ChatterBank5 mins ago
Failing hospitals
The Dr Foster organisation has published a list of under performing hospitals with higher than average mortality rates.
Most of these hospitals were described as good or excellent by the official regulator.
http://www.telegraph....hospitals-report.html
Why is there a discrepency between the official and independent assessment of Hospitals?
Most of these hospitals were described as good or excellent by the official regulator.
http://www.telegraph....hospitals-report.html
Why is there a discrepency between the official and independent assessment of Hospitals?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
When Blair set up these foundation hospitals allowing them to manage their own affairs they were greeted with much acclaim. They had to achieve excellent status in order for them to switch. Unfortunately the NHS pseudo privatisation does not work. You have the same staff and working practices as went before but now with less government involvement.
The difference between these and private hospitals is that the profit motive ensures that the private sector is genuinely more efficient and under more internal checks.
Therefore when a consultant comes to review the foundation hospital its in the government interests to show it is performing better with not too many faults. Therefore inspections are notified to the hospital in advance so they can clean up their act before the assessment. The paperwork can be filtered by the hospital managers to show a good light. As we know statistics can be adjusted up or down to skew any figures.
Therefore its obvious Dr Foster without an axe to grind will see the problems in the reality that exists.
The difference between these and private hospitals is that the profit motive ensures that the private sector is genuinely more efficient and under more internal checks.
Therefore when a consultant comes to review the foundation hospital its in the government interests to show it is performing better with not too many faults. Therefore inspections are notified to the hospital in advance so they can clean up their act before the assessment. The paperwork can be filtered by the hospital managers to show a good light. As we know statistics can be adjusted up or down to skew any figures.
Therefore its obvious Dr Foster without an axe to grind will see the problems in the reality that exists.
I'm not sure what to make of claims that some hospitals have mortality rates higher than average. Of course they do, that's what averages are. Someone is always below average, except in Lake Wobegon. Number-crunchers like Dr Foster will always come up with this, but it may be meaningless.
Having said that, it's hard to assess these competing claims. O'Brien says the regulator actually visits the hospitals, rather than just crunching numbers. And yet it seems it does not always do so, it may just rely on the hospital's assessment of its own performance, which is crazy.
http://www.guardian.c...l-trust-report-safety
Having said that, it's hard to assess these competing claims. O'Brien says the regulator actually visits the hospitals, rather than just crunching numbers. And yet it seems it does not always do so, it may just rely on the hospital's assessment of its own performance, which is crazy.
http://www.guardian.c...l-trust-report-safety
it doesn't matter whether it's consistent or not, Sqad, until you know why. Do they have a catchment area of people who are older, poorer, sicker, than average? Then the rate will consistently be higher, but it proves nothing in particular about the hospital. But you won't get this sort of necessary analysis just by looking at the hospital's statistics. This doesn't mean the regulator's ratings are right or wrong, it just means Dr Foster's data has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
-- answer removed --
jno
/////Dr Foster's data has to be taken with a pinch of salt.////
That is a very dangerous conclusion.
Dr Foster's conclusions were based on many modalities, death rates, cleanliness, waiting times and so on.
Of course in poorer areas, obesity, smoking etc will indeed increase the death rates, but the big question remains unanswered:
"How can flagship 5 star hospital trust become an under performing hospital in under a year?"
There has been a huge improvement in the NHS in the last 7-8 yrs, but remember the election cry of the Labour Party in the past...."NHS, Envy of the World"......of course it never was.
Zeuhl has a point..........patients with poor prognosis i.e fat or smokers, tend to get ignored on the waiting list.
/////Dr Foster's data has to be taken with a pinch of salt.////
That is a very dangerous conclusion.
Dr Foster's conclusions were based on many modalities, death rates, cleanliness, waiting times and so on.
Of course in poorer areas, obesity, smoking etc will indeed increase the death rates, but the big question remains unanswered:
"How can flagship 5 star hospital trust become an under performing hospital in under a year?"
There has been a huge improvement in the NHS in the last 7-8 yrs, but remember the election cry of the Labour Party in the past...."NHS, Envy of the World"......of course it never was.
Zeuhl has a point..........patients with poor prognosis i.e fat or smokers, tend to get ignored on the waiting list.
I agree with you Sqad. Taking it with a pinch of salt is a very dangerous conclusion. I do think at one time the NHS was the envy of the world, and it was something to be proud of, but with hospital acquired infections now so rife, the thought of undergoing a surgical procedure under the NHS scares the wits out of me.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Would You Have Heard Of Mada Pasa
News14 mins ago
You've Got To Laugh Haven't You?
News23 mins ago
Accidental Delete Of An Outlook Email
Technology30 mins ago
Crosswords35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
