresses surprise at the lack of a requirement to identify the specific drug involved when patient accidents are reported.

In 2008 Darzi issued his own blueprint for the future of the NHS, High Quality Care for All, but resigned from the government last July to return to his surgical commitments.

Last week he said: “The NHS is continuing a journey of improvements, moving from a service that has rightly focused on increasing the quantity of care to one that focuses on improving the quality of care.

However, Brian Jarman, emeritus professor at Imperial College London and an expert in hospital standards, said the findings should have been made available to Robert Francis QC, who led the inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

He said: “These reports have never seen the light of day. We desperately need a better monitoring system for the NHS which actually works.”

From:

Professor David Kerr, a renowned oncologist who led efforts to cut waiting and give hospitals greater independence, said that the Tories now offered the best chance for the NHS, which had been driven into a “whirl of thoughtless tick-box exercises”.

Professor Kerr, a lifelong Labour supporter who campaigned with Tony Blair in the 2001 general election, told The Times that the key principles of giving patients a better choice of health services and a better understanding of how they were performing had been “driven into the sand”.

“To say that we have run out of steam, I would say definitely, definitely yes,” Professor Kerr said. “We have got lost in the blizzard of increasingly irrelevant targets. The position now is disenfranchising, dull and disconnected. That is the clinical reality.”

The doctor, a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford, was a frequent visitor to Downing Street as Labour drew up its reform agenda in Mr Blair’s first and second terms. 

Under Labour he worked on ways to improve access as chair of the national Cancer Services Collaborative and became a founding commissioner of the Commission for Health Improvement, the first regulator to assess NHS clinical performance.

He was also one of the main drivers of the foundation trust scheme, offering the best hospitals the chance to become more independent, hold greater responsibility for their budgets and make clinicians more engaged in service improvement. A knife-edge Commons division on foundation status was won by 17 votes after Professor Kerr wrote to all MPs underlining the advantages that it would bring.

In 2005 he was given the task of developing a 20-year plan for the future of the NHS in his native Scotland, known as the Kerr Report.

Professor Kerr said that he felt “for the first time in [his] life” that the Tories offered the health service a better future. He said that the Conservative priority of getting NHS data out to patients in an understandable form, allowing them to choose the highest standard of service best suited to them, was a mission that disappeared with the departure of Mr Blair.

“[The Tories] are more committed to the NHS that we love and understand as free at the point of access and offering universal care. Only that degree of certainty would convince me to go and work for them.”

Professor Kerr would not be drawn on whether he had been a member of the Labour Party, but said that currently he was not a member of any political party.

He said that he hoped to push through the ideas of choice and the empowered patient, encouraging the NHS to make more high-quality information publicly available. “People need to be able to understand how their hospital is improving,” he said.

Another focus will be to allow patients to ask clinicians key questions about care standards without compromising the doctor/patient relationship.

“I firmly believe for the first time in my life that we have a Conservative leadership that is committed to the future of the health service. If I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t be there.”

On informed choice for patients, he said that under the Government “the whole big idea ended up in the foothills of dodgy websites. No one was really engaging with it.”

He identified the loss of momentum “around when the transition happened”, with things “starting to lose the plot” under Patricia Hewitt as Health Secretary, then Alan Johnson, “who is good on many fronts, but was more interested in keeping the NHS out of the headlines”.

Andrew Lansley, the Conservative health spokesman, said of Professor Kerr: “His expertise and knowledge will be crucial in helping us to create a NHS which has patients at its centre. That a key architect of the Blairite health reforms is now working with the Conservatives shows that under David Cameron’s leadership we have truly become the party of the NHS.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From:

A tribunal ruled that he was entitled to damages because he has been acting as a whistle-blower in the public interest when he wrote letters to hospital management raising his concerns about the health of patients.

The verdict also placed blame on government targets for raising tensions between management and clinical staff at the NHS hospital.

Mr Niekrash claimed he was the victim of bullying and harassment after he criticised cutbacks at the hospital, which he said included a shortage of senior medical staff and the closure of the specialist urology ward.

At one point a senior doctor at the hospital allegedly said she wished that Mr Niekrash, who was trained in Australia, was “in chains on a plane in Heathrow back to Australia.”

Mr Niekrash’s lawyers said the case revealed the way in which senior NHS whistleblowers are punished for speaking out.

One case he raised was of a prostate cancer patient who was allegedly not told that he had the disease, nor given treatment for six months after he was diagnosed.

In a letter, he also accused hospital management of behaving like a “plantation owner” towards doctors, The Independent reported.

A 50-page ruling from the tribunal found that Mr Niekrash’s suspension from the hospital breached laws put in place to protect whistle-blowers.

Judge Burton, sitting at the tribunal, said: “We have no doubt that the exclusion of a consultant, being a rare occurrence, must have an adverse impact on the claimant’s reputation,” adding that Mr Niekrash had been “hurt” and that his health had suffered.

The judge said tensions had arisen between the claimant’s desire to provide health care and “the requirement of management to reduce or limit costs and also comply with varying targets laid down by the Department of Health from time to time.”

A hospital spokesman said: “We are considering this judgment very carefully … There are nearly always lessons to be learned from cases like this, and as soon as we have carefully considered the judgment, we will respond in full.”

From:

Patients are being admitted to hospital to avoid breaching a labour Government target on waiting times, NHS figures suggest.

More than one in twenty patients attending hospital in an emergency are being admitted to wards just minutes before the maximum four hour wait.

Health unions have complained that staff are being “pressured” into manipulating data and admitting patients unnecessarily to meet the target, which aims to treat or discharge all accident and emergency (A&E;) patients within four hours.

Figures from the NHS Information Centre show that almost all patients in England are seen within the four hour deadline, but there is a peak in the number of people admitted to a ward with just ten minutes to spare. Two-thirds of those treated as the deadline approaches are admitted to hospital, compared to just over one in five patients coming from A&E; overall.

It is the first time such analysis has been done and the statistics are categorised as “experimental”.

The Royal College of Nursing warned that the four hour target meant some nurses were “pushed into practices” that were risky for patients.

It said that there were “negative consequences” for patient care, especially those needing treatment in A&E; wards, but not necessarily requiring an overnight stay.

A survey of its members found that nine out of ten accident and emergency nurses claimed they had been unduly pressured to meet the four hour target.

Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association’s consultants’ committee, said that the admission rates were worrying.

“This suggests that when patients have been waiting close to four hours, there is a rush to discharge or admit them so that the hospital meets the four-hour target,” he said.

“Patients must always be treated on the basis of their clinical need, not simply because they have been waiting close to four hours.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, agreed that the right patients are not always made a priority under the target.

“This results in doctors making rushed decisions at three hours and 50 minutes, with patients having to be admitted inappropriately at huge cost to the NHS,” she said. “We have heard instances of ambulance drivers being forced to wait outside A&E; with seriously ill patients, until staff have cleared a backlog of people who need to be seen within the four hour target.

“It is unfair to make NHS staff feel like they have to put meeting this target ahead of what’s in the best interests of patients.”

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6921466.ece