The NHS again

As the local NHS Trust is one of those with statistically high death rates, I am naturally concerned. At my age, there is a reasonable probability that I will need to make use of there services within the next twelve months or so, and I would like to think that I would get any treatment that I might need. Thus I tend to follow the NHS stories in the media and am far from impressed.
Today there are several reports in the Daily Mail on this subject.
Firstly, a report, in which it is claimed that Professor Sir Brian Jarman has said that previous health ministers in the Labour governments had presided over a ‘denial machine’ designed to prevent criticism of the NHS. A further report, by by the NHS’s medical director, Sir Bruce Keogh, due tomorrow, will apparently detail a shocking catalogue of failure at 14 hospital trusts held responsible for up to 13,000 ‘excess deaths’ since 2005. Apparently, it is expected that these hospitals will be subject to ‘special measures’, with NHS troubleshooters taking over what are described as ‘failing regimes’.
Frankly, I have no faith that any worthwhile change will be brought about by "troubleshooters" as they are simply more of a kind who have worked their way up the system, probably leaving a trail of failures in their wake, as in the case of the present head of the NHS.

Next, we have a report on the so-called "Liverpool Care Pathway" or the road to death. This was the scheme to hasten the deaths of those that doctors believed were dying by withdrawing treatment and drugging the patients so that they died of dehydration. Hospitals were even given bonuses based on the numbers of patients killed off by this "pathway". Apparently it is the intention to scrap this "pathway" within the next 12 months - why not tomorrow?

Yet another report reveals that thousands of elderly people are being denied cataract surgery by being made to wait a long period after the initial referral by a GP or are being told that they can only have one eye treated. Here I have an immediate personal interest as I have cataracts in both eyes. When I last saw my optician, she told me that my eyesight was still good enough for me to drive, which was my basic criteria for deciding whether to have anything done. But I am due to see her on Wednesday and I expect her to recommend that I have them seen to. Time will tell what actually happens.

And yet still those on the left of the political spectrum insist that we have the best health service in the world. Clearly they must go around with their eyes, ears and minds firmly closed! Perhaps they should look at countries other than the United States, where there are problems with their insurance based system - might I suggest they look at Australia, where many British are able to compare notes with friends and relatives and most conclude the Australian system is better. Or perhaps near home, look at Germany, or even Italy where my daughter received excellent treatment under the EU scheme.

We may have once has the best health scheme, probably when the NHS had just been formed and other countries didn't have such a health service, but now I suspect, in spite of all the claims, our NHS is nowhere near the best even within the EU. Its time for real change, not this marginal tinkering.

A Little Good NHS News

As I've mentioned before, when one gets to a certain age, one starts to take more interest in what is happening in our hospitals.

Today, the Mail provides one item of good news, They report that

"A controversial scheme to give hospitals a bonus if fewer patients die has led to nearly 900 lives being saved over 18 months.
Twenty four NHS hospitals in the north west took part in the Advancing Quality programme where they are given cash incentives to cut mortality rates for conditions like heart attacks."

Clearly from a patient's point of view, this is far better than paying bonuses to hospitals that reach target levels on the so-called "Liverpool Care Pathway" which in fact is a road to accelerated death.

But no, the Mail informs us that
"The scheme, which is used across many US hospitals, is seen as controversial by those who feel hospitals should not be rewarded for saving lives as they should do this anyway".

So under the strange NHS morality, it is apparently all right to offer a bonus to hospitals who meet targets for the number patients that die whilst in their care, but somehow it is wrong to offer bonuses for saving additional lives above the numbers that would normally be expected.

The "Liverpool Care Pathway" (Continued)

Today's Telegraph continues the saga of the so-called "Liverpool Care Pathway".
This time it was in Birmingham where they call it the "Supportive Care Pathway (SCP)", another example of Doublespeak which means the exact opposite of what it says.
The doctors at Birmingham City Hospital decided that an elderly lady who had been admitted suffering heart and kidney failure would not be expected to live for more than 48 hours, and put her on the SCP.  Following intervention by her daughter, the lady was given treatment and discharged from hospital only six days later.

The Telegraph reports that
A spokeswoman for the trust said: “Mrs Edwards was very ill when she was admitted to our Medical Assessment Unit"
and
“We are sorry to hear that Mrs Edwards’ family were unhappy with aspects of her care. "

That last sentence is the most ridiculous of the lot!
"We are sorry to hear that the family were unhappy" How would they expect the family to feel? Perhaps the family should ask whether Birmingham City Hospital being paid on the basis of the number of patients that die they kill, in a similar manner to that being paid the Victoria Hospital in Blackpool? (See my previous blog)

Surely questions should be raised as to the competence of those who prescribed this course of action, and the family should be demanding a full enquiry.

Knowing my daughters, if that had happened to Mrs EP or myself, they would not be "unhappy", they would be bloody furious. Both have good connections through their work and other interests so I am quite sure that they would be  busy contacting everybody they know who might be able to help them to get an independent enquiry and demanding disciplinary action against the doctors involved.

The "Liverpool Care Pathway"

I know that it's late in the day, but I've just got round to reading the daily newspapers!

As I'm getting on in years, I have some interest in the so-called "Liverpool Care Pathway", which seems to be a method that doctors have agreed to use for patients whom they decide are not going to live, and is said to give them a peaceful death.
As it involves the withdrawal of food and fluids as well as medical treatment, it does not seem to me to be particularly caring, and amounts to starvation and dehydration. Far from being a "Care Pathway" it seems to me more like "A Road to Death".
Now doctors admit that they can never be certain that a patient is dying, and this example from today's Mail shows that they can most certainly be wrong.

But what appalled me most was the statement in the article that

"The hospital concerned has been paid more than £600,000 in the last two years to hit targets for the number of patients who die on the Pathway, according to documents uncovered by the Mail".

So we now have a situation whereby a hospital is required to hit targets for the number of people who "die on the Pathway" that is meet a target for the number of patients who are deliberately killed by the hospital staff.

Surely this is incitement to murder and should be investigated by the police. 

We ought to know who authorised the payment of taxpayers' money to a hospital to kill people. Was it within the NHS or did the incentive come from elsewhere such as the Local Authority who didn't want to fund places in care homes, was it from the DHSS in an attempt to reduce the state pensions bill, or did it even come from the Treasury as part of cost cutting measures.

It's certainly time for some answers.