Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew George Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
That is not actually a matter for NHS Property Services Ltd; it has to be locally driven. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to enhance community care services, whether in community hospitals or through services delivered at home. My hon. Friend has a high proportion of older people in his constituency and the transformation will be incredibly important for all his constituents.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s statement today on the establishment of safe staffing levels on hospital wards? He will be aware that I have been campaigning on the matter for many years. The 1:8 ratio is certainly not a target but a baseline against which safe staffing and patient care can now be measured.
Mr Hunt
I welcome what NICE has done today, because it is incredibly important that we end the scandal of short-staffed wards in our NHS, which was a feature for many years under Governments of both parties. The lesson of Mid Staffs is that the oldest and most vulnerable patients, such as people with dementia, can be forgotten when a hospital is under pressure, so NICE’s guidance will be welcomed and useful. It is important to say that it can save money, because nothing is more expensive than unsafe care.
Health
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has just published an extremely cerebral tome on the history of Parliament, that he should not be yelling and exhorting from a sedentary position as though he is trying to encourage a horse to gallop faster. It is not an appropriate way to behave.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of integrating secondary and primary care. He will be aware that the chief executive of NHS England recently addressed the large number of community hospitals with a sword of Damocles hanging over them and whether or not they will continue to exist. He said that that issue should be revisited and, indeed, has argued that community hospitals should be developed and that we should protect that area of care. Does the Secretary of State believe that the chief executive of NHS England is calling for the retention and reopening of community hospitals?
Mr Speaker
Interventions should be brief—the hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
I am interested and rather astonished that the hon. Lady dares to mention the words “GP” and “contract” in the same sentence. It was Labour’s GP contract changes in 2004 that made it disastrously more difficult for people to see their GP and destroyed the link between patients and doctors by getting rid of named GPs. She will be pleased to know that from today we are reintroducing named GPs for the over-75s, which is big step forward in making it easier for people to see their GP.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Although the Secretary of State says that he is getting rid of tick-box targets, new targets are being introduced, including hourly ward rounding for nurses and the introduction of a requirement for nurses to undertake a year as a care assistant. Would it not be better to depend on the professionalism of the nursing profession?
Mr Hunt
That is exactly what we are doing. There is no target to introduce hourly rounding, but there is very good evidence from the hospitals that have it, such as Salford Royal, that it results in the buzzer going off less often, calmer wards and problems being nipped in the bud. People are given food and water before they feel the need to ask for it and we end up with much better and safer care. That is something the hon. Gentleman should welcome. We certainly want to work with the nursing profession to ensure we deliver that.
Care Bill [Lords]
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham
Before the hon. Gentleman makes that argument, I suggest that he speaks to the people of Lewisham to see whether they think that the process was fair. I suggest that he goes and speaks to the people of Stafford to see whether they think that the process has been fair. I do not know how he can argue that the new process is better than the original process, whereby there was always local engagement and through which elected Members had a chance to refer matters to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
We often debate this matter in the House and we all agree in principle with the concept of reconfiguration, until it is the local hospital in our constituency that is affected. That is the conundrum. What facility does the right hon. Gentleman think the Secretary of State and the Department of Health need to overcome the fact that every MP will defend their local hospital, even though reconfigurations are clearly required?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman makes that argument as if there were no changes to hospitals under the previous Government. There was plenty of change, but there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. I would argue, as I just have, that the previous way of doing things was a better way.
Mr Hunt
Let me first tell the hon. Gentleman that the TSA did not recommend the closure of the A and E unit at Lewisham hospital, and he knows that perfectly well.
I will say what this Government are determined to ensure does not happen again. Mid Staffs went on for four years before a stop was put to it. Patients’ lives were put at risk and patients died because the problem was not tackled quickly. The point of these changes today is to ensure that, when all NHS resources are devoted to trying to solve a problem and they fail, after a limited period of time it will be possible to take the measures necessary to ensure that patients are safe. I put it to the hon. Gentleman and to all Opposition Members that if they were in power now they would not be making the arguments that they have been making this afternoon, because it is patently ridiculous to say that we will always be able to solve a problem without reference to the wider health economy. They know that: it was in the guidance that they produced for Parliament when they introduced the original TSA recommendations. What Government Members stand for is sorting out these problems quickly and not letting them drag on in a way that is dangerous for patients.
Andrew George
Following the concessions announced by the Under-Secretary in the previous debate, do I understand correctly that if the TSA makes recommendations to a non-failing trust to its detriment and the trust objects to those proposals, NHS England can, through its arbitration process, impose those changes?
Mr Hunt
Let me clarify, but first let me add that we want to listen to the consultation that will be led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and the new Committee that he chairs. We are requiring local clinical commissioning groups and GP groups to come to an agreement on the right way forward in these difficult situations. We need an arbitration system for when agreement is not possible, which this clause allows for. We would like there to be agreement but we cannot allow a situation where, when there is not an agreement, we end up with paralysis and being unable to sort out the problem of a trust that is failing, particularly when it is unsafe and patients’ lives are being put at risk. That is exactly what was happening in the South London Healthcare NHS Trust.
As the Bill leaves the House to return to the other place for the final stages of its passage, we can be justly proud. This is a landmark piece of legislation that will transform the experience of those who rely on the NHS and care systems by giving patients and their carers both legal rights and a much better joined-up service. It will reduce the money wasted on duplication and allow more resources to be directed at the front line. It will remove the uncertainty and worry of unpredictable care costs in later life and will put individuals at the heart of a system built around their needs and not its own priorities.
Most of all it will send a signal loud and clear that when it comes to the challenge of treating an ageing population with dignity, compassion and respect, this House has not shirked its responsibilities but has risen confidently to the challenge.
Care Bill [Lords]
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I entirely agree. The budgets of council adult social care departments are now so stretched that they fill a gap wherever they can, as cheaply as they can.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. In new clause 32, I propose that the Secretary of State should undertake a review of care standards, including hourly pay and other kinds of remuneration for home care workers. Does she agree that unless we have decent national standards for visiting times and remuneration, we shall be faced continually with a race to the bottom?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I apologise for not having read the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. I have been focusing on my own new clauses and amendments, but I will look at his new clause at a later stage.
Amendments 31 to 33 would establish firm time scales for assessments and reviews of service users’ care needs. During the Bill’s passage so far, the Opposition have repeatedly tried to raise the issue of the funding gap in adult social care, which threatens some of the positive changes that the Bill would bring about. In my constituency, our local authority has been forced to make £24.3 million-worth of savings, with predictable consequences. One of the consequences for local authorities has been a decline in the regularity of assessments and reviews. I have spoken to people whose assessments have been grossly delayed; I have also visited care homes in which some residents have not been reviewed for up to three years, during which time their needs may have changed dramatically and their support may have become inadequate.
It is easy to understand how that happens. Under-resourced departments must set priorities, and routine steps such as the reviewing of someone’s care plan are often at the bottom of the list because there is no pressure for them to be taken in a timely way. However, those steps are very important, because they identify changes in a person’s condition which, if ignored, might lead them to a crisis point. The amendments would reverse a worrying trend which has seen delayed assessments rise significantly since 2010, when 18.7% of new clients waited four weeks or more for an assessment. By 2011-12, the latest year for which figures are available, the figure had risen to 22.7%. In some individual local authorities, the change is even more worrying. In one authority, the number of new clients waiting to be assessed jumped from 12.6% to 70.7% between 2010 and 2012. It is important to remember that those are not just percentages, but represent vulnerable people whose needs are not being met.
In Committee, the Minister said that he was concerned about assessments being rushed to meet the timetable, and that a simplistic time scale would not be tailored to meet individual needs. I agree that that is of concern, but it should not be necessary for the time scale drawn up by the Secretary of State to be a “one size fits all”. The timetable for more complex cases could take into account the more complex nature of the assessment and allow more time for completion. It would be much more dangerous to have no benchmark at all and for those people to have their assessments delayed and their needs not met. The amendments would improve the situation for people with more complex needs, for whom putting support in place quickly is most important.
Paul Burstow
Absolutely. That is why the duty on market shaping set out in the Bill is about stretching the local authority to take that wider population-level interest, and not only for the people for whom they will arrange care and for whose care and support needs they will pay, but for the whole population who might need care and support but will be funding it themselves. I do not see how local authorities can satisfactorily discharge that new and important responsibility if there is not also a fairly critical examination of commissioning practices themselves. That is why I have tabled the new clause.
Andrew George
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case. There is another reason why it is essential that inspection in that area becomes paramount, and that is because of the drivers in the system itself that discourage avoidable hospital and community hospital admissions and seek the earliest possible discharge into the community. What we have is a scenario in which people are being cared for in their homes, in an “out of sight, out of mind” environment, so inspections become all the more important because of the need to ensure that they are safe—
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point which echoes a point made on the Labour Benches a few moments ago. The problem is that a number of private health care companies are also insurance companies, so it would be quite a task to ensure that data are not shared with companies that might have a commercial interest in them. To restrict access in the way we would all want is not as simple as the Government would have us believe.
Andrew George
The hon. Gentleman and I often agree on these issues, but I am slightly concerned. Of course we want reassurances, and while we have the pause we should seek further reassurances on the anonymisation of data and that they will not be misused. How far is he prepared to push this point? Is he prepared to push it to the extent that the initiative falls, with all the consequences for the lack of progress in advances in medical care? In 10 years’ time we could be talking about hundreds of thousands of lives that could have been saved as a result of pressing on with this very important development.
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is not my intention to do that, but we have to recognise that the public awareness campaign—the Government’s early assurances about leaflets and letters—has been wholly inadequate. At a time when it is important for the Government to instil public confidence in the scheme, they keep doing things that undermine public confidence, for example by giving the hated company Atos—if you do not mind me using the term, Mr Speaker, because of the debacle in the Department for Work and Pensions—the contract to extract the data. There seems to have been a catalogue of errors.
I accept that this proposal has the potential to be a huge step forward. The Minister said it was not revolutionary, but I am quite often in favour of things that are revolutionary. It is revolutionary, because previous data collections from a hospital-based setting, from secondary care, have been largely episodic. This scheme will harvest data from GPs and primary care to follow the whole of the patient journey, and to identify trends and follow-ups. That is a revolutionary step forward, provided we have the necessary safeguards and assurances, and that we rebuild public trust. I am not suggesting that the scheme is unworkable and cannot be reformed, but there is a huge job to do to ensure that we restore public confidence.
Francis Report
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
The truth is that the process takes time, and there are still examples of where candour is lacking. Allegations have recently surfaced in the press, the substance of which makes it appear that that reporting has not happened. There is much work to do, but the signal has gone out loud and clear that if people are open, transparent and honest from the start when something goes wrong, that should not be punished but should be recognised as a way of improving how we look after patients, in the same way as profound changes in the airline industry have made our aeroplanes much safer. We need that change in the NHS.
We also now recognise that however important ministerial objectives and national targets may be, NHS organisations should never prioritise them at the expense of dignity and respect for patients. We now know that the best way to deal with poor care is for people to speak out about it, whether they are a health care assistant, doctor, nurse or even Secretary of State, and that that should never be confused with “running down the NHS”. We also know that failing to speak out about poor care, or to support those who do, is a betrayal not just of patients but of the kindness and humanity of more than 1 million dedicated NHS staff, thousands of whom pledged themselves to compassionate care just two days ago on NHS change day.
What has happened in the past year? Robert Francis asked why the system effectively failed to detect or deal with the problems at Mid Staffs for a shocking total of four years. We have re-established the CQC as a rigorous and independent inspectorate, with three powerful new chief inspectors appointed to speak truth to power. The Keogh review inspected 14 hospitals last summer, and the new chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Sir Mike Richards, has already completed inspections of a further 18 trusts, with 19 more inspections taking place now. As a direct result, 14 trusts are now in special measures—a record in NHS history—and, thankfully, long-standing problems are finally being tackled.
On staffing, the inquiry found
“an unacceptable delay in addressing the issue of shortage of skilled nursing staff.”
The latest figures show that not only are there 3,500 more nurses on our hospital wards since the Francis report, in just a year, but we now have more nurses, midwives and health visitors in the NHS than ever in its history. From this summer, all hospitals will publish their staffing levels monthly, on a ward by ward basis, so that shortfalls are speedily identified.
Robert Francis identified a closed, defensive and secretive culture at Mid Staffs. In response, we have ended gagging clauses and we are making it a criminal offence for trusts to publish or provide specified information that is false or misleading. We are also placing a statutory duty of candour on organisations so that they are required to be honest with patients about poor care, and professional regulators are consulting on a new professional duty of candour that provides protection for staff against being struck off if they are open about the problems they see. I believe that will create one of the most transparent and open health care systems in the world.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome the important steps in the right direction that have been taken with regard to recording and safe staffing on acute hospital wards. The Secretary of State also announced last year that he intended to introduce a system whereby nurse trainees would shadow or work alongside care assistants for up to a year. Is that idea being developed at the moment?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is right: it is the poor relation that has always been on the fringes of the system, and is always the first service to be targeted for cuts. That has happened again in these difficult times. The Government are cutting mental health services more deeply than the rest of the NHS, and that has led to all the problems that I have been describing.
I went to Stafford recently to meet campaigners who are working to support the hospital. One of them told me that because of the lack of available mental health beds, beds had had to be found in the hospital for people who were experiencing serious mental health crises. That is what begins to happen when we do not have adequate capacity on the ground. Government Members say that this is not relevant, but it is directly relevant to all the matters that we are discussing today.
Andrew George
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was critical of the last Labour Government for rather bizarrely rolling out the red carpet for the private sector and, indeed, allowing financial targets to distort clinical priorities to an extent which, I think, created the circumstances that led to the Mid Staffs difficulties. He has mentioned integration of care. Does the Labour party propose full integration in terms of the pooling of budgets, and does he support the campaign for a fundamental safety standard in respect of the ratio of registered nurses to patients on acute hospital wards?
Andy Burnham
I do support that campaign, because I think that we need transparency so that local people can see whether their hospitals have enough staff. I also support the full integration of health and social care into a single service—an even deeper integration than a pooled budget—because I believe that that is the only way in which we will build a service based on the individual. We need a system in which all the needs of one person are clear and the service can start in the home, rather than this fragmented world in which care in the home is being cut and older people are being left at ever greater risk of hospitalisation.
I find it worrying that Government Members seem to be in denial about what I have been saying, and that brings me to the central point that I want to make. I believe that the Government have mishandled their response to the Francis report, and I shall cite three examples in support of my claim. First and most obviously, the Government have failed fully to implement 88 of the report’s recommendations, as they have themselves acknowledged. Secondly, Stafford hospital has, in my view, been hung out to dry. Thirdly, by overtly politicising the whole issue of care failure, the Government have created a climate of fear throughout the NHS—the worst possible response to what Francis said.
It seems to me that the Government have missed the entire point of the Francis report. If we distil the report into a few words, it called for a culture change. A range of measures were proposed with the aim of achieving that change, including a duty of candour for individuals and organisations, regulation of health care assistants, and, crucially, moves to strengthen the patient voice at local level by giving Healthwatch more protection and prominence. Francis recommended that local authorities be required to pass centrally provided funds to local Healthwatch groups, but that recommendation was not accepted. Of the £43 million allocated by the Department last year, HealthWatch groups have received only £33 million, which leaves £10 million unaccounted for. The Patients Association has said that
“vital recommendations have not been accepted and…patient care could suffer as a result.”
