Skip to main content

Compassion and patient experience needs to be the focus of NHS reform.

It will take time to digest all the 290 recommendations of the Francis report on the failings at Stafford Hospital. Failings at the hospital were root and branch, from top to bottom of the NHS. For me, however, one recommendation stands out and it isn't one of the more legalistic or organisational ones. It is simply that there needs to be an increased focus on compassion in the recruitment, training and education of nurses, including an aptitude test for new recruits and regular checks of competence as is being rolled out for doctors.

The imperative to put patients needs back at the heart of decision making and care in the NHS was highlighted last year by Ann Clwyd's experience of the shameful way she and her dying husband were treated in hospital. It should inform us that something awful has gone badly wrong with health care provision.

The report is right to point to target driven decision making as being one source of the problem. It drives management to consider patients not as persons with individual needs but as statistics. But decisions have impact on persons and not an averaged statistic. I am an advocate of person-centred ethics because I believe that is the only way to build a framework for person-centred care.

This is not mere emotion; it is simply a realisation that people have hopes, fears, anxieties, loves, hates, desires; that the impact of decisions on patients is contextual and circumstantial. They have families and loved ones who care too, and they have particular needs that arise as a result. Yet, these are increasingly lost in the dry calculus of the utilitarian ethics of health care policy. Even the consideration of duty has become driven by calculation rather than imperative (Kant would turn in his grave). Ends become a justification for means regardless of the true meaning of outcome for those who matter, the patient or those in care. Patients become numbers.

We are of course interested in numbers. We tend to set targets by them. Quality is more difficult to measure than quantity. Well-being more difficult than wealth. But we should always look beyond the bare statistic and consider how a policy decision impacts real people and not an average. I have no real idea what an 'average person' looks like. I doubt if an 'average person' exists. You might be 'average' in some calculations but not in many others. The impact of being 'average' in any particular score most often depends on circumstances that are not average; housing, family, relationships, work, stress, but also personality.

A health care system simply charged with obedience to numbers is one that is more likely than not to ignore the individual needs of patients. If patients become a ward statistic to turn around as quickly as possible then nurses will have less time for real patient care. No time for emotional engagement. No time to ensure a continuity of care or of carers; care becomes impersonal; a monetised ingredient. And certainly poor pay, inadequate or non-existent training and low esteem in the privatised care system has produced a cocktail for potential and actual abuse and harm where the needs of the patient take second place in the profit margin.


None of this is to suggest that the majority of nurses and doctors enter their professions with any other than a caring ethos. Many nurses have expressed concern at the quality of care at their hospitals. Cuts in budgets and reorganisation are creating further problems at the font line of NHS care.

This is the warning given by the NHS Confederation in a report published last month. The NHS Confederation, a body representing all organisations that commission and provide NHS services, is worried that the current NHS reforms, by making the system more complicated, will increase still further the administrative burden on NHS front line staff.

Government ministers have argued that the £20 billion cut in the NHS budget would not affect front line services. Yet, between May 2010 and September 2012 whilst the number of managers was reduced by 18 per cent and the number of clerical and administrative staff declined by 10 per cent, a consequence has been an increased administrative load on doctors and nurses. If the administrative burden does not also fall, the report warns, there is a risk that front line staff will be diverted to form filling.

Reorganisation has compounded the problem. Commissioning is becoming more complex; for example, child health services are now commissioned by eight different parts of the system, including local authorities. Providers and commissioners will need to coordinate and build working relationships with more organisations than previously, which inevitably takes time and increases the administrative load. The number of commissioning organisations is also increasing; 211 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are set to replace 152 primary care trusts. There will also be a greater number of local bodies involved in providing health care, with health and wellbeing boards, local Healthwatch and more CCGs than there were primary care trusts.

There is already evidence that cuts in spending have driven some hospitals to dangerously low levels of staff, putting patient lives at risk. 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."

It is time the government abandoned the pretence that cuts in NHS budgets can be managed without impacting patient care. It is putting patients at risk. But it is also time we put the focus on quality and care, the patient experience, back at the forefront of NHS objectives.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno