Skip to main content

"Efficiency saving" has undermined the NHS

The government has announced extra money upfront to avoid a crisis in the NHS. That much is welcome news. But it comes with a further tranche of 'efficiency savings' of £22 billion. This is on top of the savings of £20 bn over the last five years. But what have been the consequences of these 'savings', and where has the money gone? If savings were made, then why are so many Trusts in financial difficulty?

Last year the House of Commons Health Committee warned that the targets of these savings were 'unsustainable' after hearing evidence from NHS finance directors. The committee also criticised the Government's lack of transparency over how the money saved had been used, raising the issue that the Department of Health handed back billions of unused NHS budget to the Treasury each year.

It certainly begs the question of why so many Trusts are in deficit when they have made such big efficiency savings.  What is the truth behind these savings?

Efficiency savings conjures up images of making 'cuts in the backroom' or improvements in  'back office efficiency'. We are supposed to believe such changes would be improvements and won't affect front line staff or front line services. On the contrary, we are supposed to think these will improve patient care.   It is argued that the front line services could be provided more efficiently and effectively.  But what is the reality?

Let's be clear what efficiency savings really mean. It is about meeting rising health care needs from the same resources.  That means more operations without adding more operating theatres, surgeons, anaesthetists and nursing staff. 

It also means freeing up beds quicker. 

That is the bottom line of 'efficiency' savings - and it is also one reason why the NHS is in crisis, with bed shortages and increased waiting times, and with NHS Trusts in deficit.

Efficiency savings means freeing up beds through earlier discharge. It is also what has led to the charge of 'bed-blocking' levelled at sick patients. This has had appalling consequences.

As I referred in a previous article, a report by Healthwatch England found that premature discharge from hospital creates a costly 'revolving door' with one million patients readmitted to hospital within 30 days of being discharged. Readmission into A&E costs the NHS a staggering £2.4 bn a year.  This is not 'efficiency' - it is carelessness.

What is rarely told is that the 'bed shortage' is a  result of 'efficiency savings'.  

From the outset of the Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention - (QIPP), the overarching efficiency savings process - 'enhanced recovery' was targeted with the potential to save 200,000 bed days.  The idea was to enhance the patient experience by making a quicker recovery to care.  What it often means is transferring the cost of sick people onto the care budget. 

The Daily Mail provided examples of this cruellest kind of 'efficiency' in a report last year. 

"Sharon Mounter felt a wave of rising panic when the nurse told her that she was being discharged from the hospital.

The 35-year-old events organiser from South London still had a fever, and felt so weak and dizzy she could barely sit up in bed. But the nurse insisted in a kind but firm manner that she was well enough to leave, adding: 'We need your bed.'

Sharon had been in hospital for almost a week after being admitted with a high temperature and 'unbearable' joint pain.

Doctors attributed it to a flare-up of her lupus, an autoimmune disease that causes the immune system to attack its own tissues and triggers fatigue, pain and skin rashes."

Sadly this is not an isolated case - and nor was Sharon an elderly 'bed-blocker'. 

A survey by Healthwatch England found that more than half of NHS hospitals do not record whether a patient has a safe home to return to before discharging them.

But what is the real outcome? The outcome is added burdens on families and local authorities with care costs.  Families being given two days notice that their relatives must be moved into care to free up a bed. 

This is why we ended up with NHS Trusts threatening legal action on 'bed-blocking' patients. It was a game of shifting the blame.  We are supposed to believe the bed shortage is the result of 'people living longer'.  This is clearly nonsense - a smokescreen to cover what is really causing the problem. We haven't suddenly started living longer! Yet the 'bed-blocking' problem developed over a year or two.  We need only ask why to realise that it isn't because people are 'living longer'. 

No, it was driven from within the NHS itself. It was part of the 'efficiency savings'. The idea was to get patients into care quicker. But 'care' was the loser as cold calculation took over from compassion. The NHS and the Care 'system' play a game of musical chairs, or perhaps I should say beds, and it is patients and families who suffer the consequence. 

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