Archive for May, 2010

NHS London chief exec resigns over reorganisation

The Guardian - 28th May 2010 9:20 am

The head of the NHS in London, the biggest authority in the health service, has resigned over the government’s decision to halt a wave of hospital reorganisations, becoming the first major casualty in the life of the new coalition administration.

Sir Richard Sykes, chairman of NHS London since 2008, is said to be furious at the scrapping by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, of the review of healthcare in the capital. The review included possible A&E closures and the possible closure of some maternity units.

In a letter to Lansley, Sykes said it made “no sense” for him to continue, because “our visions of healthcare delivery bear so little in common”. He revealed that other NHS London board members were also “considering their positions”.

Lansley replied saying he was sorry Sykes was leaving, but “neither the government nor NHS London should dictate the decisions made”.

The new secretary of state had made it clear during the election campaign that he regarded Labour’s attempt to reorganise the NHS to cut costs as a flawed exercise. Opponents criticised him for promising in some cases to reverse decisions to shut down services - even when doctors had backed them.

NHS London, which employs 200,000 people, was at the forefront of producing a radical plan aimed at heading off a £5bn deficit in the capital’s health budget. It said London had a higher number of hospital beds than the national average and warned: “The current configuration of hospital services is not making best use of taxpayers’ money.”

Read more at The Guardian.

“No confidence in revalidation,” BMA tells GMC

By Mike Broad - 8:53 am

Revalidation must go back to the drawing board if it wants to win the support of the medical profession.

That’s the BMA’s hard-hitting feed back to the GMC’s current consultation Revalidation: the way ahead. 

The BMA said that, as they stand, doctors cannot support the plans and the union had little confidence in them. Council chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum wants detailed answers on a number of stumbling blocks, including questions about the funding of the revalidation programme.

He said: “While the BMA agrees with the principle of revalidation we believe the process is seriously undermined by a number of factors that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

“The BMA will resist any proposals that are overly bureaucratic and cumbersome and that ultimately will take doctors away from treating patients. It is essential that any system we have in place is fair for all doctors across the board. ”

The BMA’s key concerns include uncertainties over cost; the complexity of the royal colleges’ specialist standards to re-certify doctors; and, the role of the royal colleges in sitting on revalidation panels and effectively regulating their members.

All doctors were issued with a licence to practise last November and a series of revalidation pilots in both primary and secondary care settings are being run around the country.

Revalidation should also only be rolled out after the pilots are completed and evaluated, the BMA said.

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, replied that overall the BMA’s submission to the consultation appeared to welcome the GMC’s proposals.

He said: “There is a shared commitment that revalidation should not be overly burdensome or bureaucratic. We have made it clear that there are issues that need to be dealt with and more work to develop the approach - we have also made it clear that revalidation will only be introduced when all the systems are in place to ensure it works well for everyone.”

But Meldrum added: “The BMA is concerned that the proposed system will do very little to weed out underperforming doctors but will add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the doctor’s role. This does not make sense at a time when doctors are facing increasing pressure to spend more time with their patients. With the NHS facing cuts, this is not the time to spend invaluable resources on forcing doctors to dedicate time to box-ticking and form-filling exercises.”

Read the BMA’s response.

Read a blog on the issue 

Reform exemptions to prescription charges

By Mike Broad - 27th May 2010 3:32 pm

A wider definition of long-term conditions should be adopted when considering whether patients should be exempted from paying prescription charges, a report urges.

The review into prescription charges, led by Prof Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, says GPs should decide whether a patient should be exempted under a broad definition of long-term conditions.

A patient would qualify if they had a condition for at least six months and needed ongoing management of the condition. The exemption would last for three years.

However, health minister Simon Burns poured cold water on the plans, saying a decision on charges and exemptions cannot be made before the spending review due in the autumn.

The prescription charge is currently £7.20 and raises about £435m per year for the government.

The review, which was commissioned by the previous government, suggests that disagreement over whether a patient is suffering from a long term condition should be resolved using existing processes - there shouldn’t be an appeals process. Existing processes include seeking a second opinion, or joining another GP practice.

The review accepts its proposals will not be popular with GPs, particularly the potential to damage their relationship with patients if they decide their condition does not warrant exemption.

