Discussion Primer: More evidence of the appaling state of the NHS
A report on the Today programme this morning made clear the worries of many who have to deal with the NHS for maternity services.
Britain has the third worst infant mortality rate in Europe. Slovakia is worse. And more worryingly, the hospitals will not admit that they have a problem. They just spend more on drugs and surgery, staggering amounts of money in comparison with other European countries. The government is having to resort to direct control over the worst units, applying 'special measures'. The inspector who was interviewed stated that a lack of co-ordination, poor leadership and a lack of training is behind this. However, the message seems to be that the midwives are good, and where the service is led by midwives, it can be excellent. The division between midwives and doctors is well documented, and illustrates some of the fundamental cultural issues that may prevent the NHS from ever becoming a success.
I do believe that Warwick Hospital is one of the really good ones. However, even there we have already experienced a lack of co-ordination and some poor quality doctors who seem to be working according to rigid and simplistic procedures, and concerned primarily with avoiding medical negligence claims. This latter problem is very serious. They mention it constantly, which is not surprising considering the vast amount of damages that get awarded against the NHS in this part of the service. The result is that doctors will follow the guidelines to ensure that they have official back-up for every act, thus reducing individual consultation time, and failing to treat cases on an individual basis.
I have no idea of how the NHS can be fixed. The problems run too deep. My expectation is that the politicians will continue to fiddle with it for a couple of more years, and then decide that it is just too difficult. They will eventually avoid the responsibility with a rapid sell-off. Anyone got any better ideas?
__
Comments welcome!
6 comments by 3 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]Vouchers?
I.e. if you need an operation, the government gives you a bit of paper to the value of your operation, which you can then 'spend' at any hospital you like.
What do the French and Germans do that makes their public health systems so much better than ours?
18 Jul 2005, 09:00
Robert O'Toole
Yes, my only half-serious answer is to sell the NHS off to the Germans.
18 Jul 2005, 09:09
Chris May
What the french do, as I understand it, is pay a good deal more than we do for their NHS, and don't faff about trying to privatise some bits. ISTM that one should either go for a 100% public health service (as per France), or a 100% private (as per the US). I don't know what they do in Germany.
Fortunately for you (Rob), Warwick's maternaty ward seems to be quite good. They didn't mess up either of ours, anyway.
The food is dreadful, alas, but there's an excellent chinese takeaway about 5 minutes down the road – ideal for post-natal refuelling.
18 Jul 2005, 10:04
I suspect that part of the problem is that doctors are not half as scientific as they pretend to be. They need to be more willing to learn – from evidence, patients and other medical staff (such as midwives).
The BMA's wish to make everything that they guess is unhealthy illegal is evidence of their bizarre approach.
18 Jul 2005, 10:36
Samuel Johnson
Just appalling…
18 Jul 2005, 19:00
"The BMA's wish to make everything that they guess is unhealthy illegal is evidence of their bizarre approach."
Yes, there are many doctors with an absolutely rotten grasp of statistics. You only have to look at the BMA's call for a complete ban on public smoking to realise that.
Visit this page for lots of easy-to-read information on statistics and how they can be manipulated.
20 Jul 2005, 18:08
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.