Skip to main content

NHS 'sleepwalking to a disaster'

In a previous article this week I argued why it is disingenuous for the government to claim that £20bn cut in the NHS budget could be made without affecting front line staff, doctors, nurses and vital technical support.  The claim  that 'streamlining' efficiency savings could be made without cuts in front line staff is wrong. The government knows this of course. But it doesn't stop them repeating the falsehood.

The Royal College of Nursing  has identified 61,276 NHS posts which have either disappeared or are set to go as a result of cuts in spending and warn that the NHS is "sleep walking into a crisis." Nurses say that they "do not have enough staff to deliver good quality care. Demand for services is continuing to rise, however staffing levels are being slashed."  

Looking around the country and the reality is revealed. At the Royal Bolton Hospital 500 jobs are to be cut with further savings being considered by changing the contracts of 1685 nursing, midwifery and support staff.  In April last year the University of Leicester Hospital announced cuts equivalent to the loss of 271 full time posts.  Up and down the breadth of the country hospitals are announcing savings leading to staff redundancies.  Cuts are being made to clerical workers and other support staff as well as front line staff. But this is not without its impact on patients and patient services. In one case in North London elderly patients are being asked to check themselves in for appointments.  

The NHS is a huge organisation that employs around 1,180,000 staff. During the previous Labour government NHS funding increased in real terms by around 7% each year, particularly since the prime minister Tony Blair had set the target of reaching the European average as a percentage of GDP. By 2010 many of the targets set by the Labour government had been met and significant progress was being made in others. Health inequality stubbornly refused to budge.

The numbers of doctors increased from 88,693 in 1999 to 132,683 by 2009 (an increase of 49.6%). The number of fully qualified nurses increased from 261,340 to 336,007  (+28.6%) over the same period; scientific, therapeutic and technical staff increased from 86,837 to 128,331 (47.8%). Clinical support staff increased by 32.9%. But managers and senior managers increased from 23,378 to 42,509 (82%).

This percentage increase in managerial staff  is large. Nonetheless the percentage of staff who are categorized as managerial  (3-4%) may not be inappropriate. Indeed even TheTaxpayers Alliance accept that this is lower than some private companies.  The requirement for management and support staff is not proportional if new services are being developed in new buildings. What you cannot do is streamline management by simply cutting the budget. Whilst efficiency savings might be made over time, the immediate impact of savage cuts is on the ability to deliver front-line services, and sometimes with the absurdity of elderly patients having to check themselves in for care. It is just as likely that units would have to close down for lack of resources.

It isn't easy to compare the structure of the NHS with any other type of corporation. The scale and diversity of services is a problem; the collection of information, its storage and accessibility about patients made daily creates a burden few companies would manage. The term manager covers a variety of grades including 'team leader'. A team leader may also be a member of front line staff in say portering. There is not always a clear distinction between front and back line staff. We could say that front line is doctors and nurses but this would ignore the support the front line requires. When a doctor takes a sample it is sent to a laboratory for analysis; when a doctor or nurse processes a patient's notes these then get processed, stored and retrieved.

Developments in modern medicine are founded on laboratories and advanced technical services.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and IVF, for example,  require scientific and technical staff in the running and the development of the services provided. The laboratories are housed in buildings that have to be managed, they require supplies of reagents and laboratory equipment that has to be ordered and processed. They have administrative work that needs support. All this requires some kind of management. It isn't easy to pick a figure of management that is appropriate. But services such as PGD were in their infancy just a decade ago. Now they form a key part of diagnostics and reproductive choices for patients.

Demographic change means that the NHS has to be continually changing to meet shifting needs. But the NHS had been doing well. Yes it has had its share of scandals and poor service. But on the whole it has been a remarkable success story. Now it is under threat as never before faced with fragmentation, creeping privatisation of services, and cuts. The Royal College of Nursing are right. We are sleep walking to a disaster.

Postscript

According to rulings by the official safety watchdog, The Quality Care Commission, 17 hospital trusts have dangerously low numbers of nurses.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As