Archive for March, 2011

Revalidation procedures will be tightened

By Mike Broad - 31st March 2011 4:49 pm

The Department of Health has pledged to tighten up revalidation procedures to intervene earlier over poorly performing doctors, in the wake of Health Select Committee recommendations.

The all-party group of MPs claimed that revalidation processes were in danger of being too light touch, focusing on remediation rather than removing problem doctors from contact with patients.

The committee recommended that ‘the need to identify inadequate and potentially dangerous doctors must not be overlooked or diminished in the general move to use revalidation to eliminate unsatisfactory practice and improve overall performance’.

The government responded that ‘in essence, revalidation provides a positive affirmation of a doctor’s fitness to practise. Alongside this, enhanced systems of appraisal, clinical governance and responsible officers that underpin revalidation must be robust enough to identify and tackle poor performance at an early stage’.

Work is currently underway, the government said, to provide the necessary training for responsible officers to be able to identify and manage concerns. GMC guidance will detail which sanctions should be given when a doctor’s performance is poor under revalidation, and when fitness to practise procedures should be triggered.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley welcomed the report’s recommendations. He said: “Maintaining rigorous standards is critical to offering good care. Patients and the public have the right to expect that the doctors who care for them are up to date and fit to practise.

“All NHS organisations had to nominate or appoint a responsible officer from 1 January. Their role is key to ensuring robust, consistent and fair confirmation of doctors’ fitness to practise that will support revalidation. Patient safety is paramount. We will continue to work closely with the GMC and other bodies to test revalidation to ensure the system is effective, supports high quality care and provides confidence to patients and the public.”

Read the full response.

Lack of ITU equipment “leading to deaths”

BBC Health - 2:43 pm

The lack of a cheap and simple breathing monitor on NHS intensive care wards is causing unnecessary patient deaths, warn doctors.

The Royal College of Anaesthetists says using a capnograph may avoid over 70% of breathing-related deaths on UK intensive care wards.

A capnograph can detect problems as soon as they occur and immediately alert staff to intervene. It is already used almost universally in operating theatres.

It works by detecting carbon dioxide in exhaled breath to confirm that the patient is breathing sufficiently. But only a quarter of intensive care units in the UK use the device, according to this latest report.

Read more at BBC Health.

Elderly care pathways hived off in new NHS market

Pulse - 9:52 am

NHS managers have approved plans for entire care pathways for elderly patients and those with respiratory and musculoskeletal problems to be put out to tender, in a radical expansion of market forces in the health service.

This plans - signed off by NHS East of England - will hand private firms, NHS providers or acute trusts a fixed amount of money, creating an ‘incentive’ to increase profit margins by delivering cheaper care out of hospital for frail and elderly patients and those with respiratory and musculoskeletal problems.

This week the SHA confirmed it had given the go ahead for NHS South East Essex to launch a competitive tender process for its entire musculoskeletal care pathway and NHS Luton is also set to go to the market for NHS and private firms to take on its pathway for frail and elderly patients.

Read more at Pulse.

Education needs multi-disciplinary approach

By Mike Broad - 9:09 am

Proposed reforms to medical education and training have received a mixed reaction from doctors’ representatives.

Under the Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce proposals, a new body - Health Education England - would hold funding for training centrally, and distribute it to local skills networks. Postgraduate medical deaneries would be abolished and local trusts would have more control.

The Royal College of Surgeons welcomed the principles for reform but questioned whether it would lead to a divergence in training programmes.

The BMA, however, described the reforms as rushed and ill-conceived in its consultation response. It fears ‘geographical inconsistencies in the quality of training’ and diminished focus on medical research and education.

JDC co-chair Dr Tom Dolphin said: “There is no reason to abolish deaneries and the idea that employers would want to take on their functions is not tenable.”

The RCS said a conflict of interest could be created by trusts quality assuring themselves, in its consultation submission. The college believes that the professional elements of training - selection, rotation, assessment of trainees and quality assurance of posts - should be dealt with by professional bodies such as the royal colleges.

The RCS supports the establishment of Health Education England however, and believes it offers an opportunity to better focus training on patients. Medical Education England, which oversees training for doctors, dentists and pharmacists, would be replaced with one body that controls the training for all healthcare workers.

It also suggests there should be a multi-disciplinary approach to training, with surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses and operating department practitioners all being managed by the same training programme.

