Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
19 March 2010 | 18:48 GMT


HOME | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | AWARDS | PODCASTS | VIDEO DIARIES
View reders comments View (17)
comments
Add a comment Add a
comment
Send to a friend Send to
a friend
Print this page Print

Mid Staffs death rates - poor care not poor data

Tags: A   coding   emergency   HIS   Imperial College   Information   iS   London   Norman Lamb   Quality   Standards   Strategic  

17 Mar 2009

A trust that tried to blame high death rates on inadequate systems for recording patient data is to be condemned for “appalling” standards by the Healthcare Commission.

Dr Foster’s monitoring unit, based at Imperial College in London, noticed that Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust’s mortality rate was higher than the national average in summer 2007. It alerted the Commission, which launched an investigation in March 2008.

When this happened, however, the trust issued a statement saying: “We have worked with the strategic health authority and investigated the apparently high mortality rate and concluded that it was due to problems in the way we were recording and coding information about patients.

The trust’s then chief executive, Martin Yeates, said the trust had employed more coding experts and “as a result there has been a significant improvement to our standardised mortality ratio.”

He also sought to assure local people that: “If we thought the trust was unsafe, we would already have taken action. There is no cause for alarm.”

However, the Healthcare Commission’s report, which is due to be published tomorrow, but which is already being widely reported, rejects this explanation.

Instead, it says that between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at the trust over a three year period and that this was due to “shocking” care for patients admitted through A&E.

Its investigation, which involved 300 interviews and the examination of more than 1,000 documents, found the trust had become over-focused on meeting targets and achieving cost savings, at the expense of basic patient care.

It found staff were inadequately trained and supervised, with receptionists left to assess patients in A&E and heart monitors left unused in the emergency assessment unit because nurses did not know how to use them.

It also found more general failures of care, with patients left unwashed, unfed and without access to medicines. Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, has been quoted by the Press Association as saying there had been a “gross and terrible breach of trust" of Mid Staffordshire’s patients.

Yeates and the trust’s chair, Toni Brisby, both left last week, with a new chief executive, Eric Morton, appointed as interim chief executive. Morton, a veteran manager who started his career in finance, has apologised for his new trust’s failings.

However, Mid Staffordshire is to come under further scrutiny, as health secretary Alan Johnson has reportedly launched three inquiries in response to the Healthcare Commission's report.

Professor Sir George Alberti, an academic at Imperial College London who advises the Department of Health as national clinical director for urgent and emergency care, will review its emergency work.

Dr David Colin-Thome, the NHS's national director for primary care, will investigate standards at the trust from 2002 to 2007 "to determine how the obvious failings were allowed to continue for so long."

Speaking on Radio 4's PM programme, Johnson indicated that one issue Colin-Thome would look at was why local organisations became "bogged down" in debates about coding and data.

"There was an argument going on about coding for years. The Healthcare Commission went and looked at what was actually happening in the hospital," he said.

The NHS's National Quality Board will also look into the wider effectiveness of early warning systems within the health service.

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb has already called for "a cultural change so that every trust has open and transparent systems in place to ensure patient safety.”

Related article: Data blindness opinion and analysis

Lyn Whitfield

© 2009 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

Scapegoating?

17 Mar 09 16:48

Even if they all perform identically and have identical casemix, [assuming a normal distribution of mortality] half of hospitals will have a below average mortality rate and half will have an above mortality rate.

One wonders whether the roof fell in on Mid Staffs because they were unlucky rather than especially dysfunctional.

Once a hospital is under investigation one may turn up clear evidence of failures - but are investigators looking for "successes" at that stage? How many NHS Hospitals could withstand that level of scrutiny with guilt already presumably decided?

Beyond this (and even if Mid Staffs was failing egregiously)

>>the trust had become over-focused on meeting targets and achieving cost savings, as the expense of basic patient care<<

Maybe, but is it unique in that?

Mid Staffs was awarded Foundation Trust status during the period under question. If the failings were so "obvious" who rewarded it with Foundation Trust status? Answer - the people who set the targets and demanded the cost cuts it achieved of course!

Perhaps one should examine the policies rather than pillory trusts which are "only obeying orders".


2

re: Scapegoating?

17 Mar 09 18:31

I’m sorry but I can’t sit by and see comments made like post 1 without saying something. This is not ‘scapegoating!!! This is about real people dying unnecessarily. They could be your relations. The Executive Management of a Trust or a PCT has its first duty to its patients and public and second to the targets. If they chose to focus on the targets first this is from a mentality of protecting their jobs not doing what they surely joined the NHS for. Whilst the latter route would be a rougher ride it is why they are chosen as such senior leaders in the NHS.

The thought that post 1 thinks they might be ‘unlucky’ to be found out is appalling to me!

Yes there are distributions of performance but all organisations should be looking not to be outliers rather than being in the top half (obviously an impossibility anyway). This is about being way out of line.

Big questions should be asked of the review that allowed them to take Foundation Trust status. Where was the data analysis then?


3

Priorities for the 21st Century NHS

18 Mar 09 07:24

400 deaths.

Receptionists undertaking triage.

Patients drinking from flower vases.

So is what's really needed as a national NHS priority at this point in time, an expensive late-running down-scoping IT programme based substantially on an unvalidated "joining up" premise that if someone from Stafford breaks their leg in Stoke Pogis, the local clinicians will know they're allergic to penicillin (if they can be bothered to log on and look) and that this will address a significant problem?

The tragic events at Stafford surely call into question whether there are less sophisticated initiatives that should have first call on the NHS's limited financial resources.


4

Media feeding frenzy

18 Mar 09 10:29

The government seems happy to throw Mid Staffs to the wolves to divert attention from their own fundamental failure.

The setting of cosmetic targets and collection of Soviet style pseudo-performance statistics which must report only good news can only end this way.

This is blaming the children for wrecking the house while the babysitter cheered them on as they did it. (A similar analogy can be drawn with bankers and the [then] Chancellor of the Exchequer).

Like Northern Rock - I fear Mid Staffs may be merely the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.


5

supporting comment 2

18 Mar 09 12:05

I find it amazing and frankly disturbing that people can leap to the defence of a Trust in this situation. This independent report suggests that upwards of 400 people have died as a result of poor management and a catalogue of errors at this organisation, like Maidstone before it and long and sorry list before that.

Sometimes people have to take responsibility for their own poor descisions


6

Mid Staffs Dereliction of Duty

tony.ive@optimize-roster.co.uk

18 Mar 09 17:14

The suggestion in Comment 1 that those responsible could be exonerated on the grounds that they were “only obeying orders” is bizarre. The executives of an NHS Trust are clearly responsible for the running of their hospital. That’s their job. If they think the government is preventing them from doing it, they should say so and go, if necessary. The most worrying thing is that there could be anyone in a position of management responsibility in an NHS Trust who is in any doubt about this. The position of doctors and nurses is completely different. They have a responsibility to do the best they can for the patients in their care. If they think their hospital is being run is in a way that prevents them from doing this, they should say so; but there is no reason for them to walk away. That wouldn’t help the patients. Sadly, a climate has been created in which the reciting of mantras (“Quality”, “Investing in Success”, “Working Together”, “Exceeding Expectations”) receives more attention than ensuring that the right people are in the right place at the right time – the basis of good care. The fundamental problem is that NHS Trusts have no grip on the relationship between Service Provided, Staff Numbers, and Cost – and no apparent will to tackle the problem. Tony Ive