patients' etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
patients' etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

12 Mayıs 2017 Cuma

Doctors owe it to patients to tell the truth: the NHS is in terminal decline | Rachel Clarke

Like church and state, medicine and politics are traditionally seen as a queasy mix. The last thing you want in your flimsy hospital gown is some zealot with a stethoscope trying to sway your vote. Doctors, at the bedside, should clearly stick to doctoring. But – in a world of ever more outlandishly spun health statistics – where, outside of clinical encounters, do the limits of doctors’ duty to act in our patients’ best interests lie?


I made the sobering discovery, in my first few weeks as a doctor, that serving patients in the modern NHS was at least as much to do with advocacy as medicine. It has to be, in a system that’s stretched beyond breaking point. With resources so scarce, speaking out counts.


Once, I actually stalked a professor, in sheer desperation to provide an inpatient with decent care. He did a double take at the steely-eyed junior doctor, sat perched outside his clinic, fired up to plead her patient’s case. With everyone run ragged, overwhelmed by patients, no one had believed me or cared enough to act when I’d insisted my patient was suffering from a rare diagnosis, adult-onset Stills disease, that had left her heart swamped in fluid, her temperature soaring, her circulation so fragile it might need intensive care. “Please,” I begged. “Just see her for yourself.” As the pre-eminent professor of rheumatology in my hospital, he was the one man I knew who might act. And he did. He confirmed the diagnosis and whisked my patient off to his specialist care, possibly saving her life.


When almost every statistic about today’s NHS depicts a system quietly imploding around us, advocacy writ large has never mattered more. Doctors, like nurses, bear daily witness to the facts behind the spin. Our testimony is a vital corrective to a government hell-bent on airbrushing away the truth about today’s underfunded NHS. We look the patients in the eye as they languish on trolleys in hospital corridors. We apologise, shamefaced, to the families whose loved ones are stranded in hospital, because no social care exists to support their safe discharge home. We turn away the elderly who sob in A&E because the pain in their hip is beyond endurance, yet who haven’t even made it on to a waiting list for surgery. If we turned a blind eye and kept our heads down, would Hippocrates nod his assent?




Having to break bad news to a patient is never easy. But unflinching conversations are a cornerstone of good medicine




The state of the NHS in 2017 demands that doctors speak out about the human cost of underfunding since it clear our political leaders will not. Only this week, Theresa May made an election manifesto commitment of 10,000 more staff in mental health. Unfunded, needless to say, but also – more audaciously – a promise made on the back of the 6,700 mental health staff already culled since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. It’s this kind of political doublespeak that compels doctors to challenge loudly the government line that – despite the most brutal funding squeeze in NHS history – everything is going swimmingly.


In microcosm, we already know what happens when cost-cutting is prioritised above patient care. The scandal of Mid Staffs – a stain upon the history of the NHS, in which patients in their thousands were subjected to inhumane care – arose when one hospital trust strove to slash costs by millions. Yet currently, the government is enforcing £22bn of “efficiency savings” across the NHS, while insisting excellence of care can somehow continue.


Doctors should call out this claptrap for what it is. We are, after all – perhaps more than anyone – trusted to tell unpalatable truths. In this case, the hard medicine is more taxes. A world-class health service requires world-class funding. Either we provide the budget to fit the health care we want, or we cut the NHS to fit the amount we’re willing to spend on health. With a government too cowardly to confront this simple truth out loud, doctors should force an honest debate.


Yet – with a few notable exceptions (Taj Hassan and Neena Modi, for example, the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Emergency Medicine and of Paediatrics and Child Health respectively), the medical establishment is loath to rock the boat. Where is the joint statement from the Royal Colleges, for instance, urging increased taxation to bring our NHS and social care spend to at least the levels of Germany and France? Where are the hospital medical directors brave enough to speak out in public against the ever more fanciful diktats from on high to keep on delivering as their funding dries up?


Having to break bad news to a patient is never easy. But unflinching conversations are a cornerstone of good medicine. Nationally, doctors should be telling it like it is: without more money, our NHS is in relentless, terminal, and wholly avoidable decline.



Doctors owe it to patients to tell the truth: the NHS is in terminal decline | Rachel Clarke

11 Mayıs 2017 Perşembe

NHS patients waiting months for vital bowel cancer tests, figures show

Patients with one of the most lethal forms of cancer are having to wait months to have vital diagnostic tests, in a new sign of the relentless pressure on NHS services.


People suspected of having bowel cancer are facing waits of three months for tests when they should have them within a maximum of six weeks, the latest NHS waiting time figures show.


In March almost half the patients referred for the disease to Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust had to wait more than the six weeks set out in the NHS constitution. In all 144 (49.3%) of the 292 patients that month had to ensure waits of several months, and 39 of them were kept waiting for more than 13 weeks.


Campigners warned that patients could die as a result of the delays in patients undergoing either a colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy, the two tests used to detect bowel cancer.


Prof Colin Rees, vice-president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said: “By testing the right people at the right time we can save lives and stop people dying needlessly.”


In March 24% of hospital trusts in England missed the six-week target for colonoscopy, which meant that 1,121 patients were kept waiting. In the same month, 18% of hospitals breached the six-week target for flexi-sigmoidoscopy.


Deborah Alsina, chief executive of Bowel Cancer UK, said the waiting times “present a worrying picture for patients”. She identified a lack of diagnotic staff as a key problem and lamented the latest of several delays in Health Education England publishing a plan, first promised in 2015, to boost the NHS cancer workforce.


About 41,000 people a year in the UK develop bowel cancer and around 16,000 die from it. It is Britain’s fourth most deadly cancer after lung, breast and prostate.


Meanwhile, NHS performance against its key waiting times targets is now the highest it has been for five years, NHS Englnd’s latest statistics show.


During 2015-16, 2.5 million people were not treated within four hours of arriving in A&E, and a total of 362,687 patients did not receive planned care in hospital – usually an operation – within 18 weeks.


Another 26,113 waited longer than 62 days for supposedly urgent cancer treatment after being referred by their GP, while 985,583 people with a life-threatening condition waited more than the maximum eight minutes for an ambulance to respond to an 999 call.


“These figures reveal the dismal human cost of the NHS crisis,” said Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman. “Millions of patients are waiting in distress and anxiety, but Theresa may doesn’t care.”


Responding to the latest monthly statistics, a Conservative spokesman said: “These figures show A&E performance has improved a great deal since the equivalent time last year. Waiting times for an operation again got shorter in March, and crucially patient outcomes continue to improve. Breast cancer survival is at its highest ever level.”


The figures came as the Health Foundation warned that the care patients receive is under threat because of the NHS’s unprecedented financial squeeze.


In a report, the thinktank says: “It is difficult to see how the intense financial pressures on all NHS and social care services will not threaten the quality of care in the near future if nothing changes.


“As OECD analyses have shown, the UK’s performance on quality is middling when compared with other OECD countries, but then so are our funding levels.”



NHS patients waiting months for vital bowel cancer tests, figures show

Healthcare bodies want to scrap the term ‘patients’. As a GP, I have a better idea | Ann Robinson

Many healthcare organisations want to dump the term “patients”, according to participants at a major event in London yesterday called the Future of People Powered Health. “Patient” is widely disliked – with its connotations of having to wait patiently, quietly and uncomplainingly to be the passive recipient of a doctor’s largesse. “Customer” isn’t much better; “client” or “service user” have some takers, and “partner” may be the best of a bad lot. But do we need a term at all?


Halima Khan, executive director of Nesta Health Lab who organised the event in partnership with Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity , says the debate about whether to ditch the term “patients” has been bubbling up for some time. Many feel that the word, derived from the Latin “patiens” (one who suffers) is now obsolete. There’s support from patient and professional groups to consider changing the language in the hope that some entrenched attitudes will change too. “The Royal College of General Practitioners, for instance is teaching trainee GPs to talk to and about patients in a different way.”


But mental health campaigner Gillian Lamb (not her real name), who has been treated for serious mental health problems, sectioned and admitted to psychiatric units, says she couldn’t care less what she’s called so long as she’s treated with dignity and respect. “I’ve never minded being called a patient because I don’t feel inadequate, secretive or ashamed of having a mental illness. But I know others who are very sensitive about the medicalisation of their condition, and they do object to the term.”


