Hospital waiting times have begun to rise again after years of decline following the introduction of European rules on junior doctors’ working hours.Waiting times in the NHS had been dropping since the 1990s but the rules limiting junior doctors to a 48-hour week, which were implemented last August, had reversed the trend.

Thousands more patients were now waiting longer than 18 weeks for surgery because of eu red tape.

Ministers were seeking to renegotiate Britain’s position on the European Working Time Directive, including a possible opt-out for NHS staff. The Royal College of Surgeons carried out the first comprehensive analysis of how the directive had affected waiting times.

According to the research, the proportion of NHS patients having to wait longer than the 18-week target for non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements had almost doubled from 1.5 per cent 18 months ago to nearly three per cent in March this year.

Waiting times reached an all-time low at the end of 2008, with patients waiting just a few weeks for surgery on average.

However, since the EU directive cut junior doctors’ hours from 56 to 48 per week, these gains had been wiped out, the Royal College said.

According to data from the Department of Health, the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks — from GP referral to being treated as an inpatient — fell steadily from April 2007, when almost 34,000 people were waiting, to 8,674 in December 2008.

The figure remained stable at about 10,000 until June 2009, just before the new rules came in, when the rise began.

In March this year, it had risen to 17,515, a level last seen in September 2007.

John Black, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said the increase was predictable.

“If you have the same number of patients, no more doctors and ask them to work less then it is inevitable that the time available for elective procedures will reduce and waiting lists grow,” he said.

Almost two thirds of consultants now frequently operated without assistants because departments were so stretched.

Mr Black said most European countries had bypassed the legislation by either not monitoring compliance or, as in Germany and Holland, finding ways around the directive.

“We look forward to this happening in the UK,” he said.

Sir Richard Thompson, the new president of the Royal College of Physicians, said the directive had been a “complete disaster” for both patient care and the quality of training for doctors.

“We are not providing the service or the training that we require,” he said. “I cannot overemphasise the damage to service provision and to training.”

According to the survey, 80 per cent of consultant surgeons and two thirds of surgical trainees said patient care had deteriorated since the directive was implemented.

Dr Matt Jameson-Evans, a spokesman for Remedy UK, a junior doctors campaign group, said the impact of the directive on services was inevitable.

“Patients are simply not being treated by as many doctors as before,” he said. “A second consequence of this and equally important is that doctors are not receiving as much training as they were and this has serious implications for the future quality of care.”

The Royal College of Surgeons has argued for an opt-out to allow trainees to work up to 65 hours per week because they were not getting enough practical experience on a 48-hour week.

The Coalition has abolished the 18-week target, saying it was not backed by evidence that it benefited patients.

Dr Mark Porter, the chairman of the British Medical Association’s consultants committee, said the drive for cuts within the NHS was also a factor in the rise in waiting times.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-waiting-lists-rise-after-doctors-hours-cut

NHS Hospital waiting times have been relaxed or scrapped as part of a drive by the new Government to rid the NHS of Labour’s ‘target culture’.

Nursing and doctors’ leaders welcomed the greater flexibility they have been given to treat patients according to clinical need rather than being forced to stick to strict central guidelines.

But patients’ groups expressed concern that the reforms could result in a “free-for-all,” and that without targets long waiting times could return to the NHS.

GPs will no longer be forced to see patients within 48 hours of them seeking an appointment.

The requirement for 98 per cent of patients attending Accident and Emergency wards to be seen within four hours has been relaxed to 95 per cent.

And the target for patients to be given a hospital appointment within 18 weeks of being referred by their GP has been abandoned altogether.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, insisted that people would still have the right to demand high levels of service from the NHS, but that this would be done locally rather than dictated from the centre.

“I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes,” he added.

“Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter – providing quality patient care.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “The targets focused minds in the NHS, made people start realising services had to get better.”

But Dr Laurence Buckman, Chairman of the BMA’s GPs Committee, welcomed the relaxation in targets.

He said: “Patients should have good access to GPs. However, while this target may have been intended to improve access it has in fact had adverse consequences.

“At the moment practices need to have enough appointments available on the day or the following day to meet the target, so those who want to book in advance find there are fewer appointments available.”

Under the changes to the NHS Operating Framework, Mr Lansley has also ordered health bodies to reduce management costs from £1.85 billion to £1 billion by 2013.

While spending on the health service will continue at current levels, he said it was crucial to make “immediate” savings which could be reinvested in patient care.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-waiting-times-are-relaxed-and-abandoned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NHS has wasted more than £11m using ambulances as “waiting rooms” to get around Labour’s target that patients should be treated within four hours of entering casualty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors say a key NHS target – to treat people visiting accident and emergency units within four hours – is compromising care and patient safety.

The College of Emergency Medicine says the target, at English hospitals, puts staff under “incredible pressure”.

It says it supports having a target in principle, but that doctors sometimes need time to make the right decision.

The government says safety and good quality care should always take priority over targets.

The NHS target in England to deal with patients in A&E within four hours has been highly controversial. Critics say it forces clinical staff to put deadlines before quality of care.

The chairman of the College of Emergency Medicine, Dr John Heyworth, says the target has helped to make emergency care a priority for the NHS. But he says staff are being forced to meet it at almost any cost.

“We’ve had nurses reduced to tears. We’ve had very senior consultants in emergency medicine threatened with a disciplinary process.
 
Patient safety and good quality care should always take priority over administrative targets where a doctor believes that is necessary
Department of Health spokeswoman

“This is an outrageous misuse of the standard.

“It’s not what the clinicians are in the emergency departments for. But it’s representative of the immense pressure being put on chief executives and all managers downwards from there to comply with the target.”

The four-hour target is just one of a range of centrally imposed standards, most of them designed to speed up treatment.

They have been used in other parts of the UK but have been much more heavily enforced in England.

Politicians now dislike the language of centrally-imposed targets in the NHS.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they will scrap them. Labour now prefers to talk about “standards”, “entitlements” and “guarantees”. The issue promises to be an important dividing line in the general election.

Professor Julian Le Grand, who was senior policy adviser to Tony Blair between 2003 and 2005, says many patients did benefit from targets – but he recalls that the then-PM was troubled by complaints from doctors about the targets regime.
 
“I remember sitting in a meeting once where the prime minister said ‘do we have to just keep beating up on the consultants – in A&E for instance – endlessly to achieve this? Or is there some way we can think of building in incentives within the system so that we’ll get these quality improvements on their own, without always having to crack the whip?’”

That led to a shift towards encouraging more patient choice and competition between hospitals, rather than relying on targets to improve standards.

The trust’s director, Dr Jennifer Dixon, says they are a potent way of achieving quick results.

“I think there’s widespread consensus that targets have resulted in immediate benefits, for example in reduction in waiting times.

“It’s highly unlikely that those other reforms could have had that impact so quickly and so precisely on the waiting times. So it’s really ministerial “diktat” almost that’s produced the goods.”

The Department of Health said that, in England at the beginning of 2003, almost a quarter of patients spent more than four hours in Accident and Emergency. It argued that since then there has been a “revolution in patient care”, reducing that figure to less than 2%.

A spokeswoman said: “The funding for hospitals has risen dramatically and targets are minimum standards which taxpayers have a right to expect from NHS hospitals.

“Patient safety and good quality care should always take priority over administrative targets where a doctor believes that is necessary.

“Despite his concerns over the four-hour standard, Dr John Heyworth from the College of Emergency Medicine said he had nothing against targets in principle. But he said he wanted a more sophisticated measure that accounts for quality of care, as well as speed.

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8580761.stm