Prof Gilmore said: “Although this review was commissioned by the previous government in a more favourable financial climate, and, disappointingly, was not published or responded to by them, I believe it still represents a useful way forward for exempting patients with long-term conditions from prescription charges. 

“The present list of exempted conditions is outdated and arbitrary, and the approach in this respect has gained strong support from professional and patient groups alike.”

Last year, in England, cancer patients were added to the exemption list.

The BMA has called on the Department of Health to abolish prescription charges in England altogether, and Gilmore’s review also calls for consideration of wider reform.

Wales introduced free prescriptions in April 2007, and Scotland and Northern Ireland are currently reducing charges prior to free prescriptions in April 2011 and April 2010 respectively.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of BMA council, said: “The prescription charge system that presently applies in England is a mess. It is full of anomalies and runs counter to the principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use.

“These proposals are a step in the right direction and, as such, are to be welcomed. However, changes to the system short of abolition would still be unfair on the reduced number of patients who do not qualify for exemption. They would also run the risk of adding to bureaucracy, and increasing GPs’ workload.

“We really have to question whether the small financial benefit of retaining charges outweighs the many disadvantages of taxing the sick.”

Read the full report.

Can we have a coalition within the NHS?

By Stephen Campion - 9:49 am

I am beginning to enjoy this coalition business. The emergence of ‘new’ politics and the realisation that no single party has a monopoly on all the right (or wrong) answers somehow seems to have given a refreshing injection of enthusiasm, team working, and pulling together in the national interest.

So, if the warring Tories and Liberals can now work together is this a model that can be applied to the NHS? I hope so - but the signs are not good. Only this week I have been involved with a trust adamant that whatever the employment contract says, consultants not prepared to work weekends will face the threat of redundancy; another trust that has thrown a doctor’s rights under agreed disciplinary procedures out of the window; and yet another who frankly thought that DDA stood for the Dangerous Dog Act rather than the Disability Discrimination Act!

Listening to the Queen’s speech this week I had hoped that Her Majesty might have said: “My government will ensure that all staff working in the NHS will be treated fairly and with respect…” Although she let me down I can’t help but wonder whether this new style coalition, or working together, approach born from the ‘Dave and Nick love-in’ is worth trying in the management of our hospitals.

It can’t do any harm; it may actually do some good. My NHS coalition style of management would see Machiavelli replaced by consensus. Remember that speech of Margaret Thatcher when she was elected: “Where there is discord let there be harmony etc…”

That speech may have been cringe making to watch but the sentiment holds firm. Decades on perhaps we are only now beginning to understand that the NHS will only survive the challenging next few years through coalition of all its talents, and not by exploitation, bullying or fear.

Too old to have my GMC prejudices challenged

By Bob Bury - 26th May 2010 4:55 pm

I’ve got to go to a bullying and harassment course. Two and a half bloody hours. I thought the consultants’ forum on the trust intranet would be buzzing with ripe comments from disgruntled refuseniks, but no. A number of colleagues felt it was a good and necessary thing. And some of them were - wait for it - surgeons!

For God’s sake - when I sat the FRCS nearly 35 years ago, we had to do a whole module in bullying - methods; choosing a victim; deflecting the blame, that sort of thing. How times must have changed*. And anyway, I do rather resent the implication that I might be bullying our SpRs. No, as long as my tea and toast is waiting for me when I arrive in the morning, my car gets valeted once a week and they hand over their dinner money every day, the lazy little gobshites have nothing to fear from me.

Incidentally, it looks like being an interesting week for anyone who questions the GMC’s competence (i.e. anyone on the Medical Register). I see they’ve just struck Andrew Wakefield off for paying children to give blood as part of a research project for which he didn’t have the appropriate ethical clearance, and in which he had an undeclared financial interest.

Then there was the shock/horror programme on the telly about their ‘victimisation’ of Dr Myhill who was only doing her best for her patients. For those of us with a natural and, I believe, justified antipathy to the Hallam Street mafia, these cases make interesting reading. The initial reaction is to hope they get a good media kicking over the Myhill case, then you read her website and begin to wonder if they don’t have a point. Which would mean they had got it right twice in one week. I’m at an age where it’s unsettling to have your prejudices challenged in this way.

But to get back to the bullying course: one reluctant potential participant asked if our masters couldn’t make it an e-learning course, like all the other (hand-washing and bottom-wiping nonsense) training we have to pretend to absorb in order to get appraised, or revalidated, or canonised, or whatever it is we have to be in order to continue doing our jobs. But the answer was “no” - you have to be there in person apparently. And you know what that means, don’t you? Sodding role-playing. Well, I don’t do role-playing, not since I grew up, anyway (although I don’t suppose it will be a problem for the surgeons). I’m going to have to do something I haven’t done for 50 years; forge a note from my mum excusing me on the grounds of my innate diffidence and good taste.

And anyway - bullying is good for them.

*On the other hand, perhaps they haven’t. See Jerry Nelson’s latest column.

Nudity and day-time TV are no substitute for work

By Tom Goodfellow - 3:31 pm

It is 9am on Wednesday morning and the rest of the household (including the cats) have all departed to their various destinations. It’s just me and the dogs left facing an endless day together. You see I am still ‘on the sick’, signed off by my excellent GP Dr Keith (I promised I would write something nice about him). So what to do?

Start off by wandering round the house aimlessly wearing only underpants (or less). Now I don’t want to put you off your muesli and I realise that this is probably a man thing, but there is something strangely liberating about promenading throughout home and garden in the buff especially when the sun is shining, so long as family and neighbours are out and there is no one to laugh at you. However the dogs seem puzzled and are getting a tad over-friendly, so I put some kit on. I love them but I don’t want them licking my, err, legs. 

I refuse to get guilty about not taking them for a walk. “Sorry guys but I am supposed to be resting. It would not look good if someone from the department was to telephone to enquire about my health and I wasn’t in”. Eat healthy breakfast, yuk!

Spend thirty frustrating minutes trying to crack the security code on son’s computer. It surely can’t be that difficult – he is not the imaginative type. I want to find out exactly what he is up to and what sites he visits when he retires to his room and surfs away half the night with the door closed. He works for a company which, among other things, does a lot of work for the military and consequently has had to sign the Official Secrets Act. They have obviously taught him a few tricks because I fail to break in.

It is mid-morning so decide to watch daytime TV. It appears that Jason (shaven head, naff tee shirt, NEET) has impregnated his girlfriend Kylie (doughnut, acne). However her Mum Sharon (Croydon face-lift, smoker’s rattle) with whom she resides, has suddenly announced that she is also up the duff but she refuses to name the father. Although he denies it, Kylie is quite convinced that Jason has been two-timing her with her Mum and she is gutted. She thinks she will never be able to trust him again. At which point I scream and throw the remote at the TV. “Of course he is two-timing you, you silly bint, he is just a penis on two legs; surely you can see that?” Then realise that this is definitely not helping the blood pressure, so switch over to watch a DVD.

Avatar! Boy arrives with colonising army, meets (blue) native girl and falls in love. Boy goes native and joins with girl and other (blue) natives in defeating cruel colonisers. That largely sums up the story which has been told a thousand times before (and better), and the rest is pretty pictures reminiscent of Bambi. Did this garbage really cost $280m to make? Yawn and turn off after three minutes.

Check e-mails, 47 in total, all spam. Nothing from the hospital or my colleagues; have they forgotten me already? I am sure they cannot be coping without me, the department must be falling apart. Who will do the endo-anal scans? What about the poor junior doctors who relied on me to sort out all their problems? They must be missing me terribly. Or is it me missing them?

It’s only 11am! Please Dr Keith let me go back to work soon.

Soaring fees squeeze private practice earnings

By Francesca Robinson - 3:05 pm

The increasing cost of medico-legal cover is forcing some high earning surgeons to quit their private practice.

The Medical Protection Society has had to hike subscription rates for consultants in private practice by an average of 7.5% this year - more than twice the rate of inflation.  

“This reflects our experience of the last year, where we saw an increase in the cost of clinical negligence claims brought against hospital consultants,” said Dr Iain Barclay, MPS deputy medical director.

Neurosurgeons and spinal surgeons, classified as one of the highest risk categories, earning around £100,000 after expenses from their private practice now pay more than £35,000 a year for indemnity.

