jump to navigation

The NHS - The Real Story in Westminster 29 March 2007

Posted by karenbuckmp in Local News.
trackback

Karen Buck at the opening of Health@StoweYou could easily be forgiven for concluding, from the coverage of recent months, that the NHS had ceased to provide hospital care, laid off the last doctor and the last nurse, and collapsed under a weight of debt that would have made the directors of Enron blush. To contend that this is not the case is not to make light of what has been a difficult year, which has indeed been painful for staff and sometimes patients, especially in those NHS Trusts which had built up financial problems over the years (or had simply not been very well managed financially). However, if we don’t see the bigger picture, we run the risk of making some very serious mistakes about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to the delivery of that most crucial of services- healthcare.

Happily, here in Westminster, we have a Primary Care Trust which has balanced its books, has been assessed as one of the top performing Trusts of its kind in the country, and is continuing to expand and improve services. Amongst a number of impressive recent achievements were: a 25% improvement in flu protection for pensioners; £400,000 worth of programmes targeted on health improvements in poorer communities, and the launch of a healthy eating and physical activity scheme for children, designed to tackle a particular local problem of child obesity. In the autumn, Health@The Stowe became the second new health centre to open in a year in Westbourne, and a new surgery is also scheduled for the St John’s hospital in St John’s Wood. Mental health services have been rebuilt in a £30 million scheme based at St Charles, finally replacing the depressing and inappropriate facility at the Paterson Wing at St Mary’s. St Mary’s itself has just received £15 million for a new high dependence unit, and is also about to develop new links with Imperial College and the Hammersmith hospitals, in an exciting partnership that will bring some of the world’s leading medical research to bear on local patient care. Oh, and £2 million is earmarked for the next phase of work towards further reducing hospital waiting times, as we progress towards the 18 week target.

Looked at nationally, 97% if all hospital outpatients appointments took place within 13 weeks of referral in September 2006, up from 83% in 1997. 75% of inpatient admissions took place within 13 weeks, up from 50%- and waits of twelve months and more, which were frequent a decade ago, are now exceptionally rare. Perhaps all this is connected to the fact that there are 66,000 more qualified nurses, 29,000 more doctors, and that new contracts have delivered greatly improved pay for GPs and hospital doctors.

So yes, there has been some turmoil in the last few months, as changes in service patterns and the impact of improved levels of doctor’s pay impacted on local budgets. But to ignore the real local and national achievements plays into the hands of the ‘nothing works’ brigade- and they are the ones who usually have least to lose from dismantling a service for the many, so that they can protect the interests of the few.

Comments»

1. David Wogel - 14 April 2007

As a Healthcare Proffessional of 35 years and lived overseas for 25 years the NHS generally provides very poor service when considered it is costing 9% of GDP. The service in France, Germany and Norway is far superior. The only solution to the nations healthcare is a National Health Insurance with open competion by the service providers. Even with the current PFI buiding program the vast majority of British hospitals are very old and sub-standard.
Healthcare should be taken out of politics and lecft to the professionals

2. Bill Blunt - 24 April 2007

The NHS remains (just about) a wonderful institution, despite the regular re-disorganisations to which it is subject. I can’t agree, I’m afraid, with Mr Vogel’s comments. Not too long ago, Mrs Blunt had to have tests for what might have been breast cancer. The process was quick, efficient (perhaps less friendly than it might have been) and, of course, did not require me to take out a loan to pay for it. The equivalent tests in the USA would have cost us anywhere between $4-6,000.

However, I am inclined to agree with Mr Vogel regarding vesting more control in the hands of the professionals (by which I do not mean the managers). Unfortunately, that might require more structural change, which the NHS needs like it needs a Tory Government.

Who remembers Primary Care Trusts when they first came about - ‘decision making closer to the people’. Who decided the decision-making was too close, then, that they had to merge them into bigger entities more reminiscent of the health authorities of old?

As for Foundation Trusts - they are just window-dressing, I’m afraid (and costly window-dressing at that!)

The party that promises no structural change to the NHS for the next 5 years gets my vote.

But well done on a very useful and informative blog, Karen. I’m not about to heap the failings of the NHS onto your shoulders. Good luck, as and when the election comes!