Archive for November, 2010

Keeping medical records - guidance for doctors

By Dr Sally Old, MDU medico-legal adviser - 30th November 2010 5:54 pm

The MDU has developed new guidance for doctors embarking on their first consultant post. In the fourth of a series of articles guiding you through the more common non-clinical challenges you might face, we provide tips on perfecting your record keeping.

Imagine the scenario. A doctor sees a patient who is semi-conscious and decides to give her a penicillin-based antibiotic. They consult the notes which make no mention of any allergy, administer the drug, only for the patient to have a severe allergic reaction and need resuscitation.

The doctor later realises that they had unfortunately been looking at the wrong patient’s notes. The actual notes include details of the patient’s allergy and the hospital doctor realises she is also wearing a wristband warning of her allergy.

This extreme case, though fictionalised, provides a stark example of the value to patient care of effective records. As no one’s memory is wholly reliable, records provide a useful reminder of a course of events, steps taken, outcomes and further action required.

Records are primarily intended to support patient care and should authentically represent each and every consultation (including by telephone). Records can also remind you or another member of your team, of your care and management plan. The notes may become important later on, if there is a complaint or claim, which will typically be made months or years after a consultation.

The GMC guidance in Good Medical Practice (2006) makes clear that records are a fundamental part of a doctor’s duties. The GMC explains that in providing care, you must keep clear, accurate, legible and contemporaneous patient records which report the relevant clinical findings, the decisions made, the information given to patients and any drugs or other treatment prescribed.

Electronic records

Records of patient consultations are now often held electronically. While entering the notes of a consultation on a computer may ensure they are legible, it also requires care - for example, in ensuring that information is attributed to the correct patient’s medical records.

Storing records

Records (including hand-written notes, computer-generated notes, blood test results, x-rays, copies of correspondence, photos or slides and theatre records) should be stored securely and protected against accidental loss, including corruption, damage or destruction. All records need to be kept secure and confidential at all times. Technology is not foolproof and regular back-ups should be made. It is advisable to consider keeping these securely at a different site.

Private patients

As a consultant in independent practice, you may also need to take on the added responsibility of managing your private patient’s medical records. Such records are the property of the individual doctor although patients have rights of access under the Data Protection Act 1998. Make sure that patients know what will happen to the data held about them and that they agree to its processing or disclosure. You will also need to register with the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Clinical records must be kept confidential at all times, including during transfer between sites, such as if your secretary works from home and you need to send data to him or her. It is also important to ensure any admin staff are aware of confidentiality obligations, for example, locking paper records away in a suitable filing cabinet and ensuring security of computer systems.

Retaining records

The Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001, Schedule 3, lays down minimum periods for the retention of private records, ranging from eight years for the majority of records to until the patient reaches 25 years old, for children’s records. The MDU advises that, if possible, records should be kept for beyond the prescribed periods, as claims do sometimes arise after these timescales, and it may prove difficult to successfully defend a claim without the records.

Ideally, all records should be reviewed before they are destroyed, and it is sensible to keep any patient records where there has been an adverse incident or complaint. Disposal should be carried out in such a way that protects patient confidentiality, for example, by shredding paper records. Computer-held records may be difficult to delete entirely from a hard drive and you may need to seek appropriate IT advice.

Tips for good record keeping

1. Write legibly

Take a little extra time and care to write legibly in paper records. While you may be able to read your own handwriting, can anyone else?

2. Include the date and time

Dated and timed hand-written notes will be invaluable if a claim arises several years later. Such details will clarify the sequence of events during your treatment of the patient, even though you may not be able to remember clearly what happened. With electronic records, the time and date will be automatically recorded.

3. Avoid abbreviations

What does PID mean? Prolapsed intervertebral disc or pelvic inflammatory disease? It may be clear to you, but could be ambiguous. If you must use abbreviations, limit them to those approved in your workplace.

4. Do not alter an entry or disguise an addition

Clinical notes should be made at the time of treatment or as soon as possible afterwards. If it transpires that the notes are factually incorrect, for example, an entry has been made in the wrong patient’s records, then the amendment must make this clear. Errors should be scored out with a single line so the original text is still legible and the corrected entry written alongside with the date, time and your signature. Never try to insert new notes. Computer records have an ‘audit trail’ that will allow alterations to be discovered. Tampering with records has led to GMC investigations.

5. Avoid unnecessary comments

Offensive, personal or humorous comments are unprofessional, often misunderstood and could damage your credibility. Patients have a right to access their records and a flippant remark in the notes might be difficult to explain to a judge or GMC fitness to practise panel.

6. Check dictation and reports

Letters dictated and then typed up later by a secretary should be checked, corrected and signed by the doctor who dictated them. Errors can arise due to problems with the quality of recording or simple misunderstandings of medical terminology.

You will need to see, evaluate and initial every report or letter before it is filed in the patient’s records. Most results are electronically transmitted, so care should be taken to record abnormal findings in the clinical records and document any appropriate action.

The MDU’s new consultant pack contains 18 factsheets on subjects such as communicating with patients and colleagues, good record keeping, supervising staff and marketing and media. The pack is available free to the MDU’s consultant members.

“Stick to fruit and veg” GP leader tells Sainsbury’s

Pulse - 5:13 pm

The RCGP has savaged plans by supermarket giant Sainsbury’s to launch a nationwide general practice network, with new chair Dr Clare Gerada warning against a ‘conveyor-belt’ approach to healthcare delivery.

Pulse exclusively revealed last week that the supermarket chain plans to offer free premises at up to 204 of its stores to encourage GPs to set up branch surgeries, in a bid to increase its customer footfall.

The company is launching a series of national roadshows this week to sign up GPs to the project, hoping to have at least 40.

However, Dr Clare Gerada, RCGP chair, said: “Supermarkets should stick to selling fruit and vegetables. General practitioners would be sanctioned for selling tobacco products, alcohol and high calorie foods or advertising and selling products of limited medical value within their surgeries. Yet, supermarkets can do all of these alongside providing pharmacy and now, general practice care.”

Read more at Pulse.

Councils empowered by public health white paper

The Guardian - 5:04 pm

The government has promised ringfenced funding of £4bn to improve the nation’s health by tackling issues such as smoking, obesity and excessive drinking.

The centrepiece of the much-heralded public health white paper is the move to hand responsibility and power to local authorities, together with the ringfencing of the budget. Under the previous government public health funds were raided in a frantic bid to pull cash-strapped hospitals out of deficit.

Part of the money will go to local authorities, while the rest will be spent by a new central body, called Public Health England, which will organise national programmes such as immunisation and screening. The money will also fund research into effective ways of persuading people to take better care of their health.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said public health officials would rather have a ringfenced £4bn baseline than not, but agreed they would want more. “They will be looking over time for increases in that,” he said.

Lansley called the white paper a radical plan to tackle the causes of premature death and ill health. Public health was also about the environment, poverty, education and housing, which were key concerns of local authorities. “People’s health and wellbeing will be at the heart of everything local councils do. It’s nonsense to think that health can be tackled on its own,” he said. “Directors of public health will be able to champion local co-operation so that health issues are considered alongside housing, transport, and education.

“Everyone should have services tailored for them, at the right times in their life from the professionals closest to them. With local authorities in the driving seat, supported by the latest evidence on behaviour change from Public Health England, we will start seeing significant improvements in the nation’s health.”

Read more in The Guardian.

Medical students run risk of unemployment

By Francesca Robinson - 11:31 am

Two per cent of final year medical students will not receive a place on a 2011 Foundation Programme when places are allocated in December.

The UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) has confirmed that the programme starting in August next year is oversubscribed following an unprecedented surge of 1,600 extra applications.

Applications will now be ranked in score order and the 7,073 top scoring students will be placed on a primary list to be allocated places on 8 December.

The surplus 184 applicants will be placed on a reserve list and are likely to be allocated a place by next summer and probably by March.

Based on previous years figures around 400 applicants are expected to withdraw between allocation of places in December and the start of the Foundation Programme in August. Last year about 200 applicants failed their final exams and others withdrew for personal reasons such as to go travelling or start a family.

Professor Derek Gallen, UKFPO national director, said: “I am confident that all eligible applicants will be placed by next summer. Although we are pleased that nearly 98% of students will be allocated during December, we appreciate that this is a time of uncertainty for those who will not know what foundation school they are going to for another few months.”

Applicants on the reserve list will have a dedicated contact person in their medical school to provide them with support and advice.

The BMA said it would be closely monitoring the UKFPO’s contingency plan. It is unacceptable for any UK medical graduate to be in a position where they might not be able to start a job as a junior doctor after medical school,” said Karin Purshouse, chair of the BMA’s medical students committee.

“The UKFPO have given the BMA assurances that their contingency plan will mean that no medical graduate is left without a post by August. However, the UKFPO must take all necessary steps to ensure that their contingency plan works effectively,” she said.

Dr Shree Datta, co-chair of the BMA’s junior doctors committee, added: “It is important, given this year’s problems that we begin immediate work to examine how we can prevent any repeat next year. Given the financial investment to train a doctor, ministers and the UKFPO have a responsibility to make sure that there is no repeat of these issues in the future.”

Read more about the contingency plan and how the reserve list allocations will work.

Lansley promises radical approach to public health

The Guardian - 29th November 2010 3:24 pm

Tobacco companies could be forced to put their cigarettes in plain packaging while sales of cut-price alcohol face a ban, health secretary Andrew Lansley said.

While Lansley has shown a pro-market approach in his NHS reforms, he admitted on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show that state intervention is sometimes necessary to protect people from themselves. His public health white paper, to be launched on Tuesday, will offer a raft of proposals that range from the voluntary to “nudges” in the right direction to outright changes in the law.

Although he said he was not keen on regulation, “we have tried a lot of things and we do need occasionally to intervene. But more than that we need to support people. Especially some of the poorest in our society need to have the greatest support because health inequalities are too wide.

“We need to deliver improvements in the health of the poorest in this country the fastest.”

Read more in The Guardian.

Time to shine some light on shadowy PFI contracts

By Oliver Huitson - 11:50 am

The billions of pounds worth of commitments tied up in Britain’s ‘public-private’ state must be opened up to transparency and scrutiny, argues an Our Kingdom report.

The spending review promised £81 billion worth of cuts over the next four years. Whilst services face the deepest cutbacks in generations, billions of pounds a year will still need to be found to finance our PFI commitments. Amidst all the talk from government ministers of ‘efficiency’ savings, there has been almost no mention of PFI and its legacy on the public purse.

There have already been warnings about the ability of the NHS to maintain service levels under the increasing burden of PFI repayments. Welfare and benefits are also due to be slashed, leading to a substantial fall in living standards for people across the country. Against this backdrop the public will continue to pay billions of pounds a year for schemes they are unable to scrutinise. The position is no longer tenable. For the coalition’s principles to rise above mere rhetoric, the PFI contracts must be released.

The Our Kingdom report sets out the urgent need for an extension to the present Freedom of Information Act to encompass all contracts within the public-private sector, including PFI. The public-private sector is estimated to be worth £80bn a year in Britain. Despite the enormous sums involved and the regular stream of controversy that PFI has provoked, the contracts under which the public will pay these vast amounts remain private.

The coalition government has put great emphasis on transparency and accountability, the right of the public to know exactly how their money is being spent. There is no such thing as a transparent state under which £260bn of public commitments remain shielded from scrutiny. At a time of serious economic austerity, the case becomes unanswerable.

PFI is a model of public procurement under which the private sector raises the finance and funds the construction of public buildings such as hospitals and schools. This is then repaid by the public who lease the buildings from the private contractors, typically on 30-year contracts. To attract private interest, significant profit margins are required. From the Treasury’s own figures, we are already committed to paying £260bn for buildings valued at only £60bn.

The contracts under which the schemes operate are exempt from Freedom of Information requests for reasons of “commercial confidentiality”.

As the report shows, from its inception, PFI has proved extremely controversial and in serious need of public scrutiny to ensure taxpayer value. The Skye Bridge, Britain’s first PFI venture, cost the public an estimated £93m pounds, all considered, for a bridge that should have cost £15m. As part of the agreement, the ferry crossing was closed on the day the bridge opened, removing any other means of making the crossing. The consortium then charged what were believed to be the highest per mile tolls in the world: £5.70 for a 1 mile crossing.

And so PFI has continued, from charging over £300 to replace lightbulbs, to making police officers phone a hotline to get toilet roll replaced to a scheme that made a 662% return for its investors.

The history of PFI has been a one of frequent failure, unaccountability and extraordinary levels of state largesse. To make matters worse, a number of former ministers and civil servants have gone on to work for the very firms rewarded under the PFI give away.

PFI should not be considered a party-political issue. It was a Conservative creation initially, but the majority of PFI schemes were signed off under the last Labour government. In opposition, both Vince Cable, business secretary, and George Osborne, now chancellor, voiced strong criticisms of PFI. In 2009, Vince Cable labelled PFI: “a dishonest system of accounting, designed to hide taxpayers’ liabilities”. That same year George Osborne told us: “The first step is transparent accounting, to remove the perverse incentives that result in PFI simply being used to keep liabilities off the balance sheet… Labour’s PFI model is flawed and must be replaced”.

In government, however, business has continued much as usual; Osborne has already signed off his first PFI project. With all three major parties implicated, there is unlikely to be any call for action from within Westminster. The last time the collective secrecy of the political class was challenged the results were dramatic: the expenses scandal.

David Cameron has said that: “Greater transparency is at the heart of our shared commitment to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.” With deep and rapid cuts across the public sector, the case for extending transparency to Britain’s substantial PFI commitments could not be stronger.

Read the full report.

The BMA’s view on PFI.

This article first appeared on the Open Democracy website.

Hospital death rates improving, analysis suggests

BBC Health - 10:48 am

An analysis of deaths in English hospitals has found 19 NHS trusts have higher rates than would be expected.

But monitoring body Dr Foster’s report on 147 trusts shows an improvement on 2009, when the figure was 27. The survey also shows that four trusts had a higher than expected number of patients who died after surgery.

The NHS Confederation said the report showed where the NHS “could do better”. The government says unsafe care will not be tolerated.

Hospitals with higher-than-expected death rates were: Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust; City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust; Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust; George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust; Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust; Isle Of Wight NHS PCT; Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust; Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust; South London Healthcare NHS Trust; Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust; The Dudley Group Of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust; University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; and, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust.

Read more at BBC Health.

GPs frozen out of running community services

Pulse - 10:41 am

Government figures show GPs have won just 4% of almost £10bn worth of NHS cash being divested as part of controversial moves to formally separate PCTs commissioning and provider arms by April 2011.

The Department of Health has revealed that acute trusts, mental health and new community foundation trusts have swallowed up the majority of the £8.5bn worth of services to have been divested to date, with GPs largely frozen out of the race.

GPs and other community-based providers have gained control of just 4% of the total budget, a situation described as “depressing” by the NHS Alliance, which said GPs had “no chance” of putting winning bids together in such a tight timescale, and warned that the shift would hinder the Government’s GP commissioning agenda by giving too much power to large acute and mental health trusts.

A quarter of community services previously provided by PCTs have been transferred to the acute sector, with 28% going to mental health trusts, and 26% to new community foundation trusts.

Read more at Pulse.

Peers scrutinise private medical insurers

By Francesca Robinson - 9:43 am

Concerns about private medical insurers’ attempts to impose fixed fee schedules and restricted hospital networks on consultants are to be raised with the Financial Services Authority.

This follows a debate in the House of Lords during which Lord Walton, a neurologist and former president of the GMC and the BMA, asked whether these practices were in the public interest. He told peers that consultants were battling to protect patient choice and continuity of care.

The Federation of Independent Practitioner Organisations (FIPO) has been campaigning against insurers’ attempts to drive down consultants’ fees and to cut costs by imposing financial penalties on patients who wish to see a consultant of their choice instead of a cheaper recommended consultant.

During the subsequent debate peers of all parties expressed concerns about a lack of transparency and clarity within some insurance policies. Lord Walton said AXA PPP and Bupa, the two biggest insurers, were the worst offenders.

Lord Crickhowell complained that restricted hospital networks meant that patients could no longer go to the doctor or hospital recommended by their GP but had to go to the ones in the restricted networks nominated by the insurance company.

Lord Sassoon, the commercial secretary to the Treasury, said he would convey the points raised in the debate to the FSA.

Private medical insurers have also been criticised in two other recent debates in the Lords. Earlier in November a debate on improving the quality and quantity of life for people with cancer revealed that many cancer patients often found themselves having to pay for further treatment or cease treatment altogether after finding they were no longer covered by their policies.

In June, former NHS chief executive, Lord Crisp, asked the government what controls they proposed to put in place to ensure that private health insurers adhered to their industry codes of practice. This debate heard that patient complaints to the Financial Ombudsman were increasing.

Mr Geoffrey Glazer, chairman of FIPO, said more and more patients were unaware of the restrictions in their policies until they needed them. “Our members are concerned about the impact the proposed changes will have on patients at a time when they are extremely vulnerable. We firmly believe that choice should be in the hands of the patients and care in the hands of doctors and we will work hard to uphold this belief,” he said.

Sue Moore, Bupa Health and Wellbeing’s director of marketing, said hospital and consultant networks ensured high clinical standards whilst also controlling costs for their customers. She said: “It is our view that if such networks did not exist, private healthcare costs could spiral leading to premium increases. Furthermore, we also believe that it is not in consultants’ interests because it could impact on the viability of their private practices. Ultimately, without these networks there could be a reduction in demand and income with obvious implications for both private and NHS hospitals.

At Bupa, she added, they took customers complaints very seriously and in the first half of 2010 resolved almost all (94%) complaints before they were escalated to the Financial Ombudsman.

A spokesman for AXA PPP said: “Our primary concern is to safeguard our customers’ interests and managing costs and keeping premiums affordable is an integral part of our approach to achieving this.”

Earlier this year the Financial Ombudsman reported that the number of complaints it received about private medical insurance in the year ending 31 March 2010 increased by 27% to 652 cases.

A spokeswoman for the FSA said: “We have ongoing conversations with the Treasury so if any issues about private medical insurers have been brought up in Parliament these will be brought to our attention.”

But she said they would also consider any information or concerns that any consultant or member of the public had about the behaviour of private medical insurers.

Big savings from back office efficiency in NHS

By Mike Broad - 9:27 am

£600m a year could be saved in the NHS by improving the efficiency of health organisation’s back office functions, a Department of Health review finds.

The review, published by the Foundation Trust Network and headed by Tony Spotswood, chief executive of Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals, concludes that back office services should be examined so that waste and activities which add little value are eliminated. This could involve standardising processes and sharing services to bring savings for GPs’ surgeries and non-clinical hospital functions such as reception and patient record keeping.

Foundation trusts and GP consortia could benefit in particular and functions considered for sharing and standardisation include finance, human resources, information management and technology, procurement, estates management, governance and risk, and payroll functions.

Spotswood said: “All trusts need to redefine what activities they do and how they do them. Health bodies should establish regular benchmarking to monitor their performance in comparison with similar organisations.

“There is genuine scope to redirect funds to front line services through the standardisation, simplification and sharing of back office services.”

Read the full report.