“Some of them are saying it’s just not worth it. Cover for this group of doctors is so high, not because there are a lot of claims made but because any claims that are made are likely to be catastrophic,” said Barclay.

MPS reviews specialist grouping within their grades every year. This year bariatric surgeons have been moved up a risk category while hand and upper limb surgeons dropped down a group.

The Medical and Defence Union of Scotland has increased its subscription rates on average for juniors by 2.33% and 3.32% for consultants.

Medical Defence Union rates have gone up by varying amounts. A neurosurgeon earning between £10,000 and £15,000 from private practice has not had any rise in their subscription fee for 2010, but those earning between £125,000 and £175,000 are paying 6% more. An ophthalmologist not doing refractive surgery and earning between £125,000 and £175,000 is paying 5% more, but a cardiologist or an anaesthetist earning the same amount is paying only 0.5% more.

Dr James Armstrong, the MDU’s head of underwriting, said: “Despite the rate of claims inflation remaining consistently above RPI, due to factors such as rising claimants’ solicitor costs and the increasing cost of providing long term care, sound financial management has enabled the MDU to limit any increase in subscriptions.”

According to the medical accountancy firm Stanbridge Associates some consultants are suffering additional pain from a fall in their private practice earnings. 

Vanessa Sanders, a Stanbridge director, said earnings from cosmetic surgery and laser eye treatment were down about 10%, probably as a result of reduced demand during the recession.

But some other groups are doing well - orthopaedic surgeons who have been picking up extra private work from PCTs contracting out NHS work, such as hip replacement operations, have enjoyed an increased income of between 7 to 12% in some parts of the country.

Some dermatologists, who are in one of the lowest risk groups for  medico-legal cover, have been enjoying a rise in private practice income of up 12-22%.

GMC to be given powers to test language skills

Healthcare Republic - 11:20 am

The GMC believes it is “highly likely” to be handed powers to test the English language ability of doctors from the European Economic Area (EEA) who want to work in the UK.

Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC, said it is now clear that it is UK legislation, not European legislation, that will need to change to allow the GMC to take responsibility for language testing.

“Over the past three or four months we have taken a clear and public stand about the issue of language testing,” he said.

Legal advice sought by the GMC revealed “that it is a consequence of UK legislation not the European legislation that we are currently unable to test the language skills of EEA medical graduates”, Professor Rubin said.

As a result, it is “highly likely” that the GMC will be able to test the language skills in the future, he added.

Professor Rubin also said the GMC was pleased that the issue of language testing of EEA doctors was included in the new government’s coalition.

Read more at Healthcare Republic.

What is Prof Sir Liam Donaldson’s legacy as CMO?

By Mike Broad - 11:01 am

It’s the Chief Medical Officer for England’s last week in office.

Prof Dame Sally Davies is primed to act as interim CMO after Prof Sir Liam Donaldson’s departure. There will be an open competition for the role during the summer.

What lessons should the next CMO learn from Sir Liam’s 12-year tenure?

Well, there are quite a few. On the positive side, they would do well to emulate his campaigning style on public health issues.

The smoking ban in public places, introduced in 2005, will be remembered as Sir Liam’s greatest success. He galvanised political support - threatening to resign over the issue - following John Reid’s appointment as health secretary, who was opposed to legislation.

He’s also been campaigning aggressively, if a little piously, over a minimum pricing structure for units of alcohol. That debate is set to continue, though it’ll take something from his successor to enthuse the Tories.

Also on the plus side was our preparedness for Swine Flu. I know he took criticism for sensationalising the risk but, having chaired a flu pandemic conference a few years back, the potential consequences are truly terrifying. I’m looking at it as a decent practice run for the next one (and I just don’t buy into the pharma company conspiracy theories).

Other good stuff includes his advocacy for presumed consent on organ donation and rapid introduction of the WHO’s surgical safety checklist.

But, like all journalists, I’m more interested in the bad stuff. When it comes to supporting the profession, Sir Liam doesn’t come up smelling of roses.

In the past couple of weeks his name has been bandied about the high court as part of a pressure group’s legal action against the GMC. Remedy has taken the GMC to court over the alleged blocking of a fitness to practise enquiry into the CMO. It concerns Donaldson’s management of the disastrous computerised recruitment system, MTAS, in 2007.

