Skip to main content

The truth about NHS emergency care at weekends?

Much has been made by the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, about a seven day NHS and doctors working at weekends.  They cite in their case against the action of the Junior doctors in their opposition to the new contracts that more patients die at weekends.  This they say is a scandal and imply it is because there is less care over the weekend in the NHS. 

But is this claim really true.  A new study published today in the Emergency Medicine Journal reveals that it is at best an oversimplification. 

Looking at what happens in one hospital in Belfast, the study shows that patients admitted as medical emergencies at the weekend are significantly older and more dependent than those admitted to hospital on other days of the week.

The authors suggest that while staffing levels may have a part to play, the profile of the intake may help explain the seemingly higher death toll of patients admitted as medical emergencies at weekends.

They base their findings on an analysis of 536 patients admitted to the acute medical unit of a large teaching hospital in Belfast during November 2012.

They compared the profile of patients admitted as medical emergencies between 1700 hours on Friday and 0900 hours on Monday with those admitted on other days of the week.

Because there are proportionally more night shifts worked during weekends than on week days, the researchers also compared the profile of patients arriving in the unit during both the day and night at weekends and on week days.

Their analysis showed that there were no major differences in the severity of illness between patients admitted on weekdays and weekends, as evidenced by key clinical indicators and test results.

But patients admitted at the weekend as medical emergencies were significantly older—on average, more than 3.5 years—than those admitted at other times of the week.

They were also more physically incapacitated than patients admitted during the week, as measured by a validated disability scale (Rankin scale), attracting an average score of 3 compared with 2 for weekday admissions.

Patients admitted during the day at weekends were also more functionally dependent than those admitted during the day on other days of the week.

The researchers stress that this study reflects the experience of only one acute hospital, so may not be indicative of patterns elsewhere.

But the researchers point out: “These findings illustrate major differences in the age and functional dependence of patients admitted to hospital at weekends. This difference in profile may fully or partially explain the increased mortality that has been publicised.”

They also question the belief that greater numbers of senior doctors at the weekend would make any difference to the survival of patients.

“Additionally, the lack of difference in physiological and laboratory markers of illness acuity presented here questions the plausibility of the inference that increased senior medical presence at the weekend would improve outcomes,” they write.

They conclude that if arguments are to be made about the number and seniority of staff required at the weekend, these need to be based on solid evidence and take account of other factors that may potentially influence death rates.

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