NHS Failure with Tragic Results

The NHS is failing and this tragic story in the mail exemplifies the situation.

"A premature baby diagnosed with a collapsed lung died after doctors operated on the wrong side. " The wrong side? How could a mistake like that possibly be made? That is the question being asked however sadly mistakes like this one are not as uncommon as we would like to believe. The cost of this mistake to the family, the loss of a child. The cost to the hospital that made the mistake, a measly 10,000 pounds which is hardly enough of a repercussion to ensure a mistake like this never happens again. Although the US is full of absurd lawsuits over anything one can think of they are right on medical malpractice. No amount can replace a child but 10000 is not nearly enough of a repercussion for the hospital despite them issuing the following statement"Lessons have been learnt from the investigation to minimise the risk of this occurring again."

This tragic short lived baby's life began the way it ended with a complete lack of competent medical care. "Mrs Jackson, 34, from Timperley, Greater Manchester, had spent five weeks in hospital before the birth due to complications with her pregnancy.

She said her son was breathing and kicking when he was born but his condition deteriorated because treatment was delayed by a lack of staff and specialist equipment.
She said staff did not make checks during her 17-hour labour and she was left to give birth alone.

I had to scream for the midwife because she was out of the room and there was no other staff there despite the fact I was about to give birth to a very premature baby.
When Clark was born he was breathing and kicking and showing all the normal signs of life but equipment which could have helped him was not ready. It took the resuscitation team around six minutes to get to him."

This is what Blair has done to our NHS and I am counting the minutes until he leaves. The only problem is I doubt Brown will do any better, although one can hope.

NHS has over £500m Surplus But At What Price?

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt had put her job on the line over getting the health service out of the red. Hewitt now claims success as on paper the NHS has a 510m surplus. The question is how is that possible when only a year ago they had a deficit in excess of 500m?

Are you suspicious yet? Well you have every right to be. This "surplus" came at a heavy price. Over 17,000 jobs have been lost in the last 12 months according to the NHS Information Centre and in the final months of the 2006-07 financial year, operations were delayed by NHS trusts so that they would not appear on the balance sheet. A perfect example of politics taking precedence over health care. What did they tell the people who had most likely been waiting months if not years for their operations? "I'm sorry ma'am but Hewitt has her job on the line therefore we need to reschedule until the next financial year."

The British Medical Association has accused the government of "decimating hospitals". I'm sure Hewitt thinks this is a minor price to pay if it means saving her job.


The above cuts alone however were not enough to rid the NHS of debt.
With the agreement of ministers, NHS chiefs began to build up reserves to cover any shortfall and create a safety net. Approximately ten percent was shaved off the £3.7bn training budget (I guess Hewiit figured the trainees would figure it out on their own eventually) and cuts were also made to public health spending. This gave the health bosses a contingency fund of £450m.
Additionally 1/3 of the extra £5.4bn the NHS was due in 2006-o7 was held back.

Then, in the last weeks of the financial year, millions of pounds were put back into the NHS, helping to create the surplus. Yes Hewitt has created a surplus but at the cost of thousands of jobs, postponed operations, less training for employees, and withholding money which prevented the expansion of services.

Hewitt has done nothing more than fiddle the books. Even with this surplus nearly a fifth of hospitals and PCTs, which are the parts of the health service responsible for care, finished the year in the red.

The government says the public should not be worried about this as the NHS is still getting the money. Tell that to the people who had operations delayed so they wouldn't appear on the 06-07 balance sheet.

Maternity Support Workers to Replace Midwives to Cut Costs?

Ministers have reneged on the election promise which guaranteed all mothers receive one-to-one care from a midwife during labour. Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted that midwives would probably not be present during the whole labour in any NHS hospital. Campaigners said that costs could be cut by using "maternity support workers" not midwives during the majority of the labour process. There is no national training program for these workers with most trusts insisting they take only an NVQ ( a qualification course lasting only 15 days) versus midwives who endure a rigorous 3 year training program. I would consider the birth of a child one of the most, if not the most, important event in a person's life. The government obviously does not agree or they would not have suggested "support workers" who are meant for jobs such as cleaning up to deliver our babies. What's next to save money... suggesting a family member take a 15 day NVQ so the government doesn't have to pay at all? Royal College of Midwives adviser Sue Jacob said it would be 'nothing short of scandalous' if support workers were left doing the job of midwives. "Women want nothing less than a midwife by their side when they are in labour. We know from all the research that's been done that continuous care from an experienced professional makes a huge difference to the safety of both the mother and the child." I would love to know how the British people feel about this latest suggestion to cut costs at our children's expense by the Blairite Government.