Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Who gets how much of the public health budget? ACRA's work reveals discrepancy between likely funding and needs | David Buck
Who gets how much of the public health budget? ACRA's work reveals discrepancy between likely funding and needs | David Buck: How much local authorities get will be decided centrally for the first time, in contrast to the current system where Primary Care Trusts take their own decisions. But how will public health funding allocations be decided? (Blog, 2 Jul 2012) Kings Fund
Nurse regulator 'let down' public
Nurse regulator 'let down' public: Substantial failings "at every level" of the Nursing and Midwifery Council mean it is letting down patients, says a damning report. BBC News
NMC official response (and links to report) here
NMC official response (and links to report) here
GPs will not work more for free
GPs will not work more for free: Doctors warn that GPs do not want to work for longer for free, as a Liberal Democrat survey raises concerns about extending opening hours. BBC News
One in six NHS providers fall short of CQC standards
One in six NHS providers fall short of CQC standards: Up to one in six NHS providers are not meeting Care Quality Commission (CQC) essential standards, a report has revealed. GP Online
Poor data masks evidence on NHS efficiency across UK
Poor data masks evidence on NHS efficiency across UK: Poor data collection means that, despite huge variations in NHS spending across the UK, officials still cannot determine which policies are most cost-efficient, a report has warned. GP Online
Model staff engagement policy published
Model staff engagement policy published: We have developed a model staff engagement policy based good examples from that exist already and based on learning from those organisations who already have a policy in place. NHS Employers
PIP breast implants: web forum on patient experiences - second report of session 2012–13
PIP breast implants: web forum on patient experiences - second report of session 2012–13:
Women who received substandard breast implants have had their say about their experiences in a web forum run by the House of Commons Health Committee. This report contains a summary of the comments received on the forum which ran in May 2012.
Women who received substandard breast implants have had their say about their experiences in a web forum run by the House of Commons Health Committee. This report contains a summary of the comments received on the forum which ran in May 2012.
Research 'Red Tape' Causing Life-Threatening Delay In Medical Breakthroughs
Research 'Red Tape' Causing Life-Threatening Delay In Medical Breakthroughs:
The charity, which funds around £100m of medical research every year, is calling for the NHS to open up its data to the scientists it funds at universities and hospitals across the UK.The report claims that researchers experience delays in gaining permission to access data, uncertainty about the rules governing the process of approval, and an overly complicated system that can slow potentially life-saving discoveries.Survey fi... Healthcare Today
The charity, which funds around £100m of medical research every year, is calling for the NHS to open up its data to the scientists it funds at universities and hospitals across the UK.The report claims that researchers experience delays in gaining permission to access data, uncertainty about the rules governing the process of approval, and an overly complicated system that can slow potentially life-saving discoveries.Survey fi... Healthcare Today
Telehealth: why we're still waiting for the definitive report
Telehealth: why we're still waiting for the definitive report:
The study was completed a long time ago, yet the findings haven't been published. Is it because the NHS doesn't like the conclusions?
As an ageing patient, reluctant to go near hospitals for fear of contracting MRSA, I have been increasingly irritated that definitive results of the "whole systems demonstrator" (WSD) of telehealth and telecare have been so slow to appear. Preliminary findings were published and launched with a fanfare by the King's Fund last year.
Then came silence, until January, when the government realised that telemedicine could mean vast savings for the NHS. Telehealth meant that fewer hospital beds would be needed since long-term patients would in future be treated at home, with a home monitor and direct line to the district nurse/GP/hospital. So, it launched the 3 million lives initiative.
Embarrassingly, the medical profession – GPs and hospital doctors alike – responded by sitting on their hands while they waited for the results of the WSD. They had smelled a rat.
The final report was being held because rigorous academic study would show that the preliminary findings were too optimistic. They were hoping that the final report would show that they would not have to bother about changing their time-honoured ways of handling patients, to make use of these pesky new technologies, like superfast broadband. And they could give the government a bloody nose – as payback for the health bill and the cuts in pensions – by boycotting the 3 million lives initiative.
The academics in the Nuffield Trust have finally published in the BMJ a report on the WSD. Or, to be more precise, it is a report on half the WSD. The original WSD covered 6,000 patients in Cornwall, West Ham and Kent with a variety of long-term conditions. What has now been published covers 3,000 patients and is limited to patients suffering from three long-term conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, or heart failure. The remote treatment of patients with these three diseases is now called telehealth.
The other 3,000 patients in the trial, being monitored remotely for other complaints, are defined as being treated with telecare. We have to wait until the end of this year for the WSD report on them. Hence, we will not get an overall picture of the success or failure of the WSD.