He was complicit in damaging - and in some cases destroying - the careers of a generation of young doctors, who either found themselves in the wrong jobs or unemployed.

As the Health Select Committee subsequently said: “Candidates and assessors alike were justifiably outraged by the sheer inadequacy of MTAS. The period between February and August 2007 was characterised by unrelenting chaos and severe anxiety for thousands of junior doctors…The reputation of both the Department of Health and the leaders of the profession were severely diminished.”

The judges will make their decision later this month but, whatever the outcome, MTAS represents a big black mark against Sir Liam’s name.

I’d also suggest revalidation counts against the positive public health legacy.

The Shipman Inquiry was highly critical the GMC’s approach to managing dangerous and incompetent doctors, and called for reform. Dame Janet Smith, chair of the Shipman Inquiry, went on to challenge the GMC’s initial plans for revalidation.

The GMC postponed the introduction of revalidation and the Chief Medical Officer reviewed revalidation afresh. It culminated in the current plans, which include re-licensing.

But revalidation, as currently envisaged, is an expensive and overly complicated way of proving competence. It’s in danger of becoming a meaningless paper chase for the overwhelming majority of doctors.

So, what are the lessons for the next CMO? I’d suggest the first thing they do is clarify the role. On the DoH website, the CMO is described as the ‘UK government’s principal medical adviser and the professional head of all medical staff in England’.

The successes of the role have been in providing independent advice to the government on public health issues (and then campaigning hard for appropriate action).

However, when it came to being the ‘professional head of all medical staff’, the CMO appeared little more than a ‘Nulabour’ stooge.

If I were CMO for England, (Lord help us should it come to pass), I’d either get that bit struck from the job spec or take a crash course in understanding the real professional issues affecting medicine. So Dame Sally, if you want the job in a permanent capacity, you have been warned…

Read a summary of the CMO’s final annual report.

CMO’s view of 2009: swine flu, alcohol pricing and quality

By Mike Broad - 9:33 am

Prof Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, stands down this week. He’s been in post for 12 years, during the same period as the Labour government. His annual reports provide an interesting snapshot of the evolving health priorities over that period. His final one was released recently with little fanfare. Here’s a summary of the year and ongoing priorities, in his own words:

1. Swine flu

The predominant challenge of 2009 was the emergence of the first influenza pandemic for 40 years. From Mexico, the illness spread fast around the world. England was amongst the first countries to have cases of what was rapidly confirmed as a new flu virus - influenza A/H1N1.

England was well prepared. Initial efforts to slow transmission were maintained for several weeks. Inevitably, the number affected grew. A growing number of people were admitted to hospital. In June 2009, the country sadly saw its first death.

Demonstrating the unusual way in which pandemic flu viruses behave, rates of infection continued to swell into the summer months. General practice felt much of the strain, and handled it well.

When the strain was approaching a critical level, the National Pandemic Flu Service was activated. This was an entirely novel concept for the country, and formed an important part of the pandemic plan. The public had never previously been able to access an internet and telephone based diagnostic and treatment service that provided medication when appropriate. The National Pandemic Flu Service was well used, and relieved significant pressure on the mainstream NHS.

As summer turned to autumn, the picture was mixed. There had been deaths. Hospital capacity had been stretched significantly, particularly in intensive care. But rates of infection had peaked in August 2009 and were falling. For most people, the disease was milder than had been anticipated based on the early information from Mexico.

Some have called the public health response to the pandemic an overreaction. In so doing, they draw attention to the overall costs of antiviral drugs and vaccines. They speak of the relatively small number of deaths compared with previous influenza pandemics and seasonal influenza outbreaks. In describing the number of deaths in the present pandemic, they often use the prefix ‘only’. In response, it is important to ask a number of questions. Would it have been acceptable not to plan as well as we did for a pandemic nor procure countermeasures? Having done so, and in the face of emerging, worrying evidence from the first phase of the pandemic in Mexico, would it have been right not to deploy existing countermeasures and not to strengthen our holdings? Would it have been acceptable to hide and conceal statistical projections provided by statistical modellers of international standing, even though releasing them publicly caused alarm in some quarters? Would it have been right to take the view that it was acceptable to ‘tolerate’ a certain number of deaths, considering them low enough to accept, when a way of preventing them was available?