Professor John Stanley, vice-president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: “The principles of the government plans for reforming medical education are fully supported by the Royal College of Surgeons and provide a great opportunity to refocus training on safe delivery of patient care.

“Currently the focus on individual disciplines is too inward looking and the reality of medicine is that patients get the best results when teams of healthcare workers are strong, with mutual understanding and respect for one another’s roles. If the new system is to have confidence and consistency across the country then independent quality assurance is vital and medical royal colleges are perfectly placed to deliver this.”

The RCS does express concern over the responsibility for medical CPD, which is currently held by Medical Education England - it fears it could be handed employers with no oversight by Health Education England nor measures to protect it from local budgetary pressures.

Read the full proposals.

NHS told to improve buying of high-tech equipment

BBC Health - 30th March 2011 11:41 am

The NHS in England risks wasting money on the purchase of high-tech equipment such as scanners, a watchdog says.

The National Audit Office looked at “high value” products such as CT and MRI scanners and radiotherapy machines known as linacs. It warned that half of all these would need replacing in the next three years at a cost of about £460m.

But it said the NHS risked not getting value for money because it was not collaborating on buying the equipment.

The warning echoes similar concerns raised by the watchdog in February about the purchase of everyday supplies such as bandages and paper clips.

Then, the NAO said £500m a year could be saved through more joined up procurement.

Read more at BBC Health.

Scotland producing poorly trained doctors

By Mike Broad - 9:39 am

The Scottish government has to take urgent action if it is to avoid creating a generation of inadequately trained doctors and compromising patient safety.

This is a warning from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh which believes there are major problems with medical training throughout Scotland and the UK, and it threatens the sustainability of the health service north of the border.

The college believes the government has been unresponsive to successive reports and surveys which suggest the traditional balance between training and the provision of direct patient care has been eroded, with many juniors being required to plug gaps in hospital rotas.

A recent Scottish Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ survey of trainees reveals that only 42% believe they would be adequately trained by the end of their specialty training.

The 2010 research also showed that 15 months after the implementation of the working time regulations more than 70% of respondent trainees stated that their rotas were not compliant in reality. Because of this, the college fears the full impact of the working time regulations may yet to be realised.

The college says there are insufficient numbers of doctors in some hospitals to safely staff rotas, particularly out-of-hours, leading to a number of patient safety incidents or ‘near misses’.

Furthermore, many consultants have insufficient time within their job plans to adequately supervise the training of juniors.

The college is recommending a series of measures which must be adopted by the incoming Scottish government as an urgent priority. These include guaranteeing protected training time for juniors, and for consultants involved in supervising training, thus readjusting the balance between service and training.

The government has to ensure that NHS Boards, as doctors’ employers, recognise these training needs.

It also has to account for training time when planning future workforce numbers, and protect patient access to consultants.

Dr Neil Dewhurst, president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, said: “Successive reports and surveys have highlighted major problems within the NHS in relation to the training of doctors and their ability to provide high quality patient care. We have now reached a tipping point, where this evidence can no longer be ignored or considered in isolation. Instead, it is imperative that policymakers look at the totality of this evidence and recognise the fundamental problems which exist.

“It is essential that we safeguard the future ability of the NHS in Scotland to deliver safe, high-quality, patient care. To do this, we need to ensure an adequately planned, trained and resourced medical workforce. Failure to do so could lead to a generation of inadequately trained doctors and in turn, compromise patient safety. This would not be in the interests of patients, doctors or policymakers and we urge politicians from all parties to recognise the gravity of this situation and to commit to the recommended actions.”

The college is urging the Scottish and UK governments to secure a “relaxation” of the working time regulations, and to expand the medical workforce - a proposition it acknowledges as “unpalatable” in the current financial climate.

Medical organisations are currently submitting views to the European Commission, as part of its review of the Working Time Directive.

UK bodies are seeking changes in the way time spent on-call is counted and more flexibility in the timing of compensatory rest.

Last year’s Temple Review recognised that as a result of working less hours juniors were being less well trained, and called for a fully consultant-delivered health service.

Later that year, the Collins Review of Foundation Training found that many young trainees are being required to practice beyond their competence and without adequate supervision.

Dr Kerri Baker, chair of the college’s trainees committee, said: “Trainee doctors report feeling disillusioned and let down by their training experience gained within the NHS. Many believe they are gaining insufficient training to enable them to function safely and efficiently as the consultants of the future and are also increasingly used only to plus gaps in hospital rotas, often being forced to sacrifice quality training for service provision.

“It is vital that they receive protected, quality training time which will enable them to become fully trained to provide the standard of specialist care rightly expected by patients.”

Read a blog on the issue.

Keeping a lid on my personal views of patients

By Tom Goodfellow - 29th March 2011 3:57 pm

During our professional life we all encounter patients with significant physical disabilities, both congenital and acquired. The majority carry their burdens with dignity, stoicism and frequently surprising cheerfulness. But recently I have had a run of patients who demonstrated quite the opposite behaviour.

The first was a chap in his forties. “Be careful with him” muttered the reception staff, “He is a regular and is always complaining.”

Sure enough he entered the ultrasound room in a wheelchair accompanied by his carer, a depressed dowdy lady of uncertain age. “Do you expect me to get onto that fucking bed,” was his opening comment. Smiling politely I remarked that since I was to scan his abdomen it would be a help.

Accompanied by a multitude of moans and groans he shifted his backside onto the couch and then ostentatiously manually lifted each leg from the wheelchair seat and placed it on the couch. Of course he could not lie down because it “set his head off”, so we compromised on a half-way house. The jelly (pleasantly warm) was “effing freezing” and even the lightest pressure with the probe was agonising - no one had ever experienced the pain he was suffering. Unsurprisingly the scan was normal. Indeed for a man who, it would seem, could not walk he had very well developed psoas muscles.

In response to his inevitable demand for a diagnosis I admitted that I did not have one. He did not believe me; apparently I was hiding something from him. Well of course he was right! I was deliberately not telling him that I thought he was a lying, obnoxious malingerer who was undoubtedly fraudulently claiming benefits for his non-existent illnesses.

A quick glance through his previous examinations (one of the benefits of PACS) showed multiple CTs, MRIs and USs over the last six years which had probably been requested in desperation by various doctors, all completely normal. “So why the fuck am I getting all this pain?” he shouted over his shoulder as the carer wheeled him out. Why indeed?

The second was a lady of similar vintage, also in a wheel chair. Both she and her carer (a cheery fat guy) smelled strongly of fags. She also had a similarly impressive list of completely normal investigations, but nothing to explain her inability to walk. My job was to scan her left leg for a possible DVT. She had already had a scan of the right leg some weeks previously where, despite oral morphine, the pain was so bad they had to sedate her I was informed.

A rather tenuous (and I suspect incorrect) diagnosis of a DVT had been made at that time and the patient warfarinised. Despite this she was now getting similar pains in the other leg so would I please scan it, (why?).

I didn’t even try to get her on the couch; I got down on my hands and knees and scanned her in the wheelchair. When the transducer cable accidentally brushed her right leg she screamed in supposed agony and gave me such a fright I almost fell over. She clutched her carer’s hand hysterically while he remonstrated at my carelessness. The scan was, of course, completely normal. She was wheeled out, deeply dissatisfied at my obvious inability to do my job.

There have been several other similar cases over the last few weeks but I think you get the picture.

I am sure this scenario is familiar to all, although fortunately fairly uncommon. These individuals are manipulative and calculating, taking full advantage of our over-generous welfare system. However, according to the GMC, “you must not allow your personal views to adversely affect your professional relationship with them”, which is why they get away with it! So, I strenuously resist the desire to induce in them the ano-lacrimal reflex and pander to their addiction to multiple investigations.

Trying to be fair, Munchausen Syndrome is a genuine psychological disorder and I assume the sufferers have some sort of psychological maladjustment which renders them incapable of living other than as a victim. But the writers of the New Testament talk of a “spirit of infirmity” that possesses some people. However we may understand this phrase, I think the cases described above are a pretty good illustration.

PCTs accused of bias against private sector

BBC Health - 11:54 am

Evidence is emerging that some PCTs are rebelling against plans to create greater competition in the NHS.

Many English trusts are introducing steps that make it harder for patients to opt to have NHS care done by private hospitals. The behaviour of nearly half of local NHS management bodies is now being looked at by a government inquiry.

NHS patients needing non-emergency operations, such as hip and knee replacements, are already able to be treated by private hospitals that have agreements in place to carry out the care at NHS cost. At the moment, only 3.5% of operations are done this way, but under the government’s shake-up of the health service the number is set to increase.

However, managers working for PCTs have started trying to impose restrictions that channel patients away from private hospitals.

These include reductions in the range of treatments that private hospitals can offer NHS patients, caps on the number of people they can treat and promising NHS hospitals set numbers of patients.

Another tactic is to introduce minimum waiting times, which has the effect of slowing the flow of patients and cancels out one of the key benefits of being seen by the private sector - quicker treatment.

The issue is being looked into by the Co-operation and Competition Panel on behalf of the Department of Health. Its interim findings suggested as many as 70 of the 151 PCTs are employing such tactics.

Read more at BBC Health.

NHS reforms will lead to confusion, says Alan Milburn

Guardian - 9:39 am

A former health secretary, Alan Milburn, has attacked the government’s health reforms, describing them as confused, liable to increase bureaucracy and expected to shift power sideways rather than down to patients.

His criticism is significant since the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, and David Cameron frequently cite Blairite public sector reformers such as Milburn in defence of their health moves.

Milburn was asked this month by the government whether he would apply for the post of chairman of the NHS commissioning board, the new arms-length body that is due to run the NHS after the reforms. He is already the government’s adviser on social mobility.

His article, presaging further criticism in the magazine Progress, will be another blow to Lansley as he continues to resist criticisms of his reforms from an ever-widening alliance of health professionals, Liberal Democrats, unions and public opinion.

The Lib Dems, at their conference, and the BMA voted to reject Lansley’s reforms. Nick Clegg has said he will require major revisions before the bill introducing the reforms currently in committee can return to the Commons for its report stage.

Read more at The Guardian.

Witnessing two sides of the same story

By Dr Tom Dolphin, co-chair of the BMA’s junior doctors committee - 28th March 2011 3:55 pm

On Saturday I attended the TUC March for the Alternative. The BBC kept reporting “tens of thousands” of people as being on the main march, which they then quantified as “at least 250,000″ but to my eye it looked like more than 500,000, easily.

I have no idea why the TUC said they had stopped counting after 250,000 as “more and more people kept arriving”. That makes no sense to me. The area in front of the big stage at Hyde Park was filled with people, mostly in good spirits, although it was described by one of the Twitterati as “a melancholy Glastonbury”. Speeches by Ed Miliband and others outlined what they thought ‘the alternative’ might be: not quite as Keynesian as you might expect but certainly a much slower correction of the deficit with far fewer cuts needed to achieve that.

From Hyde Park, I also went along with some of my more socialist friends to other parts of the centre of town. The damage to Topshop and the banks had already been perpetrated by then, by gangs of black-clad youth (the ‘black block’) who dressed that way to avoid identification.

We ended up walking down to Piccadilly behind one of the UK Uncut groups (quite separate from the Black Block) who were protesting in part against tax avoidance by large companies. When we came to Fortnum & Mason’s, a company they include on their list, I was very nearly swept inside by the sudden surge of the crowd though the doors as UK Uncut abruptly occupied the building. The police belatedly blocked the doors, and I watched from outside as a few people climbed out of the first floor windows and graffitied the outside wall; inside (as the BBC reported) there was no damage at all.

The crowd got bigger and louder outside Fortnum’s and after about 20 minutes we were kettled (sorry, “contained”) at Dean Street St James, but the crowd broke through the line and the police retreated and joined their colleagues in a wall around Fortnum’s.

We moved away for a while and came back later to retrieve one of our friends who had gone inside Fortnum’s. We found the police arresting various people including one of the independent legal observers who had been inside Fortnum and Mason’s independently observing. I did think it a bit unnecessary to push him face down onto the pavement to handcuff him, seeing as he wasn’t actually resisting at all. This was all filmed by various TV crews who were around but strangely wasn’t used in the repeating loops on the news, which focussed on the broken windows instead.

Our friend was arrested along with his housemate, and they were kept for 23 hours in police custody before being released last night. Most people inside Fortnum’s were charged only with aggravated trespass but the news that day was filled with images of the graffiti on the outside walls, along with the more violent demonstrations elsewhere in town.

I saw fires being set - including one at the centre of Oxford Circus - and missiles thrown at police lines. I also witnessed the main march, which was as peaceful a demo as you could wish for, policed by a relative handful of non-riot-gear-wearing police. Two very different views of the same day, but a clear message from both that the economic policies being pursued by the government are deeply unwelcome.