We support measures that the Government are introducing in the Care Bill on the appointment of chief inspectors, but let us be clear: they were not recommendations of the Francis report, and, if we are not careful, they will risk reinforcing a much more top-down approach to regulation. The position is not helped, I might add, by the Secretary of State’s new habit of calling hospital chief executives directly himself. Indeed, one of the great ironies of the Government’s reorganisation is that it has left the NHS a more top-down organisation than it was before, with clinical commissioning groups yet to find their voice and NHS England calling all the shots.
Let me quote from the Nuffield Trust’s report, entitled “The Francis Report: one year on”. In his foreword to the report, Francis himself says:
“Perhaps of most concern are the reports suggesting a persistence of somewhat oppressive reactions to reports of problems in meeting financial and other corporate requirements. It is vital that national bodies exemplify in their own practice the change of cultural values which all seem to agree is needed in the health service.”
Robert Francis himself says that national bodies are still behaving in a top-down fashion—one year on.
NHS
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Burnham
I am afraid that under the coalition, NHS treatment for “Gove-itis” is being rationed, like everything else, unfortunately. As my hon. Friend said, the Government claim they are keeping A and Es and call them “local” A and Es, but they are actually downgrading A and E units all over the country. How can it make sense to close and downgrade A and Es in the midst of an A and E crisis? In west London, as my hon. Friend knows, incredible changes are being introduced without proper regard for the evidence I am presenting to the House today of a change in A and E and of sustained pressure on A and E units. The Government must go back and consider their plans for my hon. Friend’s constituency and the rest of London.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the last thing the health service requires is complacency, but synthetic rage does not help either. He must remember that when he was Health Secretary, and indeed a Health Minister, up to seven ambulances were queuing outside Treliske hospital in Cornwall. That problem happens from time to time and it would be better for parties to co-operate and to come together to try to find a solution, rather than simply trying to score political points and ignoring the past.
Andy Burnham
I will put forward a solution that the hon. Gentleman might support. I think he supported the campaign to oppose the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill, and I pay credit to him for that as we worked across party lines on that issue. It is my job to hold the Government to account where there are problems in the national health service, and if the Minister is saying to me that there are no problems in the health service right now, I am afraid I do not agree with him. Emergency services are under intense pressure. If he looks back to our time in government, as he invited me to do, he will see that the winter crisis was a regular feature at the turn of the millennium and the early years of the last decade, although it got progressively better and better and we did not see the annual winter crisis. Now it is back with a vengeance, although it is different. The winter/spring crisis has become a summer/autumn crisis too. The pressure is relentless and it needs a proper, lasting solution.
Acute Hospital Wards (Staffing)
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am delighted to have secured this important debate on the staffing of acute hospital wards, on which I know the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—I am pleased to see him in his place—is aware I have been campaigning for a number of years.
The pressures on acute hospitals have, without question, intensified over the past couple of decades. There are now a third fewer general and acute hospital beds than there were 25 years ago. The past decade alone has seen a 37% increase in emergency admissions. An increasing number of older patients are being admitted to hospital: 65% of admissions are of people over the age of the 65. These patients are more likely to present more complex and multiple comorbidities, and the increased demand on acute care and the increased complexity of patients’ needs will have a knock-on effect, including placing greater demand on hospital resources and increasing pressure on registered nurses, doctors and other health care professionals. It will also, of course, have an effect on patient care itself.
I intend to concentrate on the staffing levels of registered nurses. Although much of the health debate has become obsessed with changing and tweaking management tools for commissioners—for example, by incentivising health systems with payment by results and more sophisticated tariffs, creating new pathways of care and, as far as the previous Government were concerned, wasting billions on fancy information technology systems—front-line nurses are often run ragged and overstretched on hospital wards.
The background or history to this debate goes back to the case of Graham Pink, who was sacked by Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport in 1990 for speaking out about poor staffing. I raised the matter as long ago as 2001 with John Hutton, now Lord Hutton, who wrote in response to a question from me:
“The work force commitments to recruit additional nurses, doctors and therapists in the NHS Plan take account of the need to increase the number of staff necessary to deliver diagnosis and treatment within the agreed clinical standards set out in the National Service”.—[Official Report, 17 July 2001; Vol. 372, c. 114W.]
There was therefore recognition in 2001 about the need to increase the complement of staff within NHS hospitals.
Since that time, there has been an acceleration of activity. To a certain extent, that activity was stimulated by the publication on 6 February 2013 of the Francis report on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which has been debated a great deal in the House and elsewhere. As a member, as the Minister once was, of the Select Committee on Health, I know that it has exercised our consideration on many occasions.
To respond to the concerns about the arguably inadequate registered nurse staffing levels in many acute hospitals, the Safe Staffing Alliance has been formed with members from the Royal College of Nursing, the Patients Association, the Florence Nightingale Foundation and many other bodies. In an important launch on 12 May, it released a statement on the risk of excess deaths, indicating that the risk was significantly increased by lower registered nurse to patient ratios. I met the Minister on 14 May, after which I submitted a substantial file of evidence to back up the argument in favour of improving those ratios.
On 16 July, Professor Bruce Keogh published his study on 14 hospitals. Certainly one of its key themes was the inadequate registered nurse to patient ratios on wards, which caused concern within those hospitals, and that has been debated on many occasions. On 16 August, Professor Don Berwick published a very significant report on patient safety, from which the same theme arose that we cannot achieve safe patient outcomes if we do not have adequate safe staffing levels.
On 9 October, the Safe Staffing Alliance held a reception, which I was pleased to host, and I tabled early-day motion 643 on safe staffing on 29 October. The Government have since responded, with the National Quality Board—headed by the chief nursing officer, Jane Cummings—publishing a “How to” guide on using the right tools to establish safe staffing levels on hospital wards. On 19 November, the Government responded to the Francis report, as did the Health Committee on the same date, and announced further initiatives to address the issues, which I will come on to in a moment.
The question is how bad the problem is now, when there is so much attention on it. Interestingly, a report in the Nursing Times this week stated:
“Serious concerns over staffing levels and patient safety were raised last week at four hospitals in different parts of the country”
as a result of Care Quality Commission reports. A number of CQC reports in recent years have highlighted inadequate staffing levels.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
One of those CQC reports was on Wexham Park hospital, which serves part of my constituency. There have been reports of pretty woeful nursing standards, particularly on acute medical wards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the challenge is that we have too many acute hospitals in the 21st century to deliver the appropriate care that we would all want our constituents to receive? A reconfiguration of hospital services, with fewer acute sites, would allow proper staffing of acute medical wards.
Andrew George
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge on this subject. Of course, we have fewer acute hospitals than we used to have, but we still have serious staffing problems. On its own, that idea is not the answer, but it does need to be considered if we are to address the issue of patient safety.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the report on Wexham Park hospital stated that CQC inspectors found evidence of regular short staffing on “almost all wards” and a culture in which
“staff did not always feel they could raise concerns”.
The inspectors concluded that the trust was more focused on “responding to…targets” than on
“ensuring that overall patient experiences were positive”.
The article in the Nursing Times states:
“Despite a previous CQC warning in May, almost all the wards inspected were found to be regularly short staffed. Staff did not always feel they could raise concerns, with a number expressing concerns about bullying and harassment, the CQC said.”
The article states that there were similar problems at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and that, last Wednesday,
“Belfast Health and Social Care Trust declared a ‘major incident’ at its Royal Victoria Hospital due to a backlog of A & E patients. At one stage, 42 people were waiting on trolleys.”
A hospital porter, Pat Neeson, is quoted by the BBC as saying that he was
“fed up watching our nurses cry”
as a result of long-standing A and E pressures. There are significant pressures in many hospitals. Although those examples have been in the press this week, we all know that the problem is not exclusive to those hospitals.
This is also a political issue. The question is whether the reports implicate uncaring nurses or whether the problem is that there are not enough nurses on hospital wards. The Prime Minister has become involved in this issue through his presentation of the Francis report to the House last year and what he has said elsewhere. On 6 January 2012, he said:
“If we want dignity and respect, we need to focus on nurses and the care they deliver. Somewhere in the last decade the health system has conspired to undermine one of this country’s greatest professions.”
Last year, in the light of the Francis report, the Government proposed that all trainee nurses should have one year’s experience as a health care assistant before they become fully qualified. The Prime Minister said:
“We have said in the light of that report that nurses should spend some time when they are training as healthcare assistants in the hospital really making sure that they are focused on the caring and the quality and some of the quite mundane tasks that are absolutely vital to get right in hospital”.
The question is whether the problem is the attitude of nurses or nursing numbers.
The Safe Staffing Alliance suggests that there are excess deaths as a result of there being insufficient nurses. Some people ask how many excess deaths there are. Given the statistics and methodologies that are available, academic statisticians would blanch at suggesting what the figure might be. I have been cautioned by House of Commons statisticians and the academics who back up the Safe Staffing Alliance about ever doing so. It is suggested that there were at least 20 excess deaths per annum in hospitals with unsafe average staffing. The RN4CAST survey of 32 English hospitals, including more than 400 wards, showed that 43% had registered a nurse staffing ratio of more than 1:8.
There are about 240 acute hospitals. I have been heavily cautioned by the House of Commons Library and other statisticians not to extrapolate a figure, and I appreciate that I am doing what academic statisticians would never do, but I am going to step off the tightrope of academic equivocation and be a brazen politician and suggest only an indicative figure. While surrounded by so much caution and so many caveats—I do not have time to list them all—the number of excess deaths will be higher than zero and much lower than the approximately 248,000 patients who die each year in acute and community hospitals. Taking those statistics together, the indicative figure would be 4,000 excess deaths in acute hospitals in England. Clearly, this issue needs to be seriously addressed.
All the review reports last year showed that nurse staffing was a critical issue to prevent poor care, and they absolutely corroborate the research findings of the link between registered nurse staffing and quality of patient outcomes. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been commissioned to give guidance on acute ward nurse staffing by July and it will look at validating methodologies. I have spoken to Professor Gill Leng of NICE and it is clear that it will be conducted on a robust evidential basis.
The Berwick report, the Nursing and Care Quality Forum and the Council of Deans have all publicly endorsed never having more than eight patients per registered nurse on acute wards, based on current known evidence. A number of trusts are now displaying nurse staffing on boards at ward level, with some trying to ensure that they take account of the “never more than eight” standard. A lot of action is being taken to address this issue.
As well as avoiding excess deaths, the issue needs to be addressed by health care economists, too. Recent evaluations in Perth, Australia, which has mandated levels of safe staffing, show that investment has more than paid for itself in reductions in patient harm, fewer bedsores, less complications and infections, and fewer falls. California, which has the same arrangement, has shown a 25% reduction in readmissions. These are important benefits, which health economists need to look at when they address this issue.
Jane Cummings, the chief nursing officer, has looked at the issue and I will read a key quote from her in the National Quality Board report:
“There has been much debate as to whether there should be defined staffing ratios in the NHS. My view is that this misses the point—we want the right staff, with the right skills, in the right place at the right time. There is no single ratio or formula that can calculate the answers to such complex questions. The right answer will differ across and within organisations, and reaching it requires the use of evidence, evidence based tools, the exercise of professional judgement and a truly multi-professional approach. Above all, it requires openness and transparency, within organisations and with patients and the public.”
My concern about this kind of management babble, and those who possess the presentational skills to get away with it, is that it throws a warm comfort blanket around the issue and creates a cloud of obfuscation. We need some of the hard lines proposed by the Safe Staffing Alliance, and we need fundamental standards below which no service should fall.
I have given the Minister advance notice of my questions. Does he accept that there are still a significant number of hospital settings where the number of registered nurses on duty is insufficient to ensure patient safety, professional standards and morale among many in the nursing profession? Does he agree that the Safe Staffing Alliance proposal for a fundamental standard of never less than one registered nurse to eight patients would be a useful tool for inspections and act as a benchmark for management to use, alongside other safe staffing tools? Does he agree that the CQC should in future concentrate more on using safe staffing tools and clear measurements of how many registered nurses are on a ward? Does he agree that as part of future work force planning, hospital managers should not conflate or blur the distinction between registered nurses and advanced care practitioners? Finally, without pre-empting NICE’s conclusions this summer, what can Ministers do to guarantee that hospital boards follow, or at least apply, its proposed guidance? I look forward to his response.
Dr Poulter
As I will come on to say, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, it is now a matter for the CQC to inspect trusts on issues such as quality of patient care and safety. I will outline those measures later in response to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives.
It is important that we support staff as much as possible when they raise concerns, whether about minimum staffing levels or other quality-of-care issues—this was the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—and to do that we are facilitating and enhancing a duty of candour on trusts to ensure a more candid and open approach and to ensure that staff who have concerns are better supported and are better able to raise them.
Turning specifically to the matters at hand, superficially the principle of minimum staffing ratios sounds seductive, but when it comes down to it, we will see that they do not guarantee safe staffing or care. For those reasons, the Government do not support them. The principle of good care is about having the right staff in the right place at the right time. As we will all be aware, the needs of patients can change not just daily, but hourly—a patient can rapidly deteriorate—and just having ticked a minimum-staffing box does not mean that the right care is necessarily being applied. The lesson to learn from Mid Staffs is that we followed the bureaucratic tick-box approach and that led to failings in care, and that just ticking boxes saying we have done something, however seductive or good it might sound, does not necessarily mean that patients are being treated right. That is a matter of clinical circumstances and the clinical judgment of staff.
Andrew George
I am well aware of the Minister’s line, but if we followed its logic to its conclusion, we would withdraw minimum staffing levels from paediatric wards, intensive care and, in other sectors, child care, which is a topic that has been hotly debated politically as well.
Dr Poulter
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the CQC inspection regime inspects all parts of hospitals. Good care in a cardiac or intensive care unit is not necessarily about having one-on-one nursing; it is also about ensuring that all the other additional supports and other parts of the multidisciplinary team are in place to deliver high-quality care. That is at the heart of what the Government are trying to do. I believe that the CQC, looking not just at staffing levels but at wider determinants—for example, using the NHS safety thermometer, which looks at the issues my hon. Friend raised about bedsores—and putting together a whole picture of what the care at a trust is like, is well placed to make judgments. Part of the CQC’s inspection regime entails full clinical involvement, so it has become more of a peer-review process about what “good” looks like from one hospital to another—an important improvement in the quality of the inspection regime, which enables it to weigh up staffing issues.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are going to support the CQC and provide greater transparency throughout the health system—in regard to staffing levels, by ensuring that they are published in future. Trust boards will have a requirement specifically to look at their staffing levels and to address problems. We shall not simply wait for the CQC to react to staffing issues as part of its wider inspection regime; there will be a requirement on trust boards to look at them. On Christmas day, I visited my local trust and found that staffing levels were discussed on a daily basis, in direct response to improvements following the Francis inquiry. I believe the same thing is taking place in a number of hospital trusts throughout the country.
Let me deal with my hon. Friend’s specific questions. He asked whether there were a significant number of hospital settings in which the number of registered nurses on duty was insufficient to ensure patient safety, professional standards and morale among many in the nursing profession. Our patients, their families and the public need to be assured that, wherever they are cared for and treated, there is a strong and positive patient safety culture, led from the top and embedded in every organisation.
There can be cases where hospitals are under-staffed and there is an impact on the quality of care provided, but these cases need to be addressed from a whole-care perspective, in which staffing numbers form just one element of a broader safety assessment. It is right that clinicians and trust boards have the freedom to agree their own staff profiles, which should not be dictated from Whitehall or by some blanket tick-box approach saying “You have met the minimum staffing number; you are therefore delivering good care”. We know from what happened at Mid Staffs that that is not the case. We must do everything we can to support good decisions made in the best interest of patients on the ground. This approach will give trusts the flexibility to respond swiftly to changes in patient demand or to meet the urgent needs of patients who have deteriorated, ensuring that safety and quality care is available.
We need to make sure that patient safety is a constant concern to each and every NHS trust and NHS employee, ensuring that risks to patient safety are always acted on as soon as they are identified, whether it relates to a “never event” or to the number of staff on a ward at any time of the day or night. We expect trust boards to sign off and publish information on staffing levels at least every six months to demonstrate that they are using evidence-based tools to calculate their staffing levels and provide assurance on the impact on quality of care and patient experience.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Safe Staffing Alliance proposal for a fundamental standard of no less than one registered nurse to eight patients would be a useful tool for inspection, surveillance and as a benchmark for management to use alongside other safe staffing tools. I hope he will understand that no single dimension and no single tool can ensure patient safety and that setting minimum staffing levels does not necessarily ensure that patients get the best possible care. Patient safety is not just about safe staffing; it is about listening to patients, assessing their needs and staff taking action where there are concerns. The number of staff—not just nurses, but doctors, physiotherapists, health care assistants and all other important members of a multidisciplinary team—needed to look after patients in a cardiac intensive care unit will differ from the numbers and skill mix required in a rehabilitation setting or another care setting—and it will differ from day to day, ward by ward and sometimes even from hour to hour, depending on the care needs of patients.
Ticking boxes on minimum staffing levels does not equate to good care. As the Berwick review made clear, ticking boxes in relation to minimum staffing levels does not equate to good care. Patients must be assessed individually, and the level of care required to ensure their safety must be determined by front-line staff locally, supported in their decision making by a range of factors that determine safe care. That should include staffing levels, but they are not the only issue: the Berwick review made that clear as well.
The Care Quality Commission also considers staffing levels in its inspections of registered providers, including acute hospitals. All providers registered with the CQC must ensure that at all times there are sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. In time, the guidance that we are developing on safe staffing will help providers to understand how to calculate reference staffing levels. It will also be used by the CQC when it assesses whether the right number of staff are employed to provide safe patient care.
My hon. Friend asked whether I agreed that in future the CQC should concentrate more on using safe staffing tools and clear measurements, and on how many registered nurses were on a ward. I do not want to dictate from Whitehall—indeed, I am sure that none of us do—the details of what the CQC will look for; it is important for the CQC to take a flexible approach to its inspections, and to be prepared to pursue different avenues depending on what it finds. What we can all agree on is that the provision of enough trained and skilled staff is vital to the delivery of acceptable care, and that CQC inspections should continue to consider staffing levels.
I must end my speech shortly, so I will write to my hon. Friend about the other points that he raised. I know that we are approaching this issue from the same position, and that all of us care about supporting staff and delivering high-quality care. However, I hope my hon. Friend will agree that safe staffing levels could have perverse consequences, that they are only a part of the picture when it comes to delivering good care, and that it is for the CQC to ensure that it takes an accurate and holistic view when carrying out its inspections to ensure that high-quality patient care is provided in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Accident and Emergency
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made by the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Bracknell (Dr Lee) about reconfiguration. The hon. Gentleman said that all too often the experience of hon. Members is that reconfiguration feels as if it is being done on the hoof. I agree with the hon. Lady about the proposed reconfiguration in south-west London and about St Helier hospital. Whether that will ever happen is still up in the air—let us hope that it does not. A leap of faith was demanded of constituents across south-west London, not least because the plans did not contain any measures to improve out-of-hospital care, without which it would not be possible to achieve the changes to emergency services that were being proposed. Those points are part of this debate, which is primarily about whether there is a crisis and, if there is, what the nature and causes of it might be. Although the Labour motion acknowledges that there are many causes of the problem, it has a very simplistic solution.
The evidence shows that there is a mixed picture across the country. That is reflected in the allocation of the first wave of additional funding for the NHS to meet winter pressures. That funding went to the health economies that were the most challenged. Some are coping well with the seasonal change from the higher volume, but less complex A and E attendance pattern of the spring and summer to the winter pattern of fewer, but much more complex cases, which often involves more frail and older people, and leads to more admissions. That pattern is repeated year on year and the demographic changes continue year on year. The pattern is well documented and it is very sensitive to the weather. That is why I welcome the Government’s cold weather plans and their support for local government and other agencies to put in place the extra social support that is necessary to avoid admissions in the first place.
Where there are problems, the causes vary. Some of the pressure stems from changes in behaviour. People now see A and E as the easiest point of entry into the system for any ailment. Often, there is confusion about the access arrangements for out-of-hours care. Those behavioural changes are cumulative. They are a consequence of changes that were made some years ago, not least through the changes to the responsibility for out-of-hours care in the GP contract. The implementation of those changes undoubtedly sowed much of the confusion over how to access emergency care.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of potential patients are confused about what out-of-hours unscheduled care is available? There are A and Es, minor injuries units, out-of-hours GP services, GP walk-in centres, NHS 111 and so on. Many people cannot discriminate between those services and do not know what they are supposed to provide. They therefore need to be further integrated.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My expectations for this debate were low, having previously endured shouting matches between the former Labour Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and the current Secretary of State, with the usual antics of carefully selected and spun statistics thrown at each other. Those expectations were not disappointed. This issue is not helped by being dragged into the gutter of partisan politics. The fact is that the A and E crisis—if there is indeed an A and E crisis—has existed and has been endemic in the NHS before and after 2010. This is largely the result of A and E being seen as an issue that somehow needs to be treated separately and not part of an integrated NHS. Before 2010, there were ambulances queuing outside the A and E in my constituency and in the Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust in Truro. The problem exists. From time to time, there will be those kinds of pressures, which are created by a whole set of things that are not entirely the fault of a failing A and E service.
One aspect of unscheduled care in Cornwall that I raised with the former Secretary of State is the out-of-hours GP service. The previous Labour Government were perfectly happy to see that service put out to tender and privatised, and we saw a fragmented unscheduled care service. I reported the Serco out-of-hours GP service to the CQC, because it was simply putting profit before patients by manipulating statistics to make the outcomes appear better than they were. It was announced last week that Serco will be handing that contract back early. I hope that that will result in an integration of unscheduled out-of-hours care, as that is the kind of thing we need to do. This is not an issue that should be subject to party political point scoring, because that completely misses the target.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman sat on the Select Committee with me. He must surely accept that there was a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and that cost the NHS £3 billion.
Andrew George
Yes, and the previous Labour Government were involved in multiple top-down reorganisations of the NHS. The hon. Lady knows that I opposed that top-down reorganisation; I voted against the Health and Social Care Bill.
We could just bemoan the things that are going wrong, but I want, in two minutes, at least to lay on the table my prescription for what needs to be put right. The two themes have to be integration and prevention. My intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) spelled out the theme of integration. Unscheduled care includes not only A and E, but minor injuries units, urgent care services, the 111 service, the ambulance service, the out-of-hours GP service, GP surgeries themselves, and, indeed, GP walk-in centres, which the previous Government created. Significant confusion is created about where the general public are supposed to take themselves if they have an urgent need for medical attention. We really need to find ways to integrate those unscheduled services in a way that does not result in the fragmentation that bedevils the service at present.
On prevention, often in acute hospitals planned work cannot go ahead because patients cannot be discharged from hospital and other patients cannot be admitted because there are insufficient beds. The health service is not integrated, because there are insufficient community beds and the primary care service is struggling and stretched to the limit, unable to provide the kind of care for people in their homes and community hospitals that would avoid them ending up in hospital as emergency cases. Those are the two themes: further integration of the service, which is not helped by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and significant investment in preventive care and primary care.
Care Bill [Lords]
Andrew George Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He says that everyone will be protected, but of course the cap on care costs is not a cap on “daily living costs”, as the Bill puts it. Will he therefore confirm that the £70,000—or whatever figure the cost ends up at—will not be the end of the costs for many people going into residential care?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. We followed the recommendations of Andrew Dilnot, who did not think that the cap should apply to hotel costs, and, indeed, the policy that the Opposition followed in their national care service White Paper. We think that it is reasonable to cap the care costs. There is a cost issue—we would like to be more generous, but by the end of the next Parliament this proposal will cost nearly £2 billion. People who would like a more generous system must be obliged to tell us where they will get the extra funding.
Andy Burnham
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had been here long enough to know the difference by now. We will not oppose the Bill, in the sense that we will not vote against it on Second Reading, but it contains measures to which we simply cannot give a clear endorsement, as I will go on to explain. That is the purpose of our reasoned amendment. We will not oppose the Bill’s passage on Second Reading, which is why I objected to the Secretary of State misrepresenting my position.
Andrew George
I was going to make a similar point. Is it wise to bring forward an amendment of the type the right hon. Gentleman has tabled, bearing in mind the rather partisan nature of the debate we have had so far? What we really wanted was a debate on the Bill’s contents. Does he not now regret having brought forward such an amendment, because it has precipitated our going down into the gutter of partisan politics?
Andy Burnham
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I am not opportunistically opposing the Bill. I have tabled a reasoned amendment to put on the record the very serious concerns people have about funding for local authority care in England, the way the new cap will work and, in particular, the proposed clause on hospital reconfiguration—the Lewisham clause. I cannot let those concerns pass without making clear our position on them from the Dispatch Box. That is why we have taken that stand. That is why I am seeking to introduce my remarks in a non-partisan way.