In the first pandemic of the 21st century, we had the option of fighting the illness to protect children and adults from its adverse consequences. It is vital that we learn from what we have seen in this pandemic, for the sake of those who find themselves tackling - and affected by - the next. It is likely to be worse.

2. Alcohol consumption

I made several recommendations, including the introduction of a minimum price per unit of alcohol. I have been pleased to see public health and medical leaders engaging so widely with this issue. Many of its representative bodies have spoken out in favour of a minimum price policy, including the Royal College of Physicians and the BMA. In July 2009, I gave evidence to the parliamentary Health Select Committee’s inquiry into alcohol. Its report, published in January 2010, also calls for a minimum price per unit. The price of alcohol is a crucial determinant of its consumption. Tackling the substantial harms caused by alcohol in this country requires this decisive action.

I remain concerned about young people’s drinking. The evidence shows that 11 to 17 year olds drink 20 million units of alcohol (the equivalent of 9 million pints of beer or 2 million bottles of wine) every week. Young people who binge drink in adolescence are more likely to be binge drinkers as adults, and have an increased risk of developing alcohol dependence. In December 2009, I published guidance on the consumption of alcohol by children and young people. I advised that an alcohol free childhood is the healthiest and best option.

3. High Quality Care for All

Published in 2008, Lord Darzi’s report High Quality Care for All marked an important milestone. Its central tenet is that quality should be the ‘organising principle’ of the NHS. It aims to set the health service on a path defined by the quality of its care. It seeks to promote quality from being the focus of specific workstreams to being at the heart of how the service operates and thinks.

In 2009, the health service began working on a particularly key means of achieving this. It has been collecting the necessary data to produce ‘Quality Accounts’ for 2009/10. Trusts will report their key measures of quality in the same way in which they report their key measures of financial performance. This is vitally important. Focus shifts to where measurement is made. The act of making and reporting measurements of quality will itself catalyse improvement, helping the NHS to continue developing the quality of the service that it provides to patients.

4. Surgical errors

The 2007 Annual Report, describing surgical safety, highlighted the fact that over 100,000 errors involving surgical patients were reported to the National Patient Safety Agency in that year.

My report recommended that clinical teams should pilot the World Health Organization’s Surgical Safety Checklist. A subsequent pilot study of this checklist involved hospitals in London and seven other locations around the world. It demonstrated that using the checklist could reduce the risk of death and postoperative complications significantly. In 2009, the National Patient Safety Agency started to implement its use nationwide. By late 2009, 80% of hospital trusts in England joined the implementation of this important work.

5. Women in medicine

The proportion of doctors who are women has been climbing rapidly over recent years. It now stands at 41%. In my 2006 Annual Report, I discussed some of the particular issues that this group faces. I formed a National Working Group on Women in Medicine to consider the issues and to develop solutions. I was pleased to receive its report in October 2009. The group proposes a series of steps to enhance opportunities for female doctors. The report makes clear recommendations for a number of bodies, including government departments, universities and NHS employers.

6. Discrimination

On a similar theme, my 2007 Annual Report drew attention to the barriers of racial discrimination that still exist within the medical profession. Substantial improvements have occurred in recent years, but work remains to be done. In 2009, I chaired a series of roundtable meetings on this issue. These brought together high level representatives from the NHS, the GMC and royal colleges. I am pleased by the progress that many of the national bodies are making in this area. I hope that this important issue will continue to receive the attention it deserves.

7. Revalidation

I am also pleased with the progress that is being made to introduce revalidation for doctors. In 2009, the GMC introduced the necessary categories of registration that will allow doctors to obtain and renew their licence to practise. The Department of Health has established a series of pilot sites through which the operational details of revalidation will be tested and refined. I hope that doctors will welcome revalidation. Between qualification and retirement, competence is simply assumed at present. For the vast majority, this assumption is justified. The revalidation process will allow doctors to move from assumption to demonstration. The process will also play an important part in identifying the small number for whom the current assumption is flawed.

Read the full report.