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.


A perfect storm of NHS scrutiny

The quality of care in England’s hospitals will come under fierce scrutiny in the first few months of 2013. The catalyst and focus will be Robert Francis’ report into care failings at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, but the debate will be wider and deeper than that sparked by the inquiry’s findings.

‘Care scandals could have as much impact on public opinion and policy as the “I’ve been waiting a year” stories of the 1990s’

Growing financial pressure, a government committed to transparency of organisational and clinical performance and the “something must be done” atmosphere created by the inquiry have the potential to create a perfect storm.

HSJ’s latest Barometer survey of acute trust chief executives revealed the level of nervousness which persists around key areas of care. The survey asked chief executives how confident they were about their trust’s out-of-hours cover. The aggregate score was 6 out of 10.

Commenting on the findings, Salford Foundation Trust chief executive David Dalton said: “For too long boards have not challenged themselves about the standards of care that should be available to their patients every hour of the day and every day of the week.”

NHS Confederation hospital forum chair Dr Mark Newbold added: “I’d be interested to hear from those who feel their services are equally safe at all hours, because I haven’t seen any evidence from anywhere that this is the case.”

The challenge for hospitals

This is an admission − which although obvious to most healthcare leaders − will be very hard to justify in a post-Francis world. There is every chance the out of hours care scandal could have as much impact on public opinion and policy direction as the “I’ve been waiting a year” stories of the 1990s or the “my mother died from a hospital infection” reports of the last decade.

A welter of initiatives are churning through the system to tackle issues associated with care quality, including the first push in more than a decade to change how hospital consultants are rewarded and the wave of community service proposals being prepared by clinical commissioning groups to reduce secondary care demand. But many of these ideas are slow burn, with outcomes that are uncertain and only likely to have significant effect in three or more years.

The planning guidance released by the board just before Christmas made it clear that hospitals will have to continue to deal with both a tightening financial regime as well as new penalties for below par performance. The NHS Trust Development Authority has effectively decided to rerun the 2011 exercise to determine which non-foundation trusts have a viable independent future.

HSJ would highlight staff engagement and morale as the biggest unacknowledged danger facing the service’

Some financially struggling FTs and non-FTs have a decent care record, but many have clear areas of weakness and, as a result, the question marks over an increasing number of trusts grow bigger. Yet many of the reconfigurations and consolidations being planned to resolve these problems face political resistance and have an evidence base which gives little confidence for a quick or sustained return on quality or value for money.

Financial stability became non-negotiable in 2010 − publicly perceived care quality will join it in 2013. It is an iron rule of NHS performance that with every new “must do”, something ceases to become a priority. That “something” will differ from area to area and trust to trust, but HSJ would highlight staff engagement and morale as the biggest unacknowledged danger facing the service.

This is not a glib point about staff goodwill, nor a failure to recognise all staff groups are likely to have to look hard at working patterns and career paths. It is simply to state that a key challenge for hospital leaders in 2013 will be to create and/or maintain a sense of mission and shared endeavour as the storm howls outside.

Readers' comments (7)

  • With the publication of the Francis report, and the resignation of Nicholson, the NHS has the perfect opportunity to reinvent itself and deliver on its mandate in 2013. It needs to free itself of the past, and what better catylst to develop a patient focused, vote winning NHS.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • The Francis report will be a watershed for NHS care but it should not be glossed over that Mid Staff were going through the throes of becoming a FT when the breakdown in care occurred. This does not explain events or excuse individuals but there are lessons for trusts aspiring to such status and the preoccupation of senior management with general financial performance will be widespread in 2013.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Lets hope it's not buried like the Levenson report!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • High quality of care and high staff morale go hand in hand. Only staff on the ground can identify patient needs in real time and only if that staff is encouraged to help one another solve patient needs.

    But this requires top management commitment to investment in staff--staff to patient ratios, staff training, etc.

    The change of culture required starts at the top and requires investment. Now we will see if the Sec of State can put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Andrew Craig

    Better brush up on the Smart Guide to working with Local Authority scrutiny then

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Andrew Craig | 12-Jan-2013 5:45 pm wrote:
    "Better brush up on the Smart Guide to working with Local Authority scrutiny then"

    Co-author: Andrew Craig!

    7 pages of complete wonk.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Even if Mr Nicholson goes we have to remember that there was a culture throughout the early to mid 2000s, starting at the top with Hewitt and Reid, and through all the SHA CEOS and their turnaround consultants (who made lots of money) that said to people: "Promise to break even, or we'll find someone who will." I know becauase I saw it in action. Ultimately the cause of poor care is the insistence by the people at the top (and in the middle) on usign whatever flimsy evidence they can find to show that there is nothing systemically wrong. The 17 hospitals are the tip of the iceberg. There are lots of hospital wards for the frail elederly where the elderly just get iller and weaker, rather than better. You wouldn't neglect or deskill the Queen in them, so why are they good enough for the rest of us?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Share this

Post a comment

Related images

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