Opponents of ditching the word “patient” say the original meaning of the word doesn’t matter, there’s no suitable alternative, it doesn’t carry connotations of passivity any more, attitudinal change can occur without ditching the name, and changing the name may not lead to meaningful change.


One suggestion is to borrow the language of intentional and therapeutic communities, set up like house-shares in which people are called members and are all expected to muck in and have equal status even if they have different roles. Lamb says that on her ward, “patient meetings” were called “community meetings” – or a “coalition of the unwilling” as an off-message staff member called it.


But the language that organisations use can reflect their philosophy and intended style of delivery. So an upmarket care home wanting to sell itself as being like a hotel may call residents “guests”. The term “service users” has become popular in the NHS though it’s (unintentionally) ironic given that accessing services is often a key problem for people suffering from chronic conditions – “service hopefuls” might be more accurate. “Stakeholders” crops up a lot; I have no idea what it means; don’t we all have a stake in our health and social care?


As a GP and occasional “patient”, I don’t see the need for any term at all. We have 4500 people registered at our surgery. Every person who comes into see me is, just that, a person. When I was in hospital recently for an operation, I didn’t morph into a patient when I entered the ward. I was the same person that I am in the street, but requiring a particular service. After a particularly dehumanising experience with a night nurse, I felt like screaming “I am not a patient, I am a free person”, in a parody of the The Prisoner. Needless to say, I didn’t do that but instead behaved nice and patiently. I say, let’s ditch the term patient altogether and replace it with … person.



Healthcare bodies want to scrap the term ‘patients’. As a GP, I have a better idea | Ann Robinson

10 Mayıs 2017 Çarşamba

Designed by patients: the mental health centre saving the NHS £300,000 a year

Soft, neatly folded blankets hang invitingly over the backs of the modern but comfy armchairs in the Gellinudd Recovery Centre’s communal living room. In the en suite bedrooms, there are white waffle slippers and dressing gowns embroidered with the centre’s tree symbol.


Staff and guests – those who stay are not termed patients – join forces to cook, clean and tend the fruit and veg they then sit down to eat together at Gellinudd, which is the UK’s first inpatient mental health centre to be designed by service users and their carers. “If you’re a psychiatrist you’ll still be expected to be in the kitchen chopping vegetables alongside everyone else,” says the centre’s director, Alison Guyatt.


Over three years, via consultation meetings attended by up to 50 people and annual general meetings attracting as many as 300, service users and carers who are also members of the Welsh charity Hafal, which runs the centre, have influenced everything from the policies and procedures to the decor, facilities and recovery-focused activities on offer.


“They’re the experts,” says Guyatt. “They can say how it feels to be on the receiving end of care, how anxious you would be, what your concerns would be. They have such powerful stories to tell.” The lack of privacy and dignity in hospital settings, together with old and decrepit buildings that provide little access to fresh air, were common themes among those who gave input. “A lot of them feel very clinical, rather than homely and welcoming,” Guyatt says.


Ensuring a different atmosphere at Gellinudd, which opened in April 2017, was therefore critical. Members met the architects in the earliest stages, and Guyatt arranged for furniture makers to bring chairs, tables and beds to consultation events to be tested.


Hafal believes co-produced, recovery-focused services improve outcomes for patients and reduce costs. It has estimated that Gellinudd, which was developed with Big Lottery funding of £1m and £500,000 from the Welsh government’s Invest to Save scheme, will generate year-on-year NHS savings of £300,000 in Wales.


Could the model be copied elsewhere in the UK? Commissioners are increasingly interested in co-production, according to Grazina Berry, director of performance, quality and innovation at the Richmond Fellowship, a voluntary sector mental health support provider that involves its users in shaping services. But the resources to make it happen are not necessarily available.


“We’re seeing many more opportunities coming up which directly ask for co-produced innovations,” Berry says. “But the money to match that isn’t always there because funding is reducing. We as a provider can say we’ll implement a whole range of innovative services. But to prove they work we want to evaluate them, and evaluation costs money.” Berry has no doubt that services designed with users bring better outcomes: “They give power to the people who understand recovery the most.”


At the National Survivor User Network (NSUN), a charity which helps mental health service users shape policy and services, managing director Sarah Yiannoullou believes the extent to which service users are listened to remains patchy. “There are some really good examples where the rhetoric is starting to become the reality, but it’s not consistent,” she says.


“I think we’re still in a system where the medical model is dominant and there’s this culture that the professional still knows best. The problem for the voluntary sector is that quite often what you say works and helps is regarded as anecdotal or dismissed as not credible.”


But it is crucial service users are listened to: “Meaningful, effective involvement can transform people’s lives, improve the quality and efficiency of services and develop the resilience of communities,” says Yiannoullou. “If commissioners and clinicians really listen to us, respect us and treat us as equals then our experience of services will improve.”



Designed by patients: the mental health centre saving the NHS £300,000 a year

9 Mayıs 2017 Salı

Patients need motivation to recover. The NHS must offer hope | Kate Allatt

Our NHS is under attack from all angles. People are living longer, we don’t eat well or exercise enough. Yet we expect more from the NHS; more people are visiting A&E departments and minor injury units year on year, and costs are rising.


How do we tackle this? What if we focus on marginal gains, the performance strategy that helped British Cycling to success in multiple Olympics?


This is an approach that focuses on “small incremental improvements in any process adding up to a significant improvement when they are all added together”. Could this improve patient outcomes and reduce waste in the health service?


One incremental enhancement we could seek in the NHS might be to improve our understanding of and response to the barriers to patient motivation. For example, could we find a way of encouraging stroke survivors to practise their rehabilitation exercises as frequently and intensively as they are prescribed? Patient adherence to rehabilitation regimes after discharge from hospital is described as “less than ideal”. By addressing these barriers, we will be more able to efficiently allocate therapy time, and thereby reduce GP appointments and hospital readmissions.


You might wonder what makes me an expert on this.




L​owering ​​patients’ expectations of ​recovery​ can be extremely damaging




In February 2010, at the age of 39, I had a huge brainstem stroke and was diagnosed with locked in syndrome. I was on life support and in intensive care for nine weeks, and was then written-offin rehabilitation after a further six weeks. My husband received a phone call telling him that I would never walk or talk again.


Over eight painstaking months in rehabilitation, I obsessively willed my body back to life, practising actions or movements 450 times per week. Slowly I learned how to do basic things like eat again, and at the end of it all I walked out of hospital. I went for a run on the first anniversary of my stroke. I’m now a motivational speaker and go to the gym every day.


[embedded content]

I never gave up pushing my body to improve: to speak, to eat, to run and to hug my kids. I managed to use my bad prognosis to galvanise my recovery, but the risk is that lowering patients’ expectations of recovery can be extremely damaging. Recovery should be measured in terms of improvements, not “getting better” – and that is always possible. My only focus, with three young children at home, was on when I would achieve my goals, not if.


Since embarking on my career in advocacy and stroke activism, I’ve found many reasons why patients lack the motivation to try to help themselves. They may be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, which is common after a stroke and, just like depression, it affects mood and motivation levels. The side effects of the drug treatments for strokes – sleeping pills and muscle relaxants – can also affect motivation. After a brain injury many patients suffer varying levels of executive dysfunction affecting the set of mental skills that help to get things done, which can be mistaken for apathy or laziness. The overwhelming tiredness felt by those suffering from neurological fatigue can leave patients unable to complete normal daily tasks and therefore non-compliant with their treatment plans. It may be that some patients simply hate exercising or have no family support.


It is futile prescribing a stroke rehabilitation plan if – for any of these reasons – the patient is unmotivated before the therapy session starts or they are left at home trying to manage their own condition. The NHS should be offering hope and encouragement to motivate patients. And to do that, they need to listen to expert patients.


My advice to the King’s Fund Leadership Summit is that we need a better understanding of patient motivation to help rebuild the lives of stroke survivors. If patients adhere to clinical advice about practising their exercises as frequently and intensively as I did, just imagine how much we could improve their outcomes and reduce the waste in the NHS. But to do this we must understand the complex reasons why patients don’t do this already and listen to those who have struggled through similar experiences.


I don’t promise anything when I speak to people now – I just offer possibilities. I talk about how to optimise improvement, but never use the word recovery. After a life-changing event none of us will ever be the same as we were, even if we physically improve really well. We need to embrace that new self and strive to be the best version of ourselves that we can be, both in hospital and back home.


Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more pieces like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.



Patients need motivation to recover. The NHS must offer hope | Kate Allatt

1 Mayıs 2017 Pazartesi

Critics slam "rip off" 50p-a-minute charge to call patients" hospital phones

Relatives who call patients in hospital are still being forced to pay “rip off” charges of 50p a minute despite a promised clampdown on the issue.


The firm Hospedia, which runs bedside TV and phone services in NHS hospitals and made £21.2m in revenue last year, makes people call loved ones via costly 070 numbers. The charges vary from hospital to hospital, but many trust websites say they cost about 50p a minute or more.


Callers are also forced to listen to a lengthy recorded message of about 70 seconds – which racks up charges before they are even connected to their loved one.The message contains information already obvious to the caller, such as the fact the patient is in hospital, and tells callers to be “patient”. Critics say patients are being treated as “cash cows” and described the charges as “extortionate”.


Hospedia currently manages TV and bedside phone services in 150 NHS hospitals, installing services for free in return for keeping the money charged to patients and relatives.


The firm said in 2014 it planned to phase out the use of 070 numbers but it has not happened. Ofcom reviewed the high costs in 2006 following complaints from users and recommended a substantial reduction in incoming call charges.


It urged the Department of Health to review all aspects of the system, and the way these costs appear “to be borne disproportionately by friends and family”.


The department looked at the issue and agreed to consider a skip facility at the start of the recorded message, enabling callers to bypass it and reduce the cost of the call. But this never came into effect and high call charges have remained.


A health department report in 2007 concluded that decisions on phones should remain with local hospitals. MPs on the health select committee also recommended a reduction in phone costs and called for a skip facility on the recorded message.


Hospedia refused to answer several questions posed by the Press Association, including how much money it makes from 070 numbers and why it still uses them.


A spokesman said: “Ofcom granted us use of the 070 number range to enable every bedside unit to have its own unique telephone number so that friends and relatives can call patients directly, alleviating pressure on nursing staff having to field calls.


“The patient’s bedside phone number is unique to each patient’s account and can follow them around the hospital if they are moved bed, a frequent occurrence.”


He said Hospedia offers free TV on children’s wards and free channels BBC1, BB2, ITV, Channel 4 and channel 5 from 8am to noon on adult wards. Outbound calls to landlines are also free.


He added: “We believe we offer an excellent service, which would not be provided at all if it weren’t for us taking on the investment and on-going management and support costs.


“Patients can choose to pay for our services, beyond those we offer for free, or not.”


But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: “These charges are a total rip off. When channels are free at home and people have already paid for their TV licence, it is unfair for them to need to pay it again.


“If someone is to spend four weeks in hospital with a full TV package that is the same price as their yearly fee.


“Hospitals and these businesses are treating the sick as cash cows.


“From hospital parking charges, TV packages to making people call expensive phone services, it seems like they try to eke out every bit of cash they can, it’s frankly unacceptable.”


Liz McAnulty, chair of the Patients Association, said: “Phone contact can be hugely valuable and reassuring to people in hospital and their loved ones at home.


“Any facility to provide this must offer a high quality service at a fair price, but Hospedia’s service appears to fail these tests badly.


“It is unacceptable for people calling someone in hospital to be charged heavily for 70 seconds before they even get through.”


Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said: “Since older people typically have longer hospital stays and do not always have access to a mobile phone, they and their families are particularly likely to be impacted.”


Lynda Thomas, chief executive for Macmillan Cancer Support, said the cost of calls was “shocking”.


She added: “When you are having cancer treatment, getting a call from a relative can make a huge difference as you can share your worries, seek reassurance, or just hear their voice.


“But if relatives have to pay extortionate amounts to make these calls they may not call, cut it short, or shoulder the burden of these high charges, at a time when the whole family may be struggling financially.”


A spokeswoman for Ofcom said it was “concerned” about 070 costs and wished to hear from customers as part of its ongoing monitoring.


She said there is no requirement on Hospedia to use 070 numbers, adding: “We are concerned about the cost of making calls to and from hospital patients.


“Following an investigation into this, we referred our findings to the Department of Health, which has since changed its rules on mobile phone use in hospitals.


“We are glad that more patients now have the option of using their mobiles when in hospital, but arrangements for bedside phones are managed by the NHS.


“We want to ensure adequate safeguards for consumers so we are examining the use of 070 number ranges, amid concerns that the cost of calling these numbers can be confusing.


“We welcome evidence of any harm so we can further protect consumers.”


A health department spokeswoman said: “Suppliers should always put patients first in the way they provide services.


“Staying connected to friends and family while in hospital is crucial and we expect local hospitals to tackle anything that prevents this.”


Last year, Hospedia doubled its minimum price for a TV package from £2.50 to £5.


Prices for TV packages vary between hospitals, with the Big Bundle TV and internet package costing £17.50 for two days at Newcastle General, but £15 at Ipswich Hospital. Five days can cost £35.


Sky Sports can cost an extra £10 on top each day. Longer-term packages are less costly.



Critics slam "rip off" 50p-a-minute charge to call patients" hospital phones

28 Nisan 2017 Cuma

Ian Paterson: the "likable" breast surgeon who wounded his patients

When Ian Paterson first started working at the Heart of England NHS foundation trust in Birmingham in 1998, the organisation had significant waiting list problems. The only breast surgeon was struggling to deal with the increasing numbers of patients, and Paterson’s appointment was seen as “a significant blessing” by managers.


After he applied for the job, a senior manager at his previous employer, Good Hope hospital, telephoned one of the medical directors at the trust to tell him that Paterson had been the subject of an investigation and temporarily suspended in 1996 following an operation which had “exposed the patient to a significant risk of harm”. The trust hired him anyway.


“To be honest, when we heard he was coming … it was, you know: ‘What’s gone on then?’” one senior radiologist told Sir Ian Kennedy, in his 2013 report into Paterson’s practice. “His reputation was well-known as being difficult and having open rows with a colleague at Good Hope … It’s always a surprise to us why they took him on when they knew he was trouble.”


As early as 2003, Paterson’s colleagues started raising serious concerns that he was not removing enough breast tissue during lumpectomies and mastectomies, increasing the risk of cancer recurring. But it took four investigations, four reports and nine years before Paterson was suspended by the General Medical Council in October 2012.


The first of hundreds of civil claims against the trust came around 2010. So far, 256 cases have been settled, with 25 still outstanding. The trust has paid nearly £9.5m in compensation to date, with the highest single settlement being around £250,000. A criminal investigation into Paterson’s practice was launched in 2012 and criminal charges were brought in January 2016.


Paterson, who received his medical degree from the University of Bristol in 1981, was described by his patients as having a good bedside manner. Mike Diskin, who was treated by Paterson in 2006, described him as “an incredibly likable man, great bedside manner, very personable, a great listener”.


Jo Luton, a patient in 2007, said Paterson was well-spoken and empathetic. “He had a brilliant bedside manner and really seemed to know his stuff.”


Another patient said: “Even though he was a consultant, he spoke on your level.”


His colleagues were less complimentary. According to the Kennedy report, Paterson was “not a team player”, and was given to being “autocratic and high-handed to the point of being dismissive of colleagues”. The words “arrogant”, “aggressive” and “bully” were used by several staff members and two surgeons left the trust after run-ins with Paterson.


“He didn’t want anyone to get in his way,” said a surgeon who had trained and worked with Paterson. “Because of his personality he tended to be isolated and he quite liked that, so people would avoid him, go around him and not deal with him, so he never got questioned or hauled up.”


One of the explanations given in the Kennedy report for the inconsistent amount of breast tissue that Paterson was removing during surgery was the speed at which he worked. Dr Martin Lee, a surgeon who was asked to observe Paterson’s surgeries in 2008, likened his technique to a whirlwind.


“He would breeze into the theatre, a sort of constant impatience with things and just try and get on as quickly as possible and that is something I have not seen very often,” he said.


At the time, Paterson lived with his wife, Louise, a physiotherapist, and their three children in an eight-bedroom grade II-listed Georgian house in Edgbaston. The family sold the house for around £1.25m in 2013, after accusations of Paterson’s malpractice were first published in the press.


Former neighbours in Edgbaston described the Patersons as a lovely family. “She was nice and very gentle,” said one neighbour of Louise Paterson.


She said she rarely saw Ian Paterson, but was shocked when she saw police parked outside the family’s home. “They were a very nice family, with very nice children, and one morning I was going out early, about 8.15am, and there were all these policemen and police cars.”


