records

PATIENT CONCERN PRESS RELEASES 2007/9

Click on subject

August 8 2009: Private organ transplants

Responding to today's announcement that the government is to ban private organ transplants from dead UK donors Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern says:
‘We are delighted. Patient Concern protested vigorously to the Secretary of State deploring the practice of some hospitals in charging foreigners £75,000 for a new liver when this was revealed in the press.
‘We pointed out that this was not only deeply immoral but seriously unhelpful to the whole transplant programme. Why should we sign up as organ donors if our organs can then be sold to the highest bidder?
‘The law rightly prevents us from selling our own organs, so it is an outrage that hospitals can boost their income by doing so, while UK residents die for lack of organs.
‘The Minister did not reply to our letter – instead he took instant action and ordered a report.
‘Once in a while patient advocates actually WIN.'

top of page

July 2 2009: Patient safety report

The House of Commons Health Committee report on Patient safety published today deplores:
Abolition of the Independent Review stage of the complaints process PALS lack of independence from NHS
organisations
Failure to implement the NHS Redress Scheme which would reduce need for litigation.
Roger Goss, co-director of the pressure group Patient Concern commented:
‘Complaints are a potentially powerful driver for improving patient safety. They are the best opportunity for learning from mistakes for any organisation.
‘The government seems to have gone out of its way to put people off complaining because they see it as a waste of time. This is sabotaging safety. The failure to improve safety will in turn deter people from using the NHS for fear of becoming one of the 10% harmed by healthcare. That will save money. Just what the doctor ordered in the current recession and an election year!!
‘The NHS culture of secrecy is another major obstacle to a safer service. We agree with the Health Committee that an independent review of the Mid-Staffs scandal would not be value for money. But surely the government should legally force the Trust to publish its internal enquiry report? The victims and their relatives deserve no less.'

top of page

June 28 2009 Praying for patients

At this week's BMA conference, doctors are to demand the right to discuss religion with patients and to pray for them.
Joyce Robins, co-director, Patient Concern said:
‘Most complaints from patients are about being on a conveyor belt of care. They don't rate with staff as real people. ‘Offering to say a prayer is a warm and kind thought. Most patients will accept it as such. It is no more offensive than being offered a sleeping pill. You can say thanks but that sort of thing isn't my cup of tea.
‘But if Christian doctors see this as an opportunity to promote their faith to people at a time when they are particularly vulnerable, that is totally unacceptable.'

top of page

May 6,2009: Whistleblower struck off

Patient Concern expects the Royal College of Nursing to announce early this week that Margaret Haywood will appeal her sentence in the High Court. Ms Haywood was struck off the nursing register for ‘breaching patient confidentiality' when she blew the whistle on horrific conditions at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton .
There has been an unprecedented public outcry about this injustice, with death threats to members of the Nursing and Midwifery Council panel and demonstrations outside their offices.
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, comments:
‘The NMC has become too tangled up in its own rules. These were set up to protect patients, not to protect managers who allow callous neglect and downright cruelty on wards of vulnerable old people.
‘This is a tragic misuse of power and it is NMC leaders who should be sacked, not a caring nurse. We need regulators with a clearer vision than this if we are to stop the rot in the health service'
Footnote to editors:
1. The Royal College of Nursing petition in support of Ms Haywood currently has approaching 40,000 signatures.
2. An early day motion in the House of Commons saying that the NMC was wrong to strike her off has over 40 signatures from MPs.
3. A debate on Whistle-blowing in the NHS in the House of Commons on May 6 centred on Margaret Haywood and the lack of whistleblowers in the mid-Staffordshire hospital scandal.
4. During that debate Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said that it had been ‘unduly harsh' to strike off Margaret Haywood.

April 16 2009: Whistleblower struck off

Today the Nursing and Midwifery Council will decide the fate of Nurse Margaret Haywood who exposed the appalling conditions on a ward at Royal Sussex Hospital in a Panorama programme.
Joyce Robins, Co-director of Patient Concern comments: ‘Nurse Haywood had the guts to blow the whistle when other nurses were prepared to turn a blind eye to the sub-human conditions suffered by patients. She had tried to raise her concerns through the proper channels but when no-one listened she took the action needed to get results. Her reward is to risk losing her livelihood.
‘No doubt she is technically guilty of breaking the rules. But it will be a disgrace to nursing if the Council gives her anything but an absolute discharge – and congratulations on caring enough about patients to put her career on the line.
‘If we had a few more whistle-blowers in the NHS we might avoid scandals like that at Mid-Staffordshire hospital where staff kept quiet as the body count rose. Too many professionals are willing to stay silent to avoid jeopardising their pay and rations.'

April 16, 2009: Whistleblower update

We have just heard that Margaret Haywood has been struck off the nursing register.
Joyce Robins, Co-director of Patient Concern comments:
‘This just demonstrates the priorities of the regulators – rules come before patients every time. The message that goes out to nurses is: however badly you see patients treated, keep your face shut.
‘This makes total nonsense of all the talk about openness and transparency in the NHS. Cover-up is the order of the game.'

top of page

April 1, 2009: Care Quality Commission

On April 1 the new Care Quality Commission will be launched.
‘At the moment it looks like an April Fool joke' comments Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern.
‘The Commission's credibility is undermined from the start. The chief executive is Cynthia Bower who, as head of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority, allowed the scandal of mid-Staffordshire hospital to continue unseen and unchecked as the body count reached an estimated 400.
‘How is the public supposed to believe that she can deliver quality care on a national basis?
‘The Commission has been given substantial new powers but Baroness Young has already announced that she does not wish to use them, preferring to rely on persuasion and exhortation. Cosy idea. But in over ten years since the outrage of the Bristol babies we have had mountains of guidelines, protocols and frameworks – all persuading an exhorting. And at the end of it here we are – with the horrors revealed at mid Staffordshire!
' Surely it is time to stop wishing and hoping and take firm action.'

top of page

February 2009: Complaints

The Healthcare Commission's report on poor complaints handling by trusts comes as no surprise. Joyce Robins, Co-director of Patient Concern, comments:
‘We have been fielding the same type of complaints for the past ten years.
‘Nothing changes and nothing is likely to change as long as trusts sit as judge and jury on their own failings. According to the Commission's report many still can't even be trusted to interview staff involved in the complaint or write a clear letter to complainants.
‘It is astonishing that the government's response to the consistent failure of trusts to respond satisfactorily to complaints and to learn from their mistakes is to abolish the independent review stage by the Healthcare Commission – and to abolish the time limits for trusts to resolve complaints! They cover reams of paper with advice on good practice but there are no sanctions for trusts who continue to ignore them year after year.
‘Patients are at an enormous disadvantage throughout the complaints procedure. Trusts usually believe their staff rather than patients and there is no independent tribunal to decide who is telling the truth.'

top of page

August 8 2009: organ donation

Today the BMA has called for urgent action to introduce a system of presumed consent for organ donation in Wales ‘before more people die waiting in vain'. Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern, comments:
“The BMA is using its considerable influence to mould public opinion on the basis of misinformation and distorted facts about the supply of organs.
“They make sweeping statements about presumed consent producing a far higher number of organs.“Over the past year three august bodies – the House of Lords EU Committee, the Welsh Assembly and the Organ Task Force – have rejected a change in the law. The expert advice they have considered from all over the world persuaded them that there is no convincing evidence that this change will boost the organ donation rate and that it could actually be counter-productive.
“When Welsh Health Minister Edwina Hart rejected the conclusions of her own committee last year she ordered a series of debates to gather public opinion and get the result she wanted. “This is not hard to do when the public are given a misleading picture of the reality of the organ transplant shortages.”

January 2009:Organ donation

In recent months we have heard a great deal about the desperate need for organs to save patients who die while waiting for a transplant. The need is so great that Gordon Brown, the prime minister and Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, were keen to bring in a system of ‘presumed consent' for donation.
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern comments:-
‘Those who hastened to sign up as donors will be astonished and dismayed to learn that their donated liver might go to patients from abroad for a fat fee. ‘The law rightly prevents us from selling our own organs so why should hospitals be allowed to do so, boosting their consultants' fees?
‘Patients from the European Union have a right to such treatment here, though many donors would feel that our own citizens should have priority. To find that organs have been given to visitors from Greece, Cyprus etc paying £75,000 (Sunday Times, 4 January 2009) is an insult.
‘The government must be honest with us. Make clear just what the rules are and how they are enforced.'

November 2008: Organ Donation

We expect that the report of the Organ Donation Taskforce will tomorrow reject the idea of presumed consent for organ donation.
This has been the conclusion of everybody that has considered the evidence rather than jumping at what might look like a ‘quick fix'.
In July the House of Lords EU Committee decided that there was ‘no convincing evidence' for a change in the law. In September the Welsh Assembly's health committee came out against a change to an opt-out system, believing it would distract from ‘more productive actions' to increase the number of available organs.
Joyce Robins, Co-director of Patient Concern, comments:
‘This should be welcomed by anyone who thinks that patient choice is important. It is offensive to talk about ‘donation' and ‘presumed consent' in the same breath. A donation is something willingly gifted. Presumed consent means requisition.
‘The state cannot be allowed to treat our bodies like old cars that can be raided for spare parts.
‘Presumed consent is pretend consent – which means no consent at all. A change in the law would be a con trick to appear to be taking effective action, when all the evidence shows that our current transplant system cannot take advantage of the organs available now.
‘Rumour has it that Gordon Brown will press on with his pet plan anyway – just like Welsh Minister Edwina Hart, who has already rejected her committee's report. Patients and the public would be outraged to see him kick in the teeth a distinguished group of experts who have produced the most thorough ever analysis of the position.'

July 2008: Organ Donation

House of Lords committee backs Patient Concern's views on presumed consent for organ donation.
Patient Concern is delighted that the House of Lords EU Committee, reporting today on ‘Increasing the supply of organs within the European Union' has decided that no convincing case has yet been made out for a move to presumed consent for organ donation in the UK – in spite of strong representations from the Chief Medical Officer and the BMA!
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, who gave evidence to the committee and is quoted in the report, comments:
‘We told the committee that presumed consent makes the term donation redundant. A donation is something freely gifted, not taken by default. It would turn us from volunteers to conscripts, unless we register as conscientious objectors.
‘This could prove counter-productive and damage faith in the whole transplant system.
‘This report supports our belief that the government needs to make substantial progress in building up organ donation services and spreading the word on organ donation effectively - rather than using presumed consent as one of their regular ‘eye-catching initiatives' and pretending that it will be a cheap quick fix.'

July 2008: Organ Donation

National Transplant Week (6-13 July) is too little and too localised. It needs a year – every year. Patient Concern has proposed over 50 ways to create a continuous national campaign for organ donors. Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern comments:
“The government – and doctors' leaders at the BMA – have been half-hearted and dilatory in launching an all-out campaign to recruit donors.
“A majority of people say they are willing to donate but only a minority sign up to the organ donor register. With effort and commitment, we can change that without resorting to ‘presumed consent', with its suggestion of coercion.
“It may sound to Gordon Brown like a cheap quick fix but it would be a kick in the teeth to all those who offer a generous and altruistic gift.
“On top of that, it would be irrelevant to the organ pool if the final choice still rested with families (40% refuse). It would also sabotage all the work that has been done to rebuild trust in organ donation for any purpose since the scandals of the 1990s when tens of thousands of organs were taken without consent throughout the NHS.”

July 2007: Organ Donation

Sir Liam Donaldson's call for treating us all as organ donors unless we specifically opt out is unacceptable (Annual Report on the Nations' Health, to be published on Tuesday).
Joyce Robins comments:
‘Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. BMA representatives claim that they have exhausted all other methods of increasing the number of organs available. Nonsense. I have never been invited to sign a donor card by a doctor in my life, in spite of many opportunities. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.
‘Surveys may show a large majority willing to donate organs while less than 1 in 4 actually sign up. But giving the ‘feel good' answer in the street is very different from facing the reality of the process.
‘There might be more donations if the Government made it mandatory to anaesthetise patients technically defined as ‘brain stem dead' before removing their body parts. Families are understandably reluctant for their still-breathing relative with a heart beat to go under the knife.
‘Presumed consent', which is usually ‘uninformed consent' relies on inertia to force a desired result. We have already seen it in the pilots for electronic patient healthcare records and here it comes again. Where next?'

top of page

July 2008: BMA and presumed consent

Tomorrow, July 10, the BMA's Annual Conference will be debating motions:
1. That explicit consent should be required before uploading patients' health records to the national data base: an ‘opt in' rather than current ‘opt out' system should be used.
2. That explicit consent should no longer be required for organ donation: an ‘opt out' system should be used rather than the current ‘opt in' system.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern comments:
“BMA leaders have been promoting both these policies vigorously for some time. We can only hope that BMA members will recognise this blatant hypocrisy and get their thinking straight but we won't be holding our breath.
“It seems that, for the BMA, ethics change according to what best suits doctors.
“As patients, we should be able to have confidence that explicit informed consent will be sought for any decision that affects our bodies and our health care”

top of page

January 2008: Assisted Suicide

Debbie Purdy has lost her case for clarification of the law on assisted suicide.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern, comments:
‘With our laws as they are at the moment, this result was probably inevitable – and if the law were to be clarified, it might well mean far more people were prosecuted.
‘But to most ordinary folk it seems ridiculous and anachronistic that someone can be put at risk of a life sentence for helping the person they love to do something that is not in itself illegal.
‘It is shameful enough that terminally ill patients whose suffering is unbearable feel that their only recourse is to travel to a Swiss clinic for help to end their lives, rather than being able to come to a private decision with their own doctor. But it is outrageous that a relative who helps with the mechanics of getting them to a perfectly legal clinic like Dignitas risks being sentenced to goal for a kind and loving act.
‘The law on assisting suicide is intended to protect the vulnerable sick from abuse, but its effect is to present the terminally ill and their loved ones with a cruel choice.
‘Work is under way for a new Bill on physician assisted suicide, which – providing it has sufficient safeguards – could end this suffering and enable us to make an informed and adult choice'.

top of page

February 2008: Polyclinics

The government has decided that the way of the future in primary health care is polyclinics, rather than GP surgeries.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern comments:
“As usual, no-one has asked the patients. The most valuable aspect of the GP service is continuity of care, where we can see the doctor we have known and trusted for years.
“The most frequent complaint we receive is that government targets have already made it hard for patients to make appointments with their own doctor. This is the final nail in the coffin.”

topof page

February 2008: GP hours

BMA ‘climbdown' on hours negotioations.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern comments;
‘The grudging and alarmist statement put out by the BMA shows them up as more of a trade union than a professional organisation.
‘The government is insisting on an extra three hours for an average practice of 6000 patients. The BMA was arguing for two hours. Big difference!
‘Now they talk about what comes down to an extra hour as unsafe for doctors ‘who will be working on their own late at night' and bad for patient care.
‘This scare-mongering language does doctors a disservice. Any fair-minded GP can see that an extra three hours a week is only the equivalent of the Saturday morning surgery we lost at the time of the contract.'

top of page

February 2008: GP Contract

Commenting on the findings of the National Audit Office on the GP contract published today, Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, said:
‘The report demonstrates yet again that the public have been badly swindled by the GP contract.
‘All this proves is that BMA negotiators are infinitely better than the dozy folk employed by the government. After all, doctors are as materialistic and self-interested as the rest of us.
‘Patients were not consulted about what was happening to out of hours care, or what targets were being set. What they want is what they have always wanted - to be able to see the doctor they have known and trusted for years at a time that fits in with other demands of their lives. For many, this has become impossible.
‘Instead of listening and taking note, the government now pushes ahead with the madness of polyclinics, which mean we will have to travel further to consult a stranger. No doubt they will tell us that this cost-cutting measure is all for our benefit.'

top of page

October 2007: Resuscitation

The new guidelines issued by the BMA on resuscitation are well-meaning but lay the emphasis in the wrong place.
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern says: ‘The guidelines concentrate on which members of the health team can make life or death decisions for the patient, when, in the light of the new Mental Capacity Act, they should be enabling and encouraging patients to make decisions for themselves.
‘Far more could be done to ensure that patients' wishes are known. On admission it should be mandatory to check for the existence of a Living Will (as it is in American public hospitals) and patients should be encouraged to set down any views they have on providing or withholding treatment, including resuscitation.
‘If patients knew that a question like ‘would you want resuscitation attempted even if it was unlikely to be successful?' was part of the routine for everyone, there's no reason why they should be distressed by it. Their views should become part of their electronic health record.
‘Decisions made in advance by health teams may well be coloured by the religious affiliations of the professionals involved. Catholic organisations, for instance, have shown implacable opposition to the idea of Living Wills. It is unrealistic to think that doctors and nurses leave their deepest beliefs behind when they come onto the ward.'

top of page

July 2007: GP Patient Survey

The results of the long-awaited GP Patient Survey are out. This shows that 1 in 4 patients are still unable to book ahead for an appointment with their doctor.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern, comments:
‘So some 15 million people still can't book ahead at the doctor's surgery – over two years since the government told Strategic Health Authorities to put a stop to this restrictive practice.
‘Before GPs were offered more cash for meeting 48 hour targets, all patients could make bookings to fit in with their work and family commitments. Now they have to take appointments at the convenience of the surgery, to boost doctor's profits.
‘But even then, according to the survey, 8 million people can't get an appointment within 48 hours! Perhaps it is time for common sense to replace unrealistic targets.'

top of page

July 2007: GP Workload

This week the GP Workload Survey shows that doctors are working an average of 15% fewer hours – though their pay has soared since the highly beneficial contract signed three year ago.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern, comments:
‘Whenever Patient Concern has commented on the over-generous GP contract we have been deluged with abusive and hysterical letters from doctors, all asserting that they are working harder and longer than ever before. Now we have the facts – more money for less work.
‘In fact doctors have raked in substantial extra cash as a reward for the sort of care that good, conscientious doctors were providing already. But are they happy and satisfied with their good fortune? No way.
‘The BMA resists any suggestion of Saturday morning or evening surgeries. They say there is no demand because the recent health department survey found 84% of patients satisfied with opening hours (admittedly a surprisingly high figure to those of us who collect the complaints). This leaves 1 in 7 who are not – presumably those who regularly have to take half days off work and find themselves threatened with the sack.
‘Multiple doctor practices should be able to arrange their workload to fit the lives of patients rather than their own convenience. They resist doing so because this would entail paying support staff, thus cutting into their profits.
‘We hear a lot from doctors about the growing menace of private sector competition – but we should remember that 90% of patient contact with the health service is through profit making businesses – the GP practices

top of page

July 2007: Hospital Infections

The Healthcare Commission report on hospital acquired infection published today, coupled with the Health Protection Agency figure of 1,000 superbug victims a week makes scary reading. The Commission says that ‘patient safety is paramount'.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern comments:
‘Sadly, this is simply not the case. Many trusts reported to the Commission that they cannot reconcile waiting list targets with infection control. Not surprising! While we have a hot bed policy and hardly time to change sheets between patients, rates of infection will rampage.
‘We have no proper isolation facilities, no chance to disinfect wards properly, no night time cleaners – and we still have to convince staff to wash their hands.
'No wonder we have one of the worst records for hospital acquired infection in Europe .
‘We are losing the fight and the attitude of too many hospital staff is that infection is ‘just one of those things'. This is not the way families feel when an elderly relative goes into hospital for some minor ailment, catches C.Difficile and comes out in a box.'

top of page

June 2007: Electronic Records

The resignation of Richard Granger, director general of IT for the NHS, could prove the writing on the wall for the costly and problem-ridden national electronic care record database.
Patient Concern supports the concept of electronic medical records, which have many potential benefits for patients, but the way the project has been rolled out has left us aghast. So far it has been handled as a sales pitch with no genuine regard for patient choice.
We are being bulldozed into the scheme because the paternalistic powers-that-be think it is good for us. This could be the moment to step back from the brink, forget the complacency and adopt a system that is less threatening to patient confidentiality and doctor-patient trust.

May 2007: Electronic Records

The electronic summary care record due to begin in early adopter sites very soon threatens to launch in a cloud of confusion, misinformation and distrust. This is a serious setback for a scheme with so many potential benefits for doctors and patients alike.
In late 2006, as a result of a newspaper campaign, a flood of patients contacted the Secretary of State, opting out of the data spine. The DoH, in panic reaction at the thought of a massive boycott, replied with an astonishing eight-page letter refusing the ‘request', saying that opt-outs would only be allowed if an individual had ‘unique' reasons for ‘claiming substantial and unwarranted distress'. Presumably some civil servant would be the judge of the level of such distress.
Assurances followed that all was well because we could choose to have out data remain invisible. No-one explained the point of having invisible data on the spine. Then out of the furore came the Minister with a promise that we could, after all, opt out. That is the position at the moment of writing but who knows, it could reverse again. It seems to be a movable feast.
It is, in any case, a far cry from the ‘opt in' system advocated by many of us, backed by the RCGP. The ministerial task force chaired by Harry Clayton, National Director for Patients and the Public, rejected this in its report in December 2006. It's 11 members included two patient representatives and though the report states that 23 patient and clinical organisations were invited to submit written evidence the list does not, in fact, include a single patient organisation.
The current plan is that in early adopter sites, due to begin around Easter, patients will be notified about the scheme and have a set time to contact their GP for a copy of the summary. If they do not opt out within this time, they are assumed to have given implied consent.
This leaves doctors in a dangerous position. It is hardly surprising that a Medix survey showed that 5 out of 10 GPs were unwilling to upload patient information without specific consent.
Their concern is fully justified. How can informed consent be assumed when patients do not know what the record contains? It flies in the face of medical ethics and advice in clause 21(d) and clause 37 of Good Medical Practice. It threatens to seriously damage doctor-patient relations. If some patients fail to hear about the scheme (notification letter undelivered, an extended trip abroad at the crucial time etc), and the doctor is subject to legal action and/or reported to the GMC for breaking confidentiality, what then?
The ‘sealed envelope' provision, whereby we could protect sensitive data, is still under development. Some 250,000 staff smart cards have been issued but no such provision has yet been made for patients. We are told that we can request that information we prefer to keep private (e.g. drugs for HIV or psychiatric illness) is omitted - which begs the question whether such incomplete information might be misleading or even unsafe.
The time and place for quality control is before the data is entered, when doctors and patients can check to ensure accuracy. Patient Concern would suggest that, at the same time that patients are notified of the scheme they receive a copy of the proposed summary and a simple consent form. This will of course take more time and resources. Doing things right usually does.

If the initial scheme is introduced before these problems are solved, we risk a backlash that could jeopardize a system promising many improvements in speed, efficiency and safety.

top of page

May 2007: GP Opening Hours

Gordon Brown is bidding for popularity with NHS patients by promising longer GP opening hours and Saturday morning surgeries.
At any moment his promises will be boosted by the results of a survey of 5 million patients on GP access. The General Practitioners withdrew co-operation when two questions on extended hours were added because, of course, the 2004 contract allowed doctors to opt out of out of hours care.
Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern commented:
‘According to Hamish Meldrum, GPC Chairman, it was ‘like asking children if they want sweets'. This shows a certain contempt for patients, who wanted exactly those questions asked.
‘The problem is, we wanted them asked before doctors were allowed to cut their responsibilities so drastically.
‘The government, having made a complete pig's ear of the GP contract, is now trying to turn the clock back and make themselves look like the good guys. We are set for yet another row between doctors and government, each blaming the other. This is no way to run a national health service.'

top of page

April 2007: Surgery Denied

A just-released survey shows that 10% of Primary Care Trusts are denying surgery to overweight patients and to smokers, with some 6,000 patients affected. This practice is likely to grow as trusts fight their deficits.
Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern says:
‘There may be good clinical reasons for denying operations to smokers or to the obese but this should be the only criteria. Otherwise it is simply a way of cutting costs. A national health service should not be deciding on who is worthy of treatment. This is a slippery slope. Do we next decide that those with criminal records should be denied healthcare?
‘These people have paid into the system all their lives. Are we going to refund their contributions so that they can pay privately – when, of course, there will be no question of refusal? They will find it hard to understand why they must pay for someone to have their fourth child or for those who injure themselves in dangerous sports, while they are excluded from the service.
‘It may help health trusts to balance their budgets but could cost society far more in the long term. Deny a much-needed new hip and the patient will become crippled and the cost of caring for them will soar. It makes no sense'.

top of page

January 2007: Length of Hospital Stay

The Institute for Public Policy Research claims that keeping patients in hospital too long takes up 13,000 beds a year costing the NHS £1billion.
“This is a meaningless statistical exercise,” says Joyce Robins, Co-Director of Patient Concern. “Sick people are not statistics. The length of stay must be based on clinical need, and this varies from patient to patient and does not show up on lists of figures.
“It is simply another example of the drive to cut costs, dressed up as patient benefit.
“I have never had a complaint from a patient kept in hospital too long. I have many complaints from patients who are discharged too early and find themselves back in hospital within weeks.
“This is a result of the constant pressure to reduce waiting times. Each readmission counts as a separate ‘patient episode' and so boosts the hospital's productivity ratings and helps them to meet targets at the same time.
“There are some 900,000 readmissions each year – and this number has risen by one third since 2002.

top of page