Skip to main content

NHS111 an 'abject failure' says BMA

The news that NHS Direct is seeking to pull out of its 'financially unsustainable' NHS 111 contracts has received a strongly worded reaction from the doctors organisation the BMA and questions are now being asked about the tendering process and how contracts have been awarded. 

Responding to the announcement that NHS Direct is seeking to withdraw from its NHS 111 contracts, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, Chair of the BMA’s GP committee said:

“The implementation and planning of NHS111 has been an abject failure.

“NHS Direct struggled to cope with the volume of calls it was receiving despite having years to plan for the launch of NHS 111. Other already overstretched services, such as GP out of hours providers, have had to step in and undertake the workload that was supposed to be dealt with by NHS 111. It is worrying that patients had to wait twice as long as recommended for their calls to be answered.

“Sadly, many of these failures have occurred in many parts of the country.

“The decision by NHS Direct to seek a withdrawal from its contracts to provide NHS 111 reveals worrying flaws not just with the tendering process for NHS 111 contracts, but for how contracts are awarded and monitored throughout the NHS. The Department of Health gave the BMA written assurances that there would be strict safeguards in place to ensure that NHS 111 providers would have the clinical and financial ability to deliver a safe, effective service to patients1.

“A number of local GPs2 and the BMA raised concerns during the tendering process about the low nature of some of the successful bids which were ignored.

“If this failure can occur with NHS 111, there is no reason why it could not happen with other parts of the NHS, as demonstrated by the recent investigation into the provision of out of hours services in Cornwall. Tonight’s Dispatches programme is likely to highlight a further catalogue of mistakes across NHS 111’s operations. We cannot have a situation where patients are placed at risk or suffer from substandard healthcare because contracts have been improperly awarded.

“The government should expand its review into NHS 111 to include an examination of what went wrong with the tendering process, particularly whether providers were given an advantage if they put in the lowest bid. There must be a firm commitment in the light of this failure from ministers that the procurement process across the NHS meets strict quality standards and happens safely and effectively.

“If NHS 111 is to recover it must receive proper funding and be closely integrated with local NHS services. The government must review its competitive tendering approach and instead look towards an integrated model based on cooperation between local services.”

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

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

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