Hunt - Watering down NHS reforms would betray patients

[Northerner]

Heath Secretary Jeremy Hunt was warned yesterday that watering down recommendations for reforms of the NHS in the wake of a hospital scandal would be a ?betrayal of patients?.

Ahead of the public inquiry into deaths at Mid Staffordshire Hospital, due to be published next Wednesday, Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) urged him to implement the report?s recommendations even if they are contrary to Government policy.

AvMA chief executive Peter Walsh said that anything less than full implementation of Robert Francis QC?s recommendation would lead to an ?unsafe NHS?.

In a letter to the Health Secretary, he said it would be a ?disastrous and costly error of judgment?.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...n-nhs-reforms-would-betray-patients-1-5376472

 

[trophywench]

I'm part of a Quality Review of a hospital in my extended area this coming week. Something DUK suggested and I volunteered for - for Long Term Conditions. Each discipline has a review team made up of HCPs and at least one 'User' - I'm 'it' for the adult diabetes clinic there.

Who are my two 'best mates' doing this with me? - a DSN and a Consultant, both from other hospitals, who have also volunteered.

So they already are reviewed by their peers. The only thing is, there's a set list of things they have to comply with and it's only them we will be checking. Do you do X? - hopsital says Yes. Prove it we say. They produce their proof. We then ask the patients, have they received whatever it is.

It looks fairly robust, BUT - the only thing I am doubtful about is - they have to provide these patients at a certain time so we can talk to em - so I wanna know how they recruit em. Like would my clinic say eg 'Well we'll not ask Jenny cos she'll tell em about when we cocked up whatever'

 

[LeeLee]

Hi TW, though this isn't directly related it might help. When doctors have their appraisals, feedback from colleagues is part of the process. Those who choose their mates tend to have slightly lower scores than those who opt for more neutral participants. Maybe the mates say what they REALLY think under the cloak of anonymity, or don't want the feedback to sound too good to be true and over-compesate. Who knows?