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

29 Nisan 2017 Cumartesi

The surgeon who cruelly betrayed his patients’ trust | Barbara Ellen

Breast surgeon Ian Paterson has been convicted of 17 counts of “wounding with intent” and three counts of “unlawful wounding” and is now bailed, awaiting sentencing.


Many women have come forward to claim compensation, which sounds richly deserved. For years, Paterson performed hundreds of unnecessary or inadequate surgeries, for mainly female patients at the Heart of England NHS Foundation in Birmingham and private clinics run by Spire Healthcare.


As the case unfolded, there was a recurring theme of Paterson’s charming bedside manner, but also of his arrogance-cum-“God complex”, which was allowed to go unchecked, despite many concerns and complaints. Sometimes, Paterson would perform unnecessary disfiguring operations. At other times, his signature “cleavage-sparing mastectomy” procedure left patients in greater danger of developing secondary cancers.


Reading this, one feels sickened for the patients. There’s a nightmarish feel, almost reminiscent of the 1988 David Cronenberg film Dead Ringers, in which an insane surgeon performed gruesome gynaecological operations. Paterson’s patients were at their most vulnerable and in such a specifically female way. For women, breasts are not just another body part but can be bound up in maternal and sexual identity. Paterson’s patients trusted him, not only with their bodies and lives, but also with their identity and he violated them in the cruellest possible way.


Paterson has also undermined general trust in surgeons, not least with this recurring theme of arrogance and “God complex”. These are all too familiar complaints when it comes to surgeons. However, is it always a case of the surgeon being arrogant or could it sometimes be about the solid confidence that you need to do the job? My partner is a surgeon and, from what I’ve gleaned from him and other surgeons, a high level of confidence, in their decisions, in their ability, is crucial. They’re cutting people’s bodies open; they need to be in charge, to make the tough calls. The last thing anyone wants is an unconfident, self-doubting surgeon.


This doesn’t mean that surgeons think they know it all. Far from it. Good surgeons not only welcome second opinions, they continue to train, learn new techniques, question and push themselves, like the driven type-A personalities so many of them seem to be. It sounds as though Paterson had stopped all that, if he ever started, instead letting himself slide into a state of self–serving toxicity and, from the sounds of it, lucrative complacency.


In someone like Paterson, the “God complex” would emanate not from innate belief, but the self-conviction that, ultimately, their wrongful behaviour is justified. Certain details spring out: the endless operating, the fact that Paterson kept himself apart from colleagues. Not only is performing unnecessary operations simply not done, able surgeons are much more likely to confer over diagnoses, to want to share knowledge and expertise. When someone shies away from doing this, it suggests not so much arrogance as a fear of exposure or a mask for incompetence.


None of this excuses how Paterson was allowed to continue mutilating patients or placing them in danger, unhindered, for so long. The culture of secrecy and protection around high-ranking medical professionals must be stamped out. Moreover, I’m sure that some surgeons are just arrogant sods who bully patients. No one is defending that, however good they may be at their jobs.


However, this case shouldn’t lead to people automatically distrusting or fearing confident surgeons. While Paterson’s actions are the stuff of nightmares, they also feed straight into a paranoid, 1950s-style narrative of haughty surgeons badgering patients into doing as they’re told. In truth, whatever Paterson was (incompetent? greedy? psychotic?), his crimes clearly demonstrate that he wasn’t on the normal surgeon spectrum, not even at the arrogant end. What Paterson did was criminal and pathological.



The surgeon who cruelly betrayed his patients’ trust | Barbara Ellen

Hundreds of private patients seek compensation from rogue surgeon

Hundreds of private patients of a surgeon convicted of carrying out needless breast operations are seeking compensation after nearly £18m worth of claims were made against the NHS.


Ian Paterson, 59, was convicted on Friday of 17 counts of wounding with intent and three counts of unlawful wounding against 10 patients, upon whom he conducted “extensive, life-changing operations for no medically justifiable reason”.


More than 250 NHS patients have received payouts after being treated by the surgeon and it has now emerged that around 350 patients who underwent treatment privately at clinics owned by Spire Healthcare in the West Midlands are also taking civil action against Paterson and the firm.


Paterson, described in court by one victim as being “like God”, lied to patients and exaggerated or invented the risk of cancer to convince them to go under his knife.


Thompsons Solicitors, a firm representing the private patients, said the Spire Healthcare’s treatment of those who complained was “shabby”.


“We are determined to secure appropriate compensation for every single one of our clients, some of whom found the courage to come forward only as recently as four weeks ago,” said Linda Millband, lead national lawyer at the firm.


“Spire needs to face up to its responsibilities, because they let him operate well after he was suspended by the NHS.”


A freedom of information request revealed the NHS has resolved 256 cases, paying out £9.5m in compensation and £8.2m in costs, while a further 25 cases are still to be heard.


Paterson, who was suspended by the General Medical Council in 2012, lied to patients and exaggerated or invented the risk of cancer in order to convince them to go under the knife.


He sobbed as the jury returned the guilty verdicts on Friday at Nottingham crown court. The surgeon was released on conditional bail ahead of sentencing in May, when he faces a custodial sentence.


One patient who gave evidence in the trial had 27 biopsy cores taken from her healthy right breast and had “absolutely not” received medical best practice.


A Spire Healthcare spokesman said: “What Mr Paterson did in our hospitals, in other private hospitals and in the NHS, absolutely should not have happened and today justice has been done.


“We would like to reiterate how truly sorry we are for the distress experienced by any patients affected by this case. We can say unequivocally that we have learned the lessons from these events.


“We commissioned a thorough independent investigation and have fully implemented all of the recommendations.”



Hundreds of private patients seek compensation from rogue surgeon

28 Nisan 2017 Cuma

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

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

16 Mart 2017 Perşembe

I hate restraining mental health patients but often it"s the only option

People imagine mental health nurses like me as kind and gentle, as mother figures in uniform. What they don’t see is the harm we do to our patients: we lock them away, we restrain them and we take away their freedom. We do this in line with the law and we firmly believe we are doing the right thing. We are not “nice”, but when I look at my colleagues, I see strong, selfless, determined heroes.


I wish I could offer service users something better: a peaceful outdoor space, their own room, something less clinical than easy wipe armchairs. Most of them do not even agree that they are unwell and this deeply felt sense of injustice permeates the ward.


I remember one woman, Sarah*, was so psychotic by the time she entered hospital that she was not eating and had not washed in weeks. She could not see that she was unwell and was convinced we were trying to harm her, so would not accept medication. You could see how much she was suffering from her disheveled emaciated body to the distant horrified look in her eyes. We couldn’t just leave her like that. Her psychiatrist decided we needed to give her a long acting antipsychotic injection. She would need this to treat her psychosis.


The time comes to give her the injection. Despite doing everything we can to persuade her, she refuses to accept it and we have to do it under restraint. She is terrified and struggling so much to try to get free that we need five people to restrain her so she is lying on the floor. Her injection is licensed for the top of the buttock only, so we need to lower her trousers and underwear to administer it. We constantly check our techniques and her posture. We make sure that she can breathe freely and that we are not damaging her joints. She needs to be very still so we can inject her in the right place and not near important nerves or arteries. We explain this and try to reassure her but she remains terrified of our intentions. She lets out a primal wail of fear and then starts to scream. The room smells of sweat and anxiety. But we still have to inject her. I stay with her afterwards and she cries uncontrollably.


What really cuts right through me is that restraint is not some awful mistake, it is a carefully planned intervention. Everything in your being wants to stop this, to let the poor women be, but you have to carry on because you know it’s the right thing to do. It takes more than “niceness” to be here, you have to have a heart as big as the earth and, at the same time, be made of stone. Of course it helps that I found out a few months later she was rebuilding her life again: she was eating normally and looking after herself.


In my experience, there are very few decisions in nursing that weigh on us more heavily than whether or not to restrain someone. By the time someone is in hospital, they are often in extreme states of crisis and all the kind words in the world will not persuade them to take medication.


Prevention, in mental health, is everything. If we catch people in the community, as they start to deteriorate, they are more capable of engaging with services, of expressing their wishes, of maintaining their dignity and autonomy.


In the case of Sarah, and so many others, services were so under pressure that there were not the resources to catch her at this tipping point. The answer is not just medical intervention, it’s about keeping Sarah well by supporting her to live a rich and purposeful life.


Now, with so many cuts to social care, she is increasingly isolated. Real terms spending in mental health services dropped by 8% between 2011 and 2015. The success of these savings is constantly being rated against efficiency criteria like length-of-stay and symptom reduction but, for me, the real human cost is harder to quantify.


*Not her real name


Some details have been changed


If you would like to contribute to our Blood, sweat and tears series about memorable moments in a healthcare career, read our guidelines and get in touch by emailing sarah.johnson@theguardian.com.


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.



I hate restraining mental health patients but often it"s the only option

NHS patients could face wait to access life-saving drugs

Patients could face delays accessing drugs on the NHS after health bosses agreed that the most expensive treatments can be stalled.


Even when a drug has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) – which already has strict rules on affordability – bosses at NHS England can now slow down its delivery to patients.


The move applies to any drugs that are expected to cost £20m or more in any of the first three years of their rollout across the NHS.


This could apply to cheaper drugs that will be used by hundreds of thousands of people or very expensive drugs used by a small number of people. Drugs used to treat a range of conditions, including diabetes or cancer, could be affected.


Under the move, NHS England can ask Nice to extend the amount of time the NHS has to bring the drug in for all patients – in some cases for three years. At present, the NHS has 90 days to make Nice-approved drugs available.


The new system also means NHS England and drug firms will have more time to discuss potentially lowering the cost of the drugs.


Charities have objected to the move and also worry that NHS England will try to restrict access to certain groups of patients.


Sarah Woolnough, Cancer Research UK’s executive director of policy and information, said: “If Nice thinks a cancer treatment is clinically effective and represents value for money, then patients should receive it without delay.


“A system that could add up to a three-year delay before patients can access treatments deemed clinically and cost effective is unacceptable.


“Cancer patients may lose their lives while they wait. We need to decide whether we want a world-class health system in the UK, and if so we need to pay for it.


“Manufacturers should be encouraged to price drugs responsibly, but we hope the government will reconsider the introduction of this new test, otherwise it will be patients, their families and carers who could pay the heaviest price.”


Mike Thompson, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Today’s proposals from Nice/NHS England break the Conservative party’s 2015 manifesto promise to speed up the introduction of cost-effective medicines into the NHS.


“Thousands of patients will wait longer for treatment for conditions like heart disease, cancers and diabetes while medicines which stand to benefit the most people are caught up in the system.


“Use of new medicines in the UK is already poor, with patients seven times more likely to get a newly launched medicine in places like Germany or France.”


Sir Andrew Dillon, the Nice chief executive, said: “We hope, and we think it is perfectly possible, that for some treatments which exceed the £20m budget impact in their first three years, there will be commercial agreements between companies and NHS England which will at least minimise and in some cases avoid completely the need for any delay for access for patients.


“Even where there is a delay beyond the standard 90 days, NHS England has committed to ensuring that there is some funding available to provide access throughout the phased implementation period.”


He said the move would be reviewed in three years to see what impact it is having on allowing access to new drugs.


NHS England’s acting director for specialised commissioning, John Stewart, said it was “committed to working closely with companies that are willing to price their products responsibly”.


He said the “new flexibility will help us develop innovative win/win/win agreements – good for patients, good for taxpayers and good for those companies that are willing to price responsibly”.


Other changes agreed by the Nice board include the introduction of a new fast-track option for treatments which cost less than £10,000 per year of good quality of life to patients.


The upper end of Nice’s standard threshold range is £20-30,000 per year. The new fast-tracking will mean cheaper treatments go through the appraisal process in six months rather than nine.



NHS patients could face wait to access life-saving drugs

14 Mart 2017 Salı

Dying patients waiting hours for pain relief in NHS funding shortfall

Dying patients are waiting up to eight hours to receive pain relief because of cuts to district nursing services during the NHS’s unprecedented budget squeeze, a new report has revealed.


Severe financial pressures on the NHS are leading to longer waits for treatment and a short-sighted and growing rationing of care that is storing up problems for the future, according to a study by the King’s Fund health thinktank.


The report quotes one unnamed manager of a hospice saying: “The district nurses working at night are not able to give effective response times; you can wait up to eight hours … for patients experiencing pain and discomfort in the last two to three days of their life, it has a massive impact. It’s a frightening time for patients.”


The King’s Fund research has found that district nursing and sexual health services are among the areas of care most affected by six years of the NHS in England receiving annual budget increases of 1.2%, far less than its historic average of 3.7% rises.


It highlights how the diminishing number of district nurses are struggling to give patients prompt high-quality care because they are increasingly overworked.


The need to balance budgets and the smaller numbers of district nurses are prompting some NHS bodies to restrict their eligibility criteria for patients seeking help, refusing it for those with serious mobility problems unless they are completely housebound.


“We heard some examples of providers attempting to limit access. This was mainly through tightening referral criteria, particularly in relation to patients being ‘housebound’. Increasingly, if patients are able to visit their general practice (even if doing so is challenging), they will not be eligible to receive care from district nurses,” the report states.


The past two years have seen a loss of one in seven (14.8%) district nursing posts. “There is a significant gap between demand for district nursing and the available resources in terms of funding and staff numbers,” researchers found. Heavier workloads are contributing to 20% vacancy rates in some places.


The report also warns: “Pressures in district nursing are affecting the quality of patient care. Staff are increasingly rushed. Visits have become more task-focused, and there is less opportunity for thorough assessments. This dilution of quality may damage patient experience and outcomes.”


Many services provided by acute hospitals have been “relatively protected” despite the lack of investment in the NHS in recent years, the authors say.


However, genito-urinary medicine services have been hard hit, with cuts of up to 20% in 2014/15-2015/16 in some places in the budgets for testing for and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. “This has resulted in fewer clinics and reductions in staff in some areas, while there have also been cuts to prevention and outreach services. This could put patients and the general population at greater risk of infection,” the report adds.


The number of hip replacements has also started to fall, despite growing demand for them caused by the ageing population. Slightly fewer were carried out in 2015-16 than the year before as NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) sought to save money by making surgery conditional on losing weight or giving up smoking. Waiting times for the procedure have also lengthened and more patients are waiting longer than the supposed maximum 18 weeks.


“It’s a disgrace that as a result of the Tory funding squeeze many elderly people are forced to live in prolonged agony and without independence because they are denied a hip replacement in reasonable time,” said Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary.


“Patients are unfairly suffering the consequences of a deliberately underfunded NHS at breaking point,” said Dr Mark Porter, chair of council at the British Medical Association.


The King’s Fund warns that rationing of care will become ever more common. “Although NHS funding growth began to slow in 2010/11, it appears to have taken some time for financial constraints to impact on patient care, and our data suggests that these impacts will spread and intensify,” the report adds.


The Department of Health has told CCGs not to ration care, despite the tight financial constraints it has imposed. NHS England said only: “Ultimately these are legally decisions for CCGs, but informed by best evidence and national guidance where appropriate.”



Dying patients waiting hours for pain relief in NHS funding shortfall