I can see why it has been quicker to provide a telehealth report. There are only three conditions handled and the main measures have been whether fewer people have died, and whether trips to hospital have been reduced. Telecare is more diffused, and much of the current treatments are provided by the social care department of local government, not NHS. It is tricky for academics to get their heads round such a messy scene.
The headline findings of telehealth were mixed. The good news was that mortality of telehealth patients over the year of the trial was 46% less than the control group. Hospital admissions were 18% lower. To me, these figures should be enough to justify an immediate rollout. I fancy the idea of increasing my chances of staying alive. But it won't happen – because the third big finding of the report was that telehealth would not save money.
And money is what matters to the NHS. It has to save £2bn. If telehealth does not save money, it is a no-no, not only with the DH but also with the commissioning groups. And at a time when hospital trusts are approaching bankruptcy, they will not relish losing more inpatients because telehealth keeps them out of hospital.
This particular trumpet gives a particularly uncertain sound, so I can't see any clinician or administrator preparing for the telehealth/telecare battle. We will have to wait another long year for the justification of further bigger and better rollouts of these initiatives. Meanwhile, I and my contemporaries soldier on into our 80s, forever fearful of unnecessary trips to hospital. Guardian Professional.
As an ageing patient, reluctant to go near hospitals for fear of contracting MRSA, I have been increasingly irritated that definitive results of the "whole systems demonstrator" (WSD) of telehealth and telecare have been so slow to appear. Preliminary findings were published and launched with a fanfare by the King's Fund last year.
Then came silence, until January, when the government realised that telemedicine could mean vast savings for the NHS. Telehealth meant that fewer hospital beds would be needed since long-term patients would in future be treated at home, with a home monitor and direct line to the district nurse/GP/hospital. So, it launched the 3 million lives initiative.
Embarrassingly, the medical profession – GPs and hospital doctors alike – responded by sitting on their hands while they waited for the results of the WSD. They had smelled a rat.
The final report was being held because rigorous academic study would show that the preliminary findings were too optimistic. They were hoping that the final report would show that they would not have to bother about changing their time-honoured ways of handling patients, to make use of these pesky new technologies, like superfast broadband. And they could give the government a bloody nose – as payback for the health bill and the cuts in pensions – by boycotting the 3 million lives initiative.
The academics in the Nuffield Trust have finally published in the BMJ a report on the WSD. Or, to be more precise, it is a report on half the WSD. The original WSD covered 6,000 patients in Cornwall, West Ham and Kent with a variety of long-term conditions. What has now been published covers 3,000 patients and is limited to patients suffering from three long-term conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, or heart failure. The remote treatment of patients with these three diseases is now called telehealth.
The other 3,000 patients in the trial, being monitored remotely for other complaints, are defined as being treated with telecare. We have to wait until the end of this year for the WSD report on them. Hence, we will not get an overall picture of the success or failure of the WSD.
I can see why it has been quicker to provide a telehealth report. There are only three conditions handled and the main measures have been whether fewer people have died, and whether trips to hospital have been reduced. Telecare is more diffused, and much of the current treatments are provided by the social care department of local government, not NHS. It is tricky for academics to get their heads round such a messy scene.
The headline findings of telehealth were mixed. The good news was that mortality of telehealth patients over the year of the trial was 46% less than the control group. Hospital admissions were 18% lower. To me, these figures should be enough to justify an immediate rollout. I fancy the idea of increasing my chances of staying alive. But it won't happen – because the third big finding of the report was that telehealth would not save money.
And money is what matters to the NHS. It has to save £2bn. If telehealth does not save money, it is a no-no, not only with the DH but also with the commissioning groups. And at a time when hospital trusts are approaching bankruptcy, they will not relish losing more inpatients because telehealth keeps them out of hospital.
This particular trumpet gives a particularly uncertain sound, so I can't see any clinician or administrator preparing for the telehealth/telecare battle. We will have to wait another long year for the justification of further bigger and better rollouts of these initiatives. Meanwhile, I and my contemporaries soldier on into our 80s, forever fearful of unnecessary trips to hospital. Guardian Professional.
Thousands denied IVF because of British restrictions
Thousands denied IVF because of British restrictions: Thousands of couples in Britain are being denied the chance to become parents because the country has one of the most restrictive policies in Europe when it comes to publicly funding fertility treatment, campaigners said today.
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily TelegraphDementia sufferers wait for a year for diagnosis: report
Dementia sufferers wait for a year for diagnosis: report: MPs call for end to 'shocking variation' in standards, as report reveals some dementia sufferers wait a year for diagnosis.
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Telegraph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)