All 3 entries tagged NHS

View all 16 entries tagged NHS on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged NHS at Technorati | There are no images tagged NHS on this blog

April 15, 2010

Health plays key part of UK's first televised election debate: leaders clash on cancer waits

The future of the NHS and service provision formed a central part of this evenings national election debate from Manchester screened live on ITV with concurrent audio on BBC Radio 4. Health care as expected did play an important role this evening. Here are a few quotes from the chief protagonists, Brown and Cameron:

Gordon Brown on the leader of the opposition, and on health care in general.

He [Cameron] couldn't give the same personal guarantees that we're giving about specialist cancer care

Fair to our National Health Service

Protect our helath service

David Cameron: rhetoric, with some serious points.

Choose hope over fear

Stop labours 'job tax' which could destroy our economy

If you work had 'll be behind you

If you're old and you become ill we will always be there for you.

Gordon Brown attacked the leader of the opposition about their plans and possible changes to the two week wait.But what is this two week wait? If you work as a doctor in the NHS, you'll already know, but for those that may not be so well informed, what does the two week wait actually mean in practice?

Essentially the 2WW (as its popular abbreviation) is the target that a patient with suspected cancer should be seen within two weeks of the referral being received. A good system? It seems so. Actually the targets go further, with the first 'definitive treatment' being delivered within the first 62 days from referral. This essentially means if you need an operation to have your cancer out, it is the responsibility of the doctors to diagnose it and treat it definitively. This means the necessary scans, biopsies pre-op checks and the like to achieve things. Lots of NHS initiatives have been criticised. The four hour wait has long been criticised by doctors (including this one) in Accident and Emergency departments, however it does seem to have driven up standards and efficiency in our hospitals. In principle, the two week wait is a good thing. So why would it be cut by the conservatives?

example_vpsim.jpg

The answer is complex, and not explained in the media writ large. There has been much focus on labours mailshot to potential cancer sufferers, but what politician in their right mind would cut such progress? (Guardian coverage here). The answer lies in policy and procedure, and represents why health is such a sensitive topic. ON the basis of Browns comments above, who without health insurance would not vote Labour? Unless the plans are presented clearly and simply (tonight they were not) it is difficult for those even inside healthcare to make informed voting decisions on such issues.

The conservative leader did consistently focus on the fact that Labour has had 13 years to fix things: how is Labour currently planning to fix things? By saving money, lets look at if its going to hit the workers in the health service (me) or the patients (me). Are there tough choices that have really been outlined for the NHS to date in terms of cuts?


Efficiency Savings: What is the level of 'pain' the NHS can expect?

These points come from the Department of Healths own press release hereI cant help but provide my own bottom line opinion for what it means to staff and patients.

The Department of Health and the NHS will meet this target through a range of activities including:

  • "Up to £1.5bn will be saved by driving down the costs of procurement through securing best prices for goods and services"
    • The bottom line: no pain for the workers or the patients
  • "£100m will be saved by taking a new approach to the National Programme for IT that offers greater choice to local hospitals"
    • The bottom line: no pain for the workers or the patients (unless you're in IT!)
  • "£60m will be saved by reducing the amount of energy the NHS uses, to deliver a 10 per cent cut in carbon emissions"
    • No pain for the workers or the patients, lots of energy saving light bulbs on the shopping list
  • "Up to £70m will be saved from more efficient use of NHS estates"
    • No pain for the workers or the patients, don't expect to buy the local hydrotherapy pool at a cut price
  • "Up to £555m by reducing staff sickness absence in the NHS."
    • No pain for the workers or the patients, unless you're doing things you shouldn't be.

Andy Burnham the health secretary had the following to say on the 4.5billion saved in the budget.

The NHS budget is in a strong position after a decade of record  investment. I am pleased that today’s Budget locks in that growth, guaranteeing that frontline NHS funding will rise with inflation in 2011-12 and 2012-13.  As a result of this funding, the NHS is today more resilient, has more capacity and provides better care than ever before.

Healthcare, two week waits, cancer services, provision of care for the elderly, the payment of this care, and taxation of those receiving it will continue to play a key part in the election leading up to May 2010. As you can see how these policies, and changes to current policy are presented is likely to influence the publics next choice of government.

Missed it? You can catch up on ITV here on what went on. Id be interested to hear comments from anyone and everyone on the above musings...


August 11, 2009

Politics and the NHS, Productivity, Targets and Numbers

The NHS is coming under increasing scrutiny, and the issues around its funding once again making front page news. There are some recurring statistics: productivity in the NHS has fallen by 4% despite a large cash injection from 1997 onwards.

But what does this mean? There is an increasing drive for doctors in training to have formal management qualifications. With this in mind, what does a 4% increase in productivity actually mean? Does every doctor do 4% less work? Are patients likely to get only 96% of the treatment that’s should be given to them? More importantly if a trainee inside the organisation, with an interest in management has little idea of how the numbers are derived, and what they mean to the average medical clinic, A&E department or on call surgical list, then there is a problem.

The most telling argument was a rule mentioned in passing to me by a colleague. It doubles follows a principle which despite my ‘intelligent’ Google searching, I cannot find…It goes like this: once you turn a marker of performance into a target, that marker of performance ceases to accurately reflect performance.

When applying this to the NHS you get a simple, understandable concept. Consider the Emergency department 4 hour wait. It is likely that departments that were seeing, treating, discharging or transferring patients within 4 hours of their arrival in that department were good A&E departments, better than the ‘norm’. Where is the evidence for this? Common sense and expert opinion!

Once the 4 hours becomes a target, then hospitals managers will be ‘forced’ to hit those targets. If that means renaming a bay in A&E as an inpatient observation ward then so be it. If it means treatments being delayed, then so be it. Its increasingly common for junior doctors to be faced with management policies at their inductions, and the potential repercussions of not fulfilling specific targets set. Its more likely that they will be turning away from the NEJM to the other publications (for example form the Medical Defence Organisations like the Medical Protection Society) that produce survival advice for newly qualified doctors in changing times.

The difficulty is introducing the kind of lean management principles reported in the late 1990s by the American Academics that sought to find out why Japanese Car manufacturers like Toyota could produce and import cars to the US for less money than their American counterparts.

It is the challenge of meaningfully measuring and quantifying management performance in the NHS that is the challenge. Getting from line staff (like myself) to understand the concepts of productivity is critical, as is giving departments this sort of information.

If the focus shifts to lean and efficient management processes, then the numbers behind the targets will follow. The measurement of markers of productivity needs to be more transparent to staff, patients, and contributors to the NHS budget (British taxpayers) to allow them as voters to make informed decisions surrounding healthcare policy.


April 15, 2009

Teaching the Teachers?: US vs the UK (andTwitter? )

I'm set to interview medical students from the US and the UK to try and identify differences in attitudes, beliefs and assessment systems from perspectives from each side of the Atlantic.

Im quite excited about htis for a number of reasons. It will hopefully back up research that I'm currently carrying out at warwick into the attitudes of medical students to teaching the teachers. This is run from a site I've set up specifically  for NHS research. This study (foillowing ethical approval) is ongoing.

Although we have >1000 registered students to my sister medical education site, the majority are from the UK. More importantly, the first US based student to be interviewed does not come from this fraternity, but in fact via my twitter page , after following my comments on medical education there.

There's been alot of discussion on Twitter on the WB site from a number of different perspectives, I think this is where it really gets interesting. No sign of linkedin here!

I have a reason to be a fan of international medical students, as I owe a lot of the success of Medical Educator to the free, unsolicited assistance of a number fo the Web2.0 personalities.

I really am a fan of Twitter and have made some useful acquaintances from Finland, Bulgaria, and the US, probably most importantly Berci Mesco, who runs a blog (google page rank of 7/10, which is on a par with some universities (Warwicks intranet page rank is currently 7/10) about medical education and has featured in  Nature Medicine and a number of other high profile interviews (mine not included). As a 'friend' i cite him for a major exposure of our own site- having featured us for no reason.

If any medical students would like to feature in the article (from Warwick or other universities in the UK or Europe), please email me at james.bateman@warwick.ac.uk.

Dies anyone else feel that theres any point in doing this, or is it just me? Id love to survey medical student's in the US with the same questions, and I believe the best chance of finding a contact in the US is either through Twitter, or my blog here.






Search this blog

Tags

Most recent comments

  • It doesn't seem likely that there will be a major market for cannabis based medicine in the uk or eu… by Dr Stuart on this entry
  • I too have been hugely impressed with how effectively Wesch communicates on teaching issues that con… by Hannah Hodgson on this entry
  • Text is linear….Wesch is some sort of a genius. He's been awarded some of he highest accolades in … by Daniel Hendrick on this entry
  • I've just had Rees–Mogg on the phone. by Jane on this entry
  • David Cameron also said "If you want to start a family I'll be behind you". Well, I want to start on… by Jane on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…

medicaleducator.co.uk

Medicaleducator Blog

Comments on:
It's great

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXVIII