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

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