By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


NHS reports strong performance on 18 weeks targets

The NHS continued its strong performance on waiting times in February, achieving all three 18 week referral-to-treatment measures for the second consecutive month.

Nationally, 91.2 per cent of admitted patients were treated within 18 weeks, against a target of 90 per cent. This was down 0.2 per cent on January but up from 88.7 per cent a year ago.

Performance on the non-admitted pathway performance remained consistent with the previous month and year on year with 97.1 per cent patients seen within the timescale, against a target of 95 per cent.

In total 78.5 per cent of NHS trusts were meeting the target for admitted patients and 92.8 per cent achieved that for non-admitted patients.

Just 7.4 per cent of patients were waiting more than 18 weeks, within the limit of 8 per cent brought in under the 2012-13 Operating Framework. In total, 72.2 per cent of trusts met this target in February, compared to 65.5 per cent in November 2011.

Analysis of Department of Health data by NHS Gooroo Rob Findlay shows 5,696 patients had been waiting for longer than a year in February, compared to 10,407 in November - a 45 per cent drop. However, much of this reduction is likely to be due to data cleansing, after people who should not have been on waiting lists were removed.

The latest set of figures became a political football.

Labour shadow health secretary Andy Burnham picked on the 27 per cent increase in number of patients waiting over 18 weeks on the admitted pathway from 20,662 at the time of the election in May 2010 to 26,417 in February. He claimed that under David Cameron the NHS was “heading straight back to the bad old days of the last Tory government”.

In response, health minister Simon Burns highlighted the halving of the number of patients waiting more than six months to claim claimed the figures were proof the NHS was going “from strength to strength”. He accused Labour of scaremongering.

Deputy chief executive of the NHS Confederation David Stout said the performance was “no small achievement”, given the current pressures faced by the NHS.

He added: “Politicians will always argue their corner but it’s really important for the NHS that patients are given a clear picture of what is happening to waiting times.

“The number of people waiting in excess of 26 weeks, 39 weeks and 52 weeks have all continued to fall in the past six months. Furthermore, median waiting times have reduced dramatically from 14.3 weeks in August 2007 to 5.2 weeks in February 2012.

“But it is also true that some people still wait too long. The NHS will have to take a hard look at evidence where it suggests that alternative approaches to treatment could improve waiting times.”

Readers' comments (5)

  • Would that be as a result of the millions of pounds of non recurrent money that was put into the NHS for the final quarter. Wouldnt want the Government to look bad would we!
    In our patch the private sector did very nicely as a result of this and the public money used was certainly not VFM.
    The NHS could have used this much more effectively if it had been planned better

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Anon 2:06

    I would be interested to hear more about that. Please email in confidence.



    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • All we can conclude is that the data is too unreliable to draw any meaningful conclusions about performance.

    Anonymouse 2.06 - the private providers in question would only have been paid the same tariff as the NHS providers would have, had patients exercised their choice differently. I fail to see how shifts between NHS and private providers affect VFM from a commissioner perspective when each are paid the same tariff?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Insideperspective - 10:59 - You are right that the private providers will have only been paid tariff however to presume that this move in treatment would not be an issue from the wider perspective is a narrow view of the total health economy.

    Any senior manager in the NHS will know that private providers have strict inclusion criteria on who they will operate on, normally centred around ASA grade, complications and comorbidities, treatment and age - solely because patients that meet these characteristics are cheaper and straight forward to treat. To move this activity away from the NHS is the shift which will see the NHS shouldering the cost of loss making patients and the private providers creaming away the profit of the straight forward elective cases which in years past offset the loses of sicker, older elective patients and trauma.

    I would partially agree with Anon 2:06, the cost may have been better spent in the NHS depending on the efficiency of the controlling Trust but definitely the surplus created from these patients would have better served the NHS economy than filling stakeholders pockets in the private sector.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I suggest those arguing over the data go and spend some time at a cross section of acute trusts....
    Waiting times have gone up significantly over the last 12 months.
    This is a fact based reality, not a statistical twist.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

Sign up to get the latest health policy news direct to your inbox