Skip to main content

NHS trusts buckling under extreme financial pressure

There is more evidence today that that NHS savings are putting patient care at risk. A review by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) suggests that quarter of hospital trusts in England are at raised risk of providing poor care.

The findings are based on monitoring by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of a host of data, including death rates, serious errors and patient surveys. It found 44 out of 161 trusts fell into the two highest risk categories.

Responding to the CQC’s review of hospital trust data in England, Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council said: 

"Having this array of information in the public domain is an important step towards improving transparency across the NHS, informing and empowering patients and shining a light on hospitals which are not performing to the standard we expect.

"Hospitals are large, complex organisations so we need to avoid oversimplifying or reducing vast amounts of data to a simple band or rating.

"It goes without saying that where trusts are found to be operating below par we urgently need to identify where the problems lie and find a solution."

But what is the basis of the problem? The BMA point to the acute financial pressure resulting from savings cuts imposed on the NHS. 

"The fact is many trusts are buckling under extreme financial pressure. The NHS is having to make £20bn of savings, leading to increasing pressure on staff and resources and, most worryingly, affecting patient care and outcomes." Dr Porter says. 

"Many hospitals are stretched to breaking point. If we are to deliver the improvements patients and doctors want to see, the government needs to address the significant funding gap in the NHS. 

"All hospitals should be meeting the standard of high quality care which patients expect and front line NHS staff want to deliver. But the reality is that the NHS simply cannot continue to meet rising demand with reduced funding."

The government cannot simply wash its hands of the effects of the cuts and the effects of the unnecessary reorganisation it has imposed on the NHS. 

The coalition promised to ring-fence the NHS from austerity. It hasn't done so.

David Cameron promised voters there would be no top-down imposed reorganisation of the NHS. He reneged on that commitment. 

Reorganisation and cuts are putting lives at risk. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba