Long-awaited praise for the NHS?

The NHS has been praised for meeting their targets in the quest to cut hospital waiting times down to 18 weeks.

Statistics from August show that 90 percent of patients who required admission to hospital and 95 percent of patients not needing admission, started treatment within 18 weeks of referral from their GP.

The Department of Health also met targets in cutting down the cases of the hospital bug Clostridium difficile in the last three months, with an 18% drop.

But as per usual not everything is just what the doctor ordered, the BBC note that even though the NHS average is on par with the targets, just under half of the hospitals are meeting it.

The Nurse2Nurse blog also puts a downer on the NHS, saying that although the NHS has improved by “leaps and bounds” over the past few years, 60% of hospitals are still not dealing with superbug infections effectively, and 69% of GPs do not provide patients with the easy access to appointments.

It seems to me that the NHS are doing whatever they can to get back in the Ministers’ and the public’s good books. However, as previously posted, whenever the NHS do something well, we can always find other negative points to dwell upon.

NHS 'top-up' care ban bypassed

It seems an inconsistency has arisen in our hospitals, concerning the government’s ban on allowing patients to ‘top-up’ their health care.

The ban prevents people from being NHS patients and private patients in any one ‘episode of care’. Anyone who ignores this rule will lose their NHS benefits for that particular treatment.

However, the BBC revealed that 30 hospitals across the UK are allowing the ‘top-up’ care after finding a way around the rule.

By treating the patient on the NHS as one episode of care and then treating them through a private company as another episode, they can bypass the government ruling.

This issue raises a number of points. Should hospitals be allowed to deliberately go against what the Government decrees or do they have a right to do whatever they can to aid their patients? Was the government right to impose such a ban in the first place?

Whilst researching the issue, I came across the Fade Blog, which pointed me to an article from The Times about a woman protesting the withdrawal of her free care.

Sue Bentley is taking legal action against the NHS for withdrawing her care after she used the drug Avastin, a drug which will increase her chances of fighting lung cancer but is not funded by the NHS.

The government is coming under increasing pressure to change this rule. If a patient will greatly benefit from a drug that is not funded by the NHS then surely they should be allowed to purchase it themselves without the threat of losing their benefits? As Bentley’s solicitor says: “These patients are not taking anything away from the NHS.”

And thus, just like many other people, I am completely baffled as to why our government has taken this stance on the issue. Unsurprisingly Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, was quick to state that the Conservatives are in favour of the top-up idea, and I think quite rightly so.

He said: “It is clearly wrong that any patient should be denied access to NHS treatment. Access to private treatment should not affect entitlement to NHS care.”

Now I am beginning to understand why so many hospitals in the UK have opted to bypass this rule in such a manner. Some comments left by readers of The Times article got it spot on, Mark from London said: “Our government has taken a ridiculous position on this issue - the equivalent of saying that if you pay for a tutor to provide extra lessons to your child, you lose the right to a State education!”

I am interested to see what the government will do concerning the issue. My guess is nothing. Only time will tell.

My first blog: The NHS

Rarely does a day go by when I flick through a newspaper, log on to the net or listen to the latest headlines, without hearing yet another story slating the NHS.

Just today I was browsing through the Independent and stumbled across an article by law editor Robert Verkaik detailing new laws to jail health bosses who ignore warnings to cut the risk of superbugs such as MRSA.

The article continues to quote Justice Minister Maria Eagle regarding a hypothetical hospital ignoring such warnings. She says: “Could the organisation be prosecuted and convicted? The answer is ‘possibly’.”

I use this example because I believe it perfectly illustrates the ongoing debate regarding our health service. We’re in a constant state of hearing how our hospitals are rubbish, how they are failing to effectively treat patients, how they are failing to accommodate patients and how it’s more hygienic to lick your toilet seat than it is to stay overnight at one.

So my question is this: Is the NHS really as bad as it’s made out to be in the press or are we just overlooking all the good points and focussing solely on the bad points?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to suggest that MRSA is a trivial subject and we should be writing about how Mr Smith’s heart condition is stable once more, I’m just saying we rarely actually hear any praise for the NHS.

Even when the NHS meets targets, there are no congratulations in order, just a list of other things that desperately need sorting out.

The BBC news website today posted an article concerning hospitals over-diluting their cleaning products, which instead of killing the germs, is making them immune to the chemicals. This is obviously an issue of great concern but I can’t help but feel a little bit sorry for the NHS, which seems to be fighting a losing battle in the sense that even when it’s trying to clean itself up, it can’t get it quite right.

The article went on to say: “The NHS has recently met a target for the reduction of MRSA cases, but the rise of antibiotic resistance remains a problem.”

This perfectly exemplifies my previous point, whenever the NHS meets the target; it’s showered with yet another problem.

What I’m really getting at here is the way we look at our health service is greatly instilled by media coverage. Is the NHS really as bad as the press make it out to be or are we focussing on all the bad points and none of the good ones? Has the NHS brought this on itself? Is the reason it has so many problems due to all the things it has done wrong in the past or just incredibly bad luck?

I don’t know but I’m certainly, like everyone else, a bit concerned with the state of the health service at the moment. Will it ever sort itself out? I’m going to be paying close attention to the matter over the next year or so. Maybe my questions will be answered? In the meantime, what do you think?