It seems that the BMJ (British Medical Journal) has decided in its wisdom that Death rates are a poor measure of hospital care and should not be used to trigger public inquiries.
The British Medical Journal analysis argued the figures were a "poor test of quality" and urged inspectors to rely on other measures instead.
It contrasts with the pressure mounting on the Care Quality Commission to pay more attention to death rates produced by Dr Foster, a private research group.
The NHS regulator said death rates were just one part of the armoury.
The two experts in disease monitoring, Professor Richard Lilford, from Birmingham University, and Peter Pronovost, from Johns Hopkins University in the US, criticised the way death rates were used to castigate Stafford Hospital over the past year.
So what figures do the “experts” suggest we use? Maybe the number of patients that leave hospital and die at home? Which can be arranged by astute trusts, ship them out before they die so that they are not included, or maybe the total of complaints, that can take years to complete, many of which are abandoned by complainants because of the biased system that allows CEOs to delay, deny and destroy peoples lives to suit their own purposes.
How about we rely on the self assessed ratings that trusts give themselves, so that they can continue to have “Foundation” status and be financially independent of “Government”.
Or do we just ignore all the stats and let the Management carry on blithely, with no checks or come backs, killing patients by the tens of thousands, ignoring patients’ pain and disablements.
Should we return to the nineteenth century when Doctors were Gods and patients slabs of meat with no rights and less dignity.
Or maybe we could find out the truth, let the Government hold a referendum on our NHS, ask us what we like, and what we don’t, on a trust by trust basis and on a national scale, so that we can see where the bad apples are in the NHS barrel, so that we can tell them what we want for a change.
It must be worth a thought.
Angus
The British Medical Journal analysis argued the figures were a "poor test of quality" and urged inspectors to rely on other measures instead.
It contrasts with the pressure mounting on the Care Quality Commission to pay more attention to death rates produced by Dr Foster, a private research group.
The NHS regulator said death rates were just one part of the armoury.
The two experts in disease monitoring, Professor Richard Lilford, from Birmingham University, and Peter Pronovost, from Johns Hopkins University in the US, criticised the way death rates were used to castigate Stafford Hospital over the past year.
So what figures do the “experts” suggest we use? Maybe the number of patients that leave hospital and die at home? Which can be arranged by astute trusts, ship them out before they die so that they are not included, or maybe the total of complaints, that can take years to complete, many of which are abandoned by complainants because of the biased system that allows CEOs to delay, deny and destroy peoples lives to suit their own purposes.
How about we rely on the self assessed ratings that trusts give themselves, so that they can continue to have “Foundation” status and be financially independent of “Government”.
Or do we just ignore all the stats and let the Management carry on blithely, with no checks or come backs, killing patients by the tens of thousands, ignoring patients’ pain and disablements.
Should we return to the nineteenth century when Doctors were Gods and patients slabs of meat with no rights and less dignity.
Or maybe we could find out the truth, let the Government hold a referendum on our NHS, ask us what we like, and what we don’t, on a trust by trust basis and on a national scale, so that we can see where the bad apples are in the NHS barrel, so that we can tell them what we want for a change.
It must be worth a thought.
Angus
No comments:
Post a Comment