In his report, Kennedy says Paterson saw himself as “a good patient advocate [...] pushing for a good cosmetic result from surgery as well as effective treatment”. He says other surgeons took the view that “curing the patient’s cancer is paramount”, with any cosmetic outcome being secondary.


Dr Misra Budhoo, who worked with Paterson for several years, summed up the difficulty of dealing with him: “[Paterson’s] personality is such that he lacks insight into what his problem is [...] The very first thing [needed] to change somebody is they have to understand that there is a problem. I do not know if Ian has actually accepted he has a problem anyway.”



Ian Paterson: the "likable" breast surgeon who wounded his patients

NHS pays out millions to patients of surgeon convicted of needless breast operations

The NHS has been forced to pay out almost £10m in compensation to more than 250 patients of a rogue surgeon found guilty of carrying out needless breast operations on patients who were left traumatised and scarred.


Consultant surgeon Ian Stuart Paterson, 59, was convicted on 20 counts of wounding with intent and unlawful wounding against nine women and one man on Friday. But he could have more than 1,000 more victims, among them hundreds of private patients who may never be compensated for botched and needless operations.


Paterson had denied the charges, which related to procedures he carried out between 1997 and 2011. The jury at Nottingham crown court had heard claims that the surgeon – who saw hundreds of patients a year – carried out the operations for “obscure motives”, which may have included a desire to “earn extra money”.


He denied misrepresenting patients’ test results to dupe insurers into paying for surgery, but other former patients have told the Guardian that the surgeon exaggerated or simply invented the risk of cancer and – in some cases – claimed payments for more expensive procedures that those he had carried out.


Paterson was employed by Heart of England NHS trust in 1998 – despite having been previously suspended from the Good Hope hospital in Birmingham – and also practised at privately run Spire Healthcare hospitals in the Midlands over a 13-year period.


The NHS has so far paid out around £9.5m, settling 256 cases, with 25 outstanding, the Guardian has learned. But hundreds of Paterson’s private patients may never see a penny after Paterson’s insurance company – the Medical Defence Union (MDU) – said their cover was “discretionary” and had been withdrawn. Paterson had a limited separate insurance policy of £10m, which solicitors say will not nearly cover the compensation and costs of all private patients.


Spire Healthcare, which runs the Parkway and Little Aston hospitals where Paterson treated private patients, have settled some cases but argue that as Paterson was not technically their employee, they are not responsible for his actions. The company would not divulge any details about compensation.


Sarah Jane Downing, who set up a petition, demanding compensation for Paterson’s private victims, said she had been left “shocked and appalled” at the lack of redress.



Sarah Jane Downing.


Sarah Jane Downing. Photograph: Teri Pengilley for the Guardian

“Many of these people chose private healthcare because they bought into those promises in the glossy brochures. And now we have realised that those promises are not worth the paper they are printed on. It’s utterly devastating.”


At a recent coffee morning for former Paterson patients, many described the consultant’s “brilliant” bedside manner. “He was so lovely, I thought I was so lucky – I thought I was being looked after,” said Elaine Diskin, who had eight operations by Paterson over as many years.


Her husband, Mike, also had a deep respect for the surgeon – so much so that when he had a pain in his chest, he went to him and did not hesitate when the surgeon said he suspected lipoma and that they “had to get it out”.


“Sinister was the word he used,” Diskin said. “I had no reason to doubt him because he was looking after Elaine so well.”


They trusted Paterson so much they also recommended his care to a friend, who went on to have a lump removed. “We used to joke that we’d paid for his skiing holidays,” said Elaine Diskin.


After the Diskins were recalled for a review of their treatment in 2012 they discovered that at least seven of the eight operations Paterson had done on Elaine – along with both performed on her husband and their friend – were unnecessary.


A civil case with seven “test” cases – which will determine to what extent Spire can be held liable for Paterson’s work in their hospitals – is scheduled to be heard in October, but looks likely to be delayed. The outcome will affect all the private patients who have brought civil claims – and who fear they may get nothing.


Solicitors familiar with the case say Spire has made a handful of payments – the largest about £150,000 – to former patients in the private sector which include unnecessary removal of lumps and the received“cleavage-sparing mastectomies”, a controversial operation that left breast tissue behind after the removal of cancerous cells.


Concerns about Paterson were raised as far back as 2003. But despite several internal and external investigations and complaints from patients, GPs and other surgeons he was only suspended by the General Medical Council in 2011. “In every profession you get rogue operators – but there are checks and balances to stop terrible things happening,” said Mike Diskin. “Why were there not in this case, or why were they ignored?”


Timeline


1998: Paterson is hired as a consultant surgeon at the Heart of England NHS trust, despite being previously suspended from the Good Hope hospital, and also sees private patients at Spire Healthcare hospitals Little Aston and Parkway.


2003: Paterson is investigated because of concerns about “cleavage-sparing mastectomies”. Recommendations are not followed through.


2007: Breast surgeon Hemant Ingle is appointed and with others raises concerns. Further investigations are carried out and Paterson is told to stop performing “cleavage-sparing mastectomies”. Mark Goldman, chief executive of the Heart of England NHS trust, informs Spire that the trust is investigating Paterson.


2008: Two GPs complain about Paterson’s treatment of a patient, saying he gave misleading information about pathology reports, over-treated patients and disregarded the multidisciplinary team meeting process. Another report is critical.


2009: A Spire Parkway patient makes a formal complaint about Paterson. No action is taken. Heart of England NHS trust recalls 12 patients who have had “cleavage-sparing mastectomies”. West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit submits two further reports.


2010: The General Medical Council (GMC) tells Spire Parkway executives about a complaint from an NHS patient. .


2011: Parkway were informed Paterson had carried out a “cleavage-sparing mastectomy” in 2009 after being told to stop in January 2008. A month later the GMC informed Spire about another patient complaint. A total recall of all Paterson’s patients begins.


Paterson is suspended by the NHS in May 2011 but continues to perform breast surgery for Spire until 31 May and general surgery until 8 June 2011. He is paid until November 2012.



NHS pays out millions to patients of surgeon convicted of needless breast operations

Thousands of cancer patients denied wish to die at home

Tens of thousands of people with cancer are dying in hospital every year even though they would rather spend their final days at home or in a hospice.


Although only 1% of cancer patients say they would prefer to die in hospital, 38% do, according to research by Macmillan Cancer Support, equating to 62,000 people a year across the UK.


A lack of health services outside hospitals, such as district nurses, to support people in their homes in their last days has been cited as a key reason behind the discovery.


But Macmillan said “a crisis of communication in the UK when it comes to death” and especially cancer patients’ reluctance to talk about their feelings, including their death, was preventing people achieving their own preferences. .


“There is a stark difference between a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ death. We want everyone, where possible, to have a death that’s pain-free and in the place of their choosing. This is where the power of talking about death in advance is crucial,” said Adrienne Betteley, the charity’s head of health and social care.


Macmillan’s research, among 2,005 people who had been diagnosed with cancer, revealed that three in four had thought about the fact that they might die from the disease and one in five thought about it constantly or often.


However, 35% of those questioned had not spoken to anyone else about how they were feeling and just 8% had discussed matters with any of their health professionals.


Macmillan suggests people with cancer more readily relay how they are feeling, especially about where they want to die.


“The only certainty in life is that we will all die. What is less certain is where and what experience we will have when it happens. It’s only by talking about dying that we can agree what is really important to us, and put plans in place to make that happen,” said Lynda Thomas, Macmillan’s chief executive.


Amanda Cheesley, the Royal College of Nursing’s professional lead for long-term conditions and end-of-life care, said: “This country sadly still has serious work to do when it comes to end-of-life care. We must help patients to express their wishes, but we also need to make more options available in the first place. Declining numbers of community and district nurses and a lack of social care mean too many have to stay in hospital whether they want to or not.


“The nursing shortage is making a bad situation worse. With fewer nursing staff on wards, many are unable to facilitate discussions about death, and two-thirds of nurses say they don’t have the time to deliver the high-quality care that dying patients need.”



Thousands of cancer patients denied wish to die at home

22 Nisan 2017 Cumartesi

Smokers and obese patients face more curbs on NHS surgery

NHS bosses are planning a massive expansion of the controversial rationing that forces smokers and obese patients to wait months in pain before they can have surgery, a leaked letter reveals.


The move will see local NHS bodies across England implement restrictions on access to treatment that will hit what doctors’ leaders believe will be tens of thousands of patients.


The plan is disclosed in a letter sent on 15 March by Dr David Black, NHS England’s medical director for Yorkshire and the Humber, to Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). In it, he praises the GP-led group that controls the NHS budget for treating the town’s residents for introducing what critics call “lifestyle rationing”, which compels dangerously overweight patients or those who smoke to wait for hip or knee surgery. “We are very supportive of your work to best manage resources for the benefit of all patients and understand that this may mean that difficult decisions need to be made,” Black wrote.


And he added: “We expect that many CCGs will be in the process of developing similar schemes and initiatives to deliver plans for 2017-19. This is something we would encourage, where plans are well developed and clinically validated.” He then told the CCG to give him four weeks’ warning of any further plans “to change access thresholds” so that NHS England can prepare for the fallout.


The move has triggered a storm of protest, with ex-health minister Norman Lamb warning that condemning patients to long, painful delays for care is destroying the NHS’s fundamental principles and obliging those affected to pay for private treatment.


“This is yet more evidence of the creeping advance of rationing. Guidance based purely on medical judgment on weight loss is fine, but what is happening around the country goes well beyond that in practice. It will inevitably result in those people with money paying for speedy treatment, while everyone else is left waiting,” said Lamb, who is the Liberal Democrats’ health spokesman.


“We are seeing, bit by bit, the destruction of the solidarity that this country has been so proud of with the NHS – the idea that whatever your income or wealth, you get access to the care you need, in your hour of need,” he added.


Labour claimed that underfunding of the NHS lay behind the extension of rationing. “This secret memo from NHS chiefs reveals the truth of what’s happening to the NHS under the Tories – more and more rationing of treatments. People will be waiting longer and longer in pain and discomfort for surgery such as hip and knee replacements,” said Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary. “There is now a very clear choice in this election. Cuts, longer waiting times and restrictions on treatment under the Tories, or Labour, who will return our NHS to its founding principle of universal provision, free at the point of need, with best quality of care for all,” he added.


As many as one in five patients awaiting a hip or knee operation ends up being denied surgery for months after such schemes are introduced, it emerged last week. Seventy-nine out of 408 patients needing a knee replacement in Scarborough and Ryedale, and also in Yorkshire, have not been referred to hospital for the procedure since the CCG brought in that policy last November. The 79 have been told to lose weight or stop smoking during the delay – which the CCG calls “a six-month period of health optimisation” – before they have their surgery.


The figures, uncovered by the Yorkshire Post, led the Royal College of Surgeons to claim that “it is disgraceful that one in five patients is having … surgery delayed for at least six months based on what are, frankly, arbitrary criteria.”


Ian Eardley, the college’s vice-president, told the Observer: “It is deeply concerning that one in five patients are now being denied immediate surgery because they smoke or are deemed obese. There is no medical evidence to justify restricting referrals for entire groups of patients; it is effectively a form of discrimination. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg as we know that over a third of commissioning bodies are pursuing similar policies, meaning tens of thousands of patients across the country are facing restrictions on their surgery.”


Patients denied hip or knee surgery can end up in severe pain or have trouble walking, “making it near impossible for them to lose the required weight to allow them to access surgery in the future. Patients need all of the support they can get to lose weight or to stop smoking, but removing their rights to timely NHS surgical care will obviously not achieve this,” he added. Eardley called on all political parties to make it clear during the election campaign that they do not think the NHS should impose such restrictions on those who are obese or who smoke.



Smokers and obese patients face more curbs on NHS surgery

21 Nisan 2017 Cuma

Almost untreatable superbug CPE poses serious threat to patients, doctors warn

Doctors are warning that the rise of an almost untreatable superbug, immune to some of the last-line antibiotics available to hospitals, poses a serious threat to patients.


The number of lab-confirmed cases of the bug, called carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), rose from three to nearly 2,000 in the 12 years to 2015, according to Public Health England (PHE). But that may be far short of the real number because hospitals are not compelled to report suspected cases. PHE admits it does not know where the infections are coming from or how many people are dying.


Freedom of information requests made by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveal that at least 81 people infected with CPE have died since 2009 at 66 NHS trusts in England – although the bug may have been a complicating factor rather than the main cause of death in some cases.


But the real figure is almost certain to be much higher. Many trusts did not respond to the requests or were unable to supply complete data. Out of 136 NHS hospital trusts that were asked for the numbers of infections and deaths between 2009 and 2016, 97 responded but nearly half did not have data on CPE or could not extract the details.


In Manchester and London, dealing with CPE has cost NHS trusts almost £10m. There have also been confirmed outbreaks in Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, Colchester, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin and Limerick, among others.


Elsewhere, Italy had only sporadic cases of CPE in 2009 but by 2014, the bugs were rife across the country. “If you look at Italy they’ve suspended bone marrow transplant programmes,” said Dr Matthew Laundy, consultant medical microbiologist at St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. “If you’ve got no antibiotics to treat CPEs you’re stuck.”


Experts are calling for reports of suspected CPE infections to be made mandatory. The numbers revealed by the Bureau are “shocking,” said Val Edwards-Jones, emeritus professor of microbiology at Manchester Metropolitan University.


“It should absolutely be mandatory for trusts to report this,” she said. “If you go back to the 1990s MRSA [reporting] wasn’t mandatory. It was only when hospitals did proper surveillance and began looking at the bugs in the blood that we knew the scale of the problem. Then it was found that there were certain things that weren’t being done correctly.”


Dr Michael Cooper, a consultant microbiologist and director of infection control at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, said: “If something’s not mandatory, it’s the places doing well that take care to report. You don’t get figures from the trusts with their head in the sand, the poor performers.


“Public Health England have no idea how many people are dying, they’ve no outcome data. This is a serious mistake.”


CPE is carried harmlessly in the gut, but may kill if it enters the bloodstream through a wound of a patient who is already sick or frail, which makes it a real danger in hospitals. About 40-50% of patients with a CPE bloodstream infection die. CPE is not untreatable, but it is difficult as antibiotic combinations or older, more toxic drugs have to be used.


CPE, dubbed the “nightmare bacteria” by Tom Frieden, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA, has developed resistance to the carbapenems, a group of “last resort” antibiotics that are used in serious infections when other drugs will not work. They include KPC (Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase) and NDM (New Delhi Metallo-beta-lactamase).


Experts have warned that antibiotic resistance is a major threat to the world and could turn the clock back on medical advances by making some surgery, such as heart transplants, impossible.


There are high levels of CPE in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Middle East, south and Central America, China, southeast Asia, Taiwan, Japan, some countries in southern Europe and the USA. In February the World Health Organisation named carbapenem resistant bugs a “critical priority” for which new antibiotics are urgently needed.


In 2014, the medical directors of both Public Health England and NHS England took what they called “the unusual step” of writing to all NHS Trust chief executives, urging them to take action to prevent the spread of CPE.


“CPE represents one of the most serious emerging infectious disease threats that we currently face, and the failure to control their spread now, while we still have the opportunity, could have substantial human health and financial consequences,” wrote Dr Paul Cosford and Sir Bruce Keogh.


However, Professor Alan Johnson, head of the department of healthcare-associated infection and antibiotic resistance at PHE, said patients should be reassured that infections caused by CPE can usually be treated with other antibiotics. Fewer than 2% of E coli or Klebsiella bloodstream infections are resistant to carbapenems, he said.


“We carry out enhanced surveillance on carbapenem-resistant bacteria to determine the numbers and different types of CPE. Although reports of CPE have increased recently, part of this may reflect increased laboratory testing of many sample types other than blood stream infections, as awareness of CPE has grown,” he said.


Manchester


New figures show that four times as many people have died as had previously been reported in an outbreak in Manchester.


In 2009, the first cases of a type of CPE called Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase were detected. In 2014, the hospital trust confirmed that 14 people had died from this infection, contracted within the hospital, in the previous four years.


But the Bureau’s research shows that there have been 61 deaths in the last seven years, including a six-year-old boy with leukaemia who caught the infection while undergoing a bone marrow transplant.


Many of those affected were very ill and had underlying medical problems and so it is not known whether the infection directly caused their death. Some may have died with a CPE infection rather than from it.


An investigation into the outbreak found in 2015 that CPE bacteria were living in the hospital kitchen sinks and handwash basins, which had drains that allowed splashback. Hugh Pennington, a leading microbiologist who chaired official inquiries into E coli outbreaks in 1996 and 2005, said such basins elsewhere in the NHS should be replaced. “It’s all about sound plumbing. It’s not rocket science. If your sink is going to spread the bug, get rid of it.”



Almost untreatable superbug CPE poses serious threat to patients, doctors warn

18 Nisan 2017 Salı

Could shared medical appointments help the NHS and patients?

In medicine, the private one-to-one consultation is sacrosanct.


Yet shared medical appointments have been used successfully for years at the Cleveland Clinic in the US. Patients appreciate them. They compare experiences with other patients, learn from their questions, gain more advice than they might otherwise, and improve their understanding of their symptoms.


For the hospital, the gains are seen in improved outcomes, higher patient satisfaction, dramatically reduced waiting times and lower costs.


Here, then, is an innovation that could help the NHS, caught between rising demand and squeezed budgets, which is leading to longer waiting lists and growing discontent. By sharing appointments, more patients could be treated more quickly, reducing waiting times, saving costs, yet raising standards of care.


They have been tried by GPs in Edinburgh, Sheffield and Newcastle, following the lead of doctors in the US and Australia. As a surgeon, I can see the potential benefits in bringing together patients undergoing the same procedure for pre- and post-surgical care.


Shared appointments are not appropriate for all patients or all conditions. They should always be offered, never imposed, and patients would always retain the option of a one-to-one consultation, if that was what they preferred. There might, however, be trade offs. Patients might be offered a one-to-one consultation in four weeks or a shared appointment in 48 hours.


They can yield real benefits in the routine care of chronic illnesses such as asthma, diabetes and heart disease, where patients can learn from and motivate each other. We already know the secret of Weight Watchers’ success lies in creating peer pressure among group members who compete to see who can shed most pounds. Alcoholics Anonymous similarly allows people to share a problem and begin to tackle it together. There are websites such as PatientsLikeMe which connect people to others with similar conditions.


However, shared medical appointments work differently from self-help groups. Each patient is examined by the doctor, diagnosed and prescribed treatment in exactly the same way as they would be in a one-to-one consultation. The benefit for the patients comes from observing how the other patients are managed, or manage themselves. In one example, a patient with heart disease was persuaded to get on an exercise bike by hearing about a teenager with a heart condition who had a passion for basketball.


The doctors are spared having to repeat the same information a dozen times a day, saving time and costs. Whereas a heart patient might require a half-hour appointment for a routine follow-up visit, with a shared appointment six or seven patients could be seen in 90 minutes.


In certain cases, only part of the appointment might be shared. For example, in a typical shared appointment for female patients at the Cleveland Clinic, the doctor performs breast and pelvic examinations and discusses test results in private, while the remainder of the appointment includes the other patients.


Given these benefits, it is surprising that shared appointments have not been taken up more widely. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Professor Kamalini Ramdas of London Business School and I suggest there are four principal reasons: the lack of rigorous scientific evidence of their value, the absence of easy ways to pilot them, missing incentives and lack of awareness among both patients and clinicians.


There is another reason. Innovations in healthcare typically take 17 years to spread, from proof of principle to widespread uptake. And this is an average – some take decades.


We need smart ideas – and disruptive innovators to implement them – if we are to improve the outlook for patients and for the NHS. Shared appointments is an idea worth pursuing.


Lord Darzi is a surgeon and director of the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London. He was a Labour health minister from 2007–09.


Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more pieces like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.



Could shared medical appointments help the NHS and patients?

13 Nisan 2017 Perşembe

Patients suffer worst ever winter for A&E admission delays

Emergency patients had the worst winter on record for being admitted to NHS hospitals in England, with nearly 200,000 waiting at least four hours.


Figures from the health service showed a near five-fold increase in the number of A&E patients suffering admission delays over the past five years.


Between December 2016 and February 2017 a total of 195,764 patients waited at least four hours to be admitted to hospital from A&E, up from 40,791 in 2011/12.


The figure is the highest since records began and marks a sharp rise on the winter months last year when 134,576 patients missed the four-hour target.


Total emergency admissions to NHS hospitals in England rose from 1.3 million in winter 2011/12 to 1.44 million in winter 2016/17.


Extreme waiting times also reached record levels, as 1,877 patients were forced to wait at least 12 hours before being admitted to hospital from A&E this winter, compared with 375 the previous year.


Research suggests hospitals are creaking under the weight of demand. A&E departments had to close their doors to ambulances almost twice as often this winter compared with the previous three years, a report from the Nuffield Trust showed.


The number of ambulance diverts in place at hospitals in England hit 478 for the three-month period from December to February, compared with an average of 249 over the same period in 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.


The number of days lost to so-called “bed-blockers” also hit record levels in England this winter. A total of 577,195 days were lost through delayed transfers of care from December to February, compared with 471,780 in winter 2015/16.



Patients suffer worst ever winter for A&E admission delays

12 Nisan 2017 Çarşamba

Lack of post-hospital care "leaving mental health patients at risk"

Thousands of vulnerable people are being left at increased risk of suicide because NHS mental health teams in England and Wales are not checking up on them within a week of their discharge from hospital.


At least 11,000 people a year who have recently been in mental health inpatient care are not followed up within a week of coming home, despite guidelines requiring the NHS to contact them.


People discharged after hospital treatment for a mental health crisis should receive a visit or phone call to assess their needs, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) says. But figures obtained under freedom of information laws by the charity Mind show that one in 10 such people are not contacted.


“Patients should only be discharged from specialist mental health services when there are ongoing care arrangements in place for them. Failure to do so can put the person at risk of harm, their condition can relapse and it can mean they are more likely to go going back into hospital,” said Dr Paul Lelliott, the Care Quality Commission’s deputy chief inspector of hospitals.


Mind discovered that the Nice guidelines were often breached after receiving information from 54 of England’s NHS 56 mental health trust and one of Wales’s seven health boards.


“If you don’t get the right care after you leave, if you’re left to cope alone, you end up in a revolving door, going straight back into hospital or being at risk of taking your own life,” said Sophie Corlett, Mind’s director of external relations.


The widespread lack of follow-up “is not good enough. It’s a tragedy so many people so very recently leaving the care of hospitals are losing their lives,” she added.


Separate research by Mind, among 850 patients about their experience of after-hospital care, found that those who were not followed up were twice as likely to attempt to take their own lives and a third more likely to harm themselves.


They are also more than twice as likely to end up back in A&E suffering another crisis, the survey found.


Natalie, 26, from Somerset, who ended up in hospital after trying to take her own life, said the crisis team did not visit her for a week afterwards.


“When you’re that unwell, it’s hard getting through each day. Each hour is tough, so just 24 hours can feel like such a long time. I needed someone to talk to, to help me understand my thoughts and feelings. To see someone only after a week, it’s not enough,” she said.


The CQC’s Lelliott said pressure on mental health services, including to discharge patients to free up beds, should not compromise the aftercare they received.


“We know that hospitals are under increasing pressure to discharge patients as soon as possible but providers must not compromise their ongoing care responsibilities to their patients. It is vital that when they discharge patients into community, it is done in a safe way that ensures people get the continuity of care they deserve and have every right to expect,” he stressed.


Nice guidelines say all such patients should be contacted within a week, and those thought to be at risk of suicide within 48 hours. Last year’s National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide found that most suicides occurred on the third day after release.


“Patients leaving hospital can feel unsupported as they return to the problems that may have led to their admission. Those first few days are the time of greatest risk,” said Prof Louis Appleby, the director of the confidential inquiry.


Barbara Keeley, the shadow minister for mental health, said: “Mind’s research is yet more evidence of the gap between rhetoric and reality with this government. We are seeing people in some of the most vulnerable positions with their mental health being put at further risk.”


The Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb, who was the mental health minister in the coalition government, backed Mind’s call for all discharged patients to be contacted within 48 hours. “The moral case for this proposal is overwhelming. When we know that the risk of loss of life through suicide doubles if there is no timely follow up, the government and NHS England have an absolute duty to act. But this requires investment in community support which is so often lacking.”


Prof Mark Baker, director of the Nice Centre for Guidelines, said it was reviewing its recommendations to see if they needed to be updated in the light of Mind’s findings.


NHS England said: “Improved access to mental health support for people in the community where they live is part of our plans for the biggest expansion of mental health services in Europe.”


  • In the UK, the Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Hotline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is on 13 11 14. Hotlines in other countries can be found here.


Lack of post-hospital care "leaving mental health patients at risk"

9 Nisan 2017 Pazar

Stop PIP reassessments for patients with progressive diseases, campaigners say

MPs and patient groups have called for an end to the repeated assessments that people with progressive diseases must undergo in order to qualify for disability benefits.


Thousands of people with rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and other conditions will be retested this year to decide whether they are still eligible for personal independence payments (PIP) because of their disabilities.


But MPs and patient charities argue that repeated testing makes little sense for people with incurable diseases that are known to get progressively worse. According to the most recent figures from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), 3,500 people with progressive conditions were reassessed for PIP between April and October last year.


Carol Monaghan, the MP for Glasgow North West, said she was challenging four cases where patients with multiple sclerosis had been called in for reassessment despite their illness getting worse. “MS is a progressive condition. They’re never going to be any better than they are at the moment, so they should never be asked to go for a reassessment,” she said.


“Some of these people are still able to walk to a certain extent, so they get themselves in, just about, and then they’re being told, ‘You look fine,’” she added.


The number of people called in for reassessments was obtained by Madeleine Moon, the MP for Bridgend, in a written parliamentary question. The DWP figures reveal that the number of people reassessed for PIP rose sharply from 200 in 2014–15 to 2,400 in 2015–16.


The DWP say the reviews ensure that patients receive benefits in line with their disabilities. “PIP is an interactive benefit, designed to ensure any changes in a claimant’s functional ability can be identified and that they receive the right support at the right time,” a spokesperson said. More than a quarter of claimants are receiving the highest level of support, he added.


But Phil Reynolds at Parkinson’s UK said around a quarter of people living with Parkinson’s in Britain had lost some or all of their support following benefit reassessments, only to have the payments reinstated on appeal. “It’s absolutely crucial that the DWP looks again at the broken PIP assessment to ensure people with long-term conditions get the support they so desperately need, rather than rigging the system against them,” he said.


Nearly half of people with multiple sclerosis who claim PIP must be reassessed within two years, according to MS Society. “We’re concerned about the number of people with MS being inappropriately reassessed, especially when we know assessments can cause stress and anxiety, and in some cases exacerbate MS symptoms,” said Laura Wetherly from MS Society.


“With more than 100,000 people living with MS in the UK, the PIP system needs to accurately reflect the realities of living with a fluctuating and progressive condition. Having a disability like MS is hard enough. People should be able to rely on support without fear of having it taken away,” she added.



Stop PIP reassessments for patients with progressive diseases, campaigners say

7 Nisan 2017 Cuma

Passport checks for patients is an abandonment of NHS principles | Zoe Stewart

Rather than use World Health Day to draw attention to global health priorities, this year, healthcare providers are being asked to implement racist government policies and compromise our professional values. Earlier this year, health minister Jeremy Hunt announced that, from April 2017, NHS trusts would be legally obliged to check patients’ eligibility for NHS services upfront, and to demand payment before providing care.


These checks lead to racial profiling and will prevent those most in need of care from getting the treatment they need. This is already evident with pregnant women delaying or avoiding seeking necessary medical advice or treatment because of fears they will be unable to pay or will be reported to the Home Office.


As doctors, we are acutely aware of the devastating impacts of delayed medical attention. In my field – obstetrics and gynaecology – we know that getting the right care at the right time is critically important for the health of women and their babies. In 2014, a woman thought to be carrying a dead foetus declined induction of labour because she feared she would be denied re-entry into the UK if she was unable to pay her bill of thousands of pounds.




The amount of money [lost to "health tourism"] is a drop in the ocean for the NHS




Dena Bryant, a lifelong resident of Grantham, had her eligibility for care at her local hospital questioned by a nurse who justified her questioning because Bryant was “not white” and did not “look English”.


The reality is that these policies represent yet another instance of the government attempting to blame migrants for the devastating impact of their austerity agenda. The Department of Health’s own estimate is that “deliberate health tourism” costs at most 0.3% of the NHS budget annually. This amount of money is a drop in the ocean for the NHS, while a £5,000 charge may be everything to a patient seeking treatment.


We should be concerned about the sustainability of NHS funding, but this focus is a distraction from the real issues, such as the billions of pounds spent annually on PFI repayments. Checking passports at the point of care will not rectify budget concerns, and directly contradicts the values on which the NHS was founded. We are being asked to prioritise recouping costs over providing care to those who need it.


Docs not Cops, a group comprised of NHS staff and patients, has been campaigning against these changes. On Wednesday, the group blocked the entrance to the Department of Health with a makeshift immigration checkpoint. We believe everyone has a right to access the healthcare they need, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay. NHS workers should not be forced to police the people we treat.


The relationship between the doctor or health professional and a patient relies on respect and trust. A policy that demands we verify eligibility and report ineligible patients prioritises money over care, and jeopardises the relationship between a patient and their care provider. As a doctor, the Declaration of Geneva and the International Code of Medical Ethics require that my patient is my first consideration, and declares that I owe my patients complete loyalty. Policing people seeking my care would directly contravene these guidelines that say we cannot allow race, ethnic origin, or social standing, among other characteristics, to intervene between our duty and our patient.


As NHS staff and patients we will continue to fight divisive policies that fuel racism and threaten the values on which our NHS was built. Docs Not Cops is working with groups around the country to build a network of sanctuary GP surgeries, hospitals and wards. These would be sites of non-compliance with ID checks. We encourage wards, GP surgeries and individuals to sign a pledge to never ask to see ID or deny anyone healthcare, and to sign our petition calling for an end to bedside charging.


The National Health Service was built on the principle that healthcare is a right not a privilege. Almost 70 years after its inception, we are here to demand that this core principle remains.



Passport checks for patients is an abandonment of NHS principles | Zoe Stewart

2 Nisan 2017 Pazar

Cancer patients have 55% greater risk of suicide, study finds

Cancer patients have a 55% greater risk of suicide than people without the potentially deadly disease, according to preliminary research findings.


Previous research has found suicide rates to be higher than in the general population but a paper being presented at this week’s European Congress of Psychiatry in Florence, Italy is an attempt to quantify the size of the increased risk.


Co-author Dr Raffaella Calati from the department of emergency psychiatry and post-acute care at Lapeyronie hospital, Montpellier, described the results, derived by pooling data from 15 studies, as “extremely preliminary” but nevertheless significant.


“The key message that remains is that in the majority of the studies there is an increased risk,” she said. “We are quite sure the risk would be higher, although I cannot say the exact number.”


The analysis, which also looked at suicide attempts and suicidal thoughts, included studies published between 1983 and 2015 from Australia, Canada, China, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and the US.


Patients with cancer were found to have a 55% higher suicide rate compared with people without the disease. But the analysis revealed no increased risk of suicide attempts ( 8,147,762 participants) or suicidal thoughts (42,700 participants) in patients with cancer.


The authors are currently seeking to add more studies into the mix and, in their initial analysis, did not seek to rule out other external factors that might influence the results, hence their emphasis on it being preliminary.


They say: “The assessment of suicide risk in patients with cancer is crucial. We suggest there is a need in cancer patients to be screened and cared not only for anxiety and depression, but also specifically for those people with suicidal thoughts and a lifetime history of suicide attempts, in particular during the period immediately subsequent to the diagnosis of cancer.”


A 2014 study by Cancer Research UK and the Scottish government found that three-quarters of cancer patients who also have clinical depression were not receiving any treatment for depression.


As the analysis is ongoing, it has not yet been submitted to a medical journal for publication but to be accepted for the European Congress of Psychiatry it had to undergo a peer review process set out by the European Psychiatric Association.


  • In the UK, the Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Hotline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is on 13 11 14. Hotlines in other countries can be found here


Cancer patients have 55% greater risk of suicide, study finds

Cancer patient"s family stands to lose £50k under benefit cuts

“My death, on or before Thursday, changes my family’s wellbeing to the tune of tens of thousands. It is utterly unbelievable.”


Alan’s voice cracked, not just with emotion but the brutal impact of four years of cancer that started in a tonsil before spreading to his lungs and chest, delivering a terminal diagnosis in June, 2015.


By December, last year, the 51-year-old husband and father (who has asked the Guardian not to use his real name in order to protect his family) was given between one and five months to live.


His mind quickly focused on the lives of his wife, Kate, and their children, a 10-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son, after his death. He feared the “whirlwind of emotional and financial distress and turmoil” heading towards them as he grappled to draw up a plan.


Then came a bitter blow that has led Alan to speak out urgently against a Conservative policy being rolled out this week, despite voting for Theresa May’s party all his life.


The father and businessman, who was forced to give up work due to his illness, realised that if he survived beyond midnight this Wednesday 5 April, his family could be stripped of tens of thousands of pounds of critical financial support over the next decade.


Changes to the widowed parent’s allowance mean a benefit of around £112 a week until the youngest child leaves full-time education, perhaps in 10 years’ time, will be replaced by £350 a month (£80 a week) for a maximum period of just a year and a half.


“Based on the ages of our children and on my probable death – I would imagine this year – I had calculated that we would be entitled to about £58,000,” said Alan, who lives with his family in Barnet, London. “The new calculation shocked me. My life is now deemed to be worth £6,300.”


A government spokesperson said the financial gap would be reduced somewhat by the new system being tax-free. They also said families were eligible for a slightly higher lump sum payment immediately after the death of £3,500 rather than £2,000.


But Alan said the increase was “smoke and mirrors” and that the tax change did nothing to alleviate the many years of lost income.


After years paying into the system, Alan described the change as “daylight robbery”.


“The amount of money I’ve built up in my full state pension is more than the government would be paying out in the current widowed parent’s allowance. Assuming I started my pension at 68 and that the average male expectancy 81 – that is £120,000.”


He said the move was “callous and brutal” and that it showed no compassion, stressing that his family is “just about managing” and would be struggling even more after his death.


Kate agreed: “I feel like they are stealing from us. They’ve taken what Alan is owed.”


The couple also said that a letter to their local MP, Matthew Offord, copied to the prime minister, Theresa May, and the chancellor, Philip Hammond, on 24 February had not yet been answered. A follow-up on 10 March also received no reply, he said.


“Time is slipping away,” said Kate, describing her shock at what she sees as being blanked. “The sand is going through an hourglass. It is disappearing. Every day we look and say ‘he’s alive – will he be tomorrow?’”


She said it was difficult to find words to describe “the hell we’ve lived for four years” through painful bouts of treatment with sickening side-effects, her husband being fed through a tube to the stomach, ambulances, hospital appointments, worsening diagnoses and then the terrible news: “There is nothing more we can do.”


“Our legs move and our bodies move but we can’t really breathe,” added the 48-year-old psychotherapist. “Now we’ve been over-looked, ignored, let down. It is like nobody cares.”


The benefit change was like “being thumped in the face when you can’t take any more”, she claimed – describing her acute anxiety for the future.


The government has argued that the policy change is fair because these days women are more likely to work and so are less dependent on their spouse’s income.


But Kate says that she can already only work part-time as she cares for her sick husband and strives to be there for her children’s school pick-ups. Life after his death will trigger a “new nightmare of struggle”, she argued, with no magic bullet at 18 months.


Alan said he voted Conservative and felt “utterly let down”. He described reading the Tory 2015 manifesto from cover to cover and stressed that there was no mention of this reform. “There is no political mandate – it is a moral outrage.”


As well as speaking to the Guardian, Alan and Kate spoke emotionally about their case on LBC radio alongside a number of bereaved families who also expressed their shock.


A DWP spokesperson said: “We’re modernising the support we offer, replacing an outdated system that doesn’t reflect people’s lives today. The new Bereavement Support Payment is simpler, easier to understand, tax-free and doesn’t affect the amount received from other benefits, so families can access wider welfare support.”


They argued that families could be compensated by increases to other benefits.


Charities admit that the changes affect families in different ways but said that DWP figures suggested that overall 91% of parents will be supported for a shorter period, while 75% will be worse off in cash terms of as a result of the change. Working families with young children will lose £23,500 on average, they suggest.



Cancer patient"s family stands to lose £50k under benefit cuts

Cancer patient"s family stands to lose £50k under benefit cuts

“My death, on or before Thursday, changes my family’s wellbeing to the tune of tens of thousands. It is utterly unbelievable.”


Alan’s voice cracked, not just with emotion but the brutal impact of four years of cancer that started in a tonsil before spreading to his lungs and chest, delivering a terminal diagnosis in June, 2015.


By December, last year, the 51-year-old husband and father (who has asked the Guardian not to use his real name in order to protect his family) was given between one and five months to live.


His mind quickly focused on the lives of his wife, Kate, and their children, a 10-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son, after his death. He feared the “whirlwind of emotional and financial distress and turmoil” heading towards them as he grappled to draw up a plan.


Then came a bitter blow that has led Alan to speak out urgently against a Conservative policy being rolled out this week, despite voting for Theresa May’s party all his life.


The father and businessman, who was forced to give up work due to his illness, realised that if he survived beyond midnight this Wednesday 5 April, his family could be stripped of tens of thousands of pounds of critical financial support over the next decade.


Changes to the widowed parent’s allowance mean a benefit of around £112 a week until the youngest child leaves full-time education, perhaps in 10 years’ time, will be replaced by £350 a month (£80 a week) for a maximum period of just a year and a half.


“Based on the ages of our children and on my probable death – I would imagine this year – I had calculated that we would be entitled to about £58,000,” said Alan, who lives with his family in Barnet, London. “The new calculation shocked me. My life is now deemed to be worth £6,300.”


A government spokesperson said the financial gap would be reduced somewhat by the new system being tax-free. They also said families were eligible for a slightly higher lump sum payment immediately after the death of £3,500 rather than £2,000.


But Alan said the increase was “smoke and mirrors” and that the tax change did nothing to alleviate the many years of lost income.


After years paying into the system, Alan described the change as “daylight robbery”.


“The amount of money I’ve built up in my full state pension is more than the government would be paying out in the current widowed parent’s allowance. Assuming I started my pension at 68 and that the average male expectancy 81 – that is £120,000.”


He said the move was “callous and brutal” and that it showed no compassion, stressing that his family is “just about managing” and would be struggling even more after his death.


Kate agreed: “I feel like they are stealing from us. They’ve taken what Alan is owed.”


The couple also said that a letter to their local MP, Matthew Offord, copied to the prime minister, Theresa May, and the chancellor, Philip Hammond, on 24 February had not yet been answered. A follow-up on 10 March also received no reply, he said.


“Time is slipping away,” said Kate, describing her shock at what she sees as being blanked. “The sand is going through an hourglass. It is disappearing. Every day we look and say ‘he’s alive – will he be tomorrow?’”


She said it was difficult to find words to describe “the hell we’ve lived for four years” through painful bouts of treatment with sickening side-effects, her husband being fed through a tube to the stomach, ambulances, hospital appointments, worsening diagnoses and then the terrible news: “There is nothing more we can do.”


“Our legs move and our bodies move but we can’t really breathe,” added the 48-year-old psychotherapist. “Now we’ve been over-looked, ignored, let down. It is like nobody cares.”


The benefit change was like “being thumped in the face when you can’t take any more”, she claimed – describing her acute anxiety for the future.


The government has argued that the policy change is fair because these days women are more likely to work and so are less dependent on their spouse’s income.


But Kate says that she can already only work part-time as she cares for her sick husband and strives to be there for her children’s school pick-ups. Life after his death will trigger a “new nightmare of struggle”, she argued, with no magic bullet at 18 months.


Alan said he voted Conservative and felt “utterly let down”. He described reading the Tory 2015 manifesto from cover to cover and stressed that there was no mention of this reform. “There is no political mandate – it is a moral outrage.”


As well as speaking to the Guardian, Alan and Kate spoke emotionally about their case on LBC radio alongside a number of bereaved families who also expressed their shock.


A DWP spokesperson said: “We’re modernising the support we offer, replacing an outdated system that doesn’t reflect people’s lives today. The new Bereavement Support Payment is simpler, easier to understand, tax-free and doesn’t affect the amount received from other benefits, so families can access wider welfare support.”


They argued that families could be compensated by increases to other benefits.


Charities admit that the changes affect families in different ways but said that DWP figures suggested that overall 91% of parents will be supported for a shorter period, while 75% will be worse off in cash terms of as a result of the change. Working families with young children will lose £23,500 on average, they suggest.



Cancer patient"s family stands to lose £50k under benefit cuts