Is the NHS listening in wake of Mid Staffs failings?
On Wednesday Robert Francis will finally publish his findings into the failings at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust between 2005 and March 2009. Failings that led to as many as 600 more patients than would have been expected dying at the hospital. The stories of appalling, inhumane care are now well known. The inquiry instead will concentrate on how the system itself allowed it to happen. Where were the statutory and regulatory bodies which are meant to protect the patient and ensure standards are upheld? And why were warnings not heeded?
But there will also be questions over whether the system is, even now, fit for purpose? At the heart of what happened at Mid Staffs was the failure of trust management to listen to relatives’ complaints. Nor did they listen to the doctors and nurses who tried to speak out.
Lawrence Hayward’s mother Eileen died at Mid Staffs in September 2011 from natural causes. But Mr Hayward has complained about her treatment. Nearly 17 months later it remains unresolved. It has been admitted that an open needle was left on her bed and that she was given the wrong medication at one point. And there have been apologies. But we have seen letters in which a doctor recalls a faulty nebuliser, then a second letter saying there was no faulty nebuliser.
Read more: Mid Staffs and a question of trust
At one point, the health ombudsman wrote to the trust saying that further work needed to be done by the trust to answer outstanding concerns.
Julie Bailey, whose complaints about the treatment of her mother Bella in Stafford set this whole ball rolling, says the complaints system at the trust is “not fit for purpose”. She says that almost daily relatives come to her to say they are not being listened to.
This is rejected by the trust, which says that while there are still improvements to be made they have come along way. Julie Hendry, speaking to Channel 4 News, was the person brought into the trust to overhaul the complaints system.
She could not comment on individual cases but she said: “I think the complaints procedure has changed a lot…we now have systems in place. When complaints come in from any source they are immediately escalated not just to a clinical director and the doctors but also to the general manager who appoints an investigator.”
In many ways, though, the failures in the complaints system are national. Mid Staffs has to follow NHS guidelines and many believe those guidelines are fundamentally flawed. Action against Medical Accidents has written to the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt calling for a strong patient watchdog, similar to the Community Health Councils, and they are critical of the new patients’ organisation, Healthwatch, which they say has already effectively been muzzled.
What Mr Francis will have to say about the system is, of course, an unknown. But he has heard plenty of evidence to know that the process as it was (and which remains largely unchanged) let down many, many patients and their relatives.
Follow @vsmacdonald on Twitter
There are 5 comments on this post
Victoria,
How can we trust ANY system put in place by an establishment clearly bent on privatising the NHS?
And by “establishment” I mean all political parties, their placemen apparatchiks who administer the NHS trusts, the senior civil servants who helped frame the enabling legislation, the private firms now scavenging the NHS and those waiting for salami-sliced pickings, and ultra neocons “academics” such as Patrick Minford.
If you want to see the future, research the private health insurance firms and their plans for the privatisation. Check the names and individuals, plus foreign firms – particularly in the USA. Check the so-called neocon “think tanks” such as Policy Exchange and the Adam Smith “Institute.” Really, these organisations are little more than propaganda churners dressed up as “intellectual thinkers.”
The horror at Mid Staffordshire became inevitable once the establishment started down the road of privatisation. It won’t be the last.
One of the the things that emerged from the hearings at the public inquiry is that different people had different ideas about what the Complaints system was for.
Within the health system the focus was on “learning from mistakes”. which was not always enough for patients.
When complaints could not be settled easily then they quickly got tangled up with Litigation – where there was a perception from the patients that things were being kept hidden from them -rather than the Hospital having to accept liability.
The second stage complaints process – through HCC and then through CQC did not seem to satisfy anyone.
Complaints which reached the DOH were dealt with by bland “official” reponses.
The Ombudsman service focused on cases that could help the NHS as a whole learn, so they were very selective, and often refused individual cases.
For many of the mid Staffs relatives there was a strong desire for “accountability” by which they meant people should take blame, lose their jobs, or perhaps be prosecuted.
One of the things that did emerge is that it is pretty difficult for anyone to be prosecuted. Individuals might find themselves up in front of their college, or be struck off, but often the problems that occured were not clearly the responsibility of any one individual. – could instead be seen as systemic – or a matter of culture.
I think it will be necessary to recognise that the complaints system did not do what either the Mid staffs families, or many other individuals from throughout the county who have unresolved issues with the NHS. A lot of these individuals are suffering real long term anquish. This needs to be prevented.
Solving this is not easy. Complaints need to be handled with skill and sincerity, and it may need to be recognised that when the process breaks down there may be a need for skilled mediators to help “sides” come together over difficult issues.
Francis seemed to understand that the failure of the complaints system is central to the Mid Staffs issues. He is certain to have strong recommendations on the better handling of complaints
My sister and I have gone through a similar “Deny and Delay” strategic approach from the NHS Trust despite our ability to interact and interface on their terms. Equally, the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman came on board — months and months going into years afterwards because of the deliberate delays by the PCT – but ultimately has condoned and enabled the behaviour which we can show to be deliberately obstructive to the truth. We are aghast because the entire system from the ward upwards is such that all endeavours are used “against” the complainants including, in our case, falsifying records and implying that we are incoherent and incapable. We would like our “day in court” to show the truth of this system. These people are in hierarchies which support each other in their supposed jobs of protecting the patient. The cumbersome number of health bodies purporting to be there for the sake of the patient is quite clearly a scandal and a disgrace. These bodies are interested only in their self perpetuation where many people are earning huge salaries all on the tax payer and they are accountable to nobody. Our current experience can show quite clearly that these bodies are NOT accountable to the public. Will you please help us get an interview with the Health Secretary inside the Department of Health? We will not let you down. We need to be able to show to the British public what we have found out through our own experiences and through our worthy endeavours. Please help us.
Thanks so much for your email. The complaints system is a mess and needs a complete rethink.
Sadly, I have no influence on the Health Secretary. I rarely get to see him myself so sadly the best way would be to write to him.
The Regulatory “watchdogs” through out the entire Government system, seem to be set up just to act as a buffer against any government having any responsibility to its electorate. Therefore they all stall and draw out any inquiry
How many times to we hear “lessons will be/are being learned” and “come a long way”.
How long do we go on paying top salaries for these people to learn. Look where they all go after the event, mainly to another government post. They get rewarded therefore they must be doing what the government intended.