You learn to be tough as an NHS doctor. But starting my shift a few days ago, even I was shocked. I spotted a patient, clearly someone with severe mental health issues, stuck on the ward without proper care. I recognised them because I’d treated them myself — not a few hours ago, or even a few days ago, but a week ago. And yet there they were, stranded in A&E, not getting the help they so obviously required. Nor, of course, are they alone. From psychiatry to obesity to the elderly, emergency departments up and down the country are on the brink of collapse.
It’s clear, then, that the system needs reform. But what kind of reform? Wes Streeting seems sure he knows the answer. Last week, as my patient was wallowing on the ward, Streeting announced grand plans to introduce a “league table” for hospitals. Due to be rolled out next April, the Health Secretary is already promising to “name and shame” struggling trusts, with doctors and managers in the firing line too. Yet while Streeting is abrasively promising to “drive the health system to improve” — the truth is that his scheme is fundamentally flawed.
By obsessing over performance indicators, he’s ignoring the deep-seated issues that are actually failing people like my patient. Not scorecards: but funding. Not league tables: but inadequate staffing, and archaic IT systems, and waves of retirement that smash the health service’s institutional memory. Clearly, these problems predate the new Labour government. But in his eagerness to turn life and death into the Premier League, and at the risk of sounding like a member of the bureaucratic blob, Streeting will only boot genuine change aside.
Perhaps Streeting’s most obvious problem is his tone. Unveiling his reforms to the NHS’s 1.5 million workers, he (presumably inadvertently) employed the style of an angry football coach. Yet if his bedside manner is notable only by his absence — his soundbites about “failing trusts” will only alienate the very clinicians tasked with delivering care — the real problem is what hospital league tables imply. Under Streeting’s provisions, any failure to deliver improved outcomes won’t be the fault of the immense structural problems facing the health service. Rather, it’ll be my fault, and the fault of other hard-working doctors and nurses, whose only mistake was treating challenging cases without the resources to cope.
Nor will the Government’s plan simply create tension between hospitals and the public they serve. Rather, Streeting’s confrontational approach will also exacerbate the “us and them” dynamic that already exists between clinicians and managers. The moment a poor-performing hospital slides down the league table, after all, incompetent bosses and careerist trust executives will do what they always do when under the cosh themselves: bully clinicians.
It goes without saying, of course, that quite aside from the toxic environment this inevitably creates, such an approach won’t actually improve care. Rather than focusing on treating their charges thoughtfully and professionally, doctors will instead be pushed to simply hit targets: all for the sake of the sainted league table. That, in turn, means the quality of patient care will decline. Let me give you a few examples. Surgical waiting times may drop, for instance, but only because crucial procedures are delayed or denied. At the same time, patients with severe mental health issues may be shunted through A&E, their care ignored in the scramble to meet discharge targets.
All it takes is one misstep and a hospital’s reputation will be ruined — league table or no league table. Nor is patient care the only concern here. Between understaffing and burnout, healthcare professionals are operating under immense strain. The prospect of having their workplace “named and shamed” as a “failing” hospital will only compound these pressures, inevitably leading to an exodus of talent from the health service. There are other second-order dangers here too. Consider, for instance, what will happen to the desirability of places with “high-performing” hospitals, a gap that’ll inevitably widen preexisting societal divisions yet further. Think I’m being paranoid? Just look at how school league tables are now hooked to property prices.
Just as important, Streeting’s initiative risks creating opportunities for private healthcare vultures. The precedent of the private prison industry, where for-profit companies have seized on the shortcomings of the public jails, is a cautionary tale here. Should the Government’s league table policy create the perception of a “two-tier” NHS, with “successful” hospitals thriving and “failing” ones crumbling, it could provide the perfect justification for an expansion of private healthcare. It goes without saying that such a move would undermine the very foundations the NHS is built on, and condemn millions to the permanent gruel of underfunding. Then there’s the question of how you’d even build a league table worth the name. As the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) has rightly noted, simplistic comparisons are particularly challenging given hospitals are now merged into multi-site trusts.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that league tables are never appropriate — either in healthcare or elsewhere. Universities, after all, have long been ranked. But the point is that these decisions are based on a limited range of factors. Hospitals and healthcare trusts, to say nothing of the communities they’re located in, are clearly far more complex. Just look at the numbers: 45,500 people a day visit major hospital A&E departments in England. And while Alan Milburn did see success in reducing the NHS waiting lists during his tenure as Health Secretary during the New Labour years, the current waiting list hovers at around 7.7 million.
This immense scale speaks to the fundamental issue with Streeting’s proposals. Ultimately, the problems facing the health service can’t be solved by superficial performance management tools. Significant, sustainable improvements will instead require a comprehensive, evidence-based approach, one that empowers frontline staff; invests in infrastructure and training; and addresses the social determinants of health. Rather than this misguided initiative, the Government should focus its efforts on policies that put staff first. Any reforms that fail to recognise their expertise, and empower their leadership, are doomed to fail.
Beyond that broad principle, what could the Health Secretary do specifically? Improving social care is a start. But to do this, Streeting needs to understand what NHS trusts have in the way of social care provision — then dovetail that with strategies for getting patients out of oversubscribed wards, notably around boosting preventative measures around obesity and other social ills. The point, at any rate, is to understand hospitals as the local organisations they undoubtedly are: a hospital in Surrey clearly can’t be compared to one in Rochdale.
Streeting also needs to do away with the primary care rush for 8am GP slots, a phenomenon ultimately driven by sluggish telephone and online appointment systems. We equally need creative thinking around how to prod people away from A&E in all but the most critical cases. Why don’t trusts and local authorities think about health as a genuine priority, particularly in poorer areas where hospitals are dealing with a wellbeing crisis that goes far beyond emergencies? Do all this, it goes without saying, and the Department of Health may finally stop staff from leaving, along the way bolstering both care and the morale of workers.
In the short-term, though, the best the NHS can probably manage is merely to keep its head above water. Of course, that’s not the kind of vote-winning transformation Streeting is hoping for. But the challenges facing the health service are just too entrenched to be fixed through quick political fixes — let alone arbitrary league tables. As my wretched mental health patient so vividly proves, the system is just too far gone for that.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: UnHerd Read the original article here: https://unherd.com/