Skip to main content

Problems in A&E are a symptom of deeper problems

The publication of the weekly figures on A&E waiting times once again demonstrate the strain on the NHS.  This is not simply a problem of first line care. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise.  It is the result of £20 billion of cuts since 2010 and of a senseless top down reorganisation.

To dismiss the £20 billion as 'efficiency savings' won't do. They are cuts and these cuts have impact on front line services.

Politicians need to look at the NHS as a whole to address pressure on A&E. We need more than sticking plaster to repair the damage done.  Doctor and health care organisations have warned repeatedly of the problems in the NHS - a service at the brink of failure.

We have a health service that still delivers at the highest levels. It is a service in large part free at the point of delivery.  But we cannot take the service for granted. It needs resources and staffing. As the BMA say today, the government cannot address the problems in the NHS without looking at the system as a whole. Delays at the front door are related to problems at the back door.

Responding to the publication of weekly figures on A&E waiting times Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair, said:

“Another week, another set of damning figures from emergency departments - but we must remember that behind the figures is a lack of the necessary investment to give every patient the treatment they deserve, in the emergency department or elsewhere in the system. Patients should be treated on the basis of need, rather than arbitrary targets, but there’s no getting away from the fact the NHS under extraordinary pressure, trying to cope despite inadequate resources. Staff are working flat-out, under extreme pressure but the system is struggling to keep up with the sheer number of patients coming through the door.

"These figures point to NHS services under stress across the UK. This shows that this issue goes beyond one party and one government – all politicians of all colours need to wake up and look at the system as a whole. We need to move away from political point scoring and come up with a long term plan to address these problems.

“Politicians can’t address problems in A&E without looking at the system as a whole. Problems at the hospital front door are linked to delays at the back door. This is because a shortage of social care beds creates ‘exit block’ in hospitals, meaning patients who no longer need to be in hospital can’t be discharged because there is simply nowhere for them to go. This, together with a shortage of beds, leads to delays in admissions and patients being forced to wait on trolleys or admitted to an inappropriate ward. Outside of hospitals, investment in general practice is declining while demand is on the rise and more care is moved into the community - this simply isn’t sustainable.

 “We can only get to grips with pressure on A&Es if every part of the system – from our GP surgeries, to hospitals, to community care – is fully supported and working well, and this includes urgently addressing the shortage of A&E staff and GPs. We must ensure NHS 111 is improved to make it a doctor and nurse-led service which will prevent patients being unnecessarily directed to A&E.”

A flawed and unnecessary top down reorganisation together with cuts in funding have cause the problem. This needs to be addressed. We need a ten year strategy for the NHS to deal with the underlying problems so that it can provide the flexible service we need. We need a ten year strategy that brings together health and care facilities. Setting targets is not the answer. Dealign with the underlying infrastructure and how it works must be the way forward. We should end the sticking plaster approach to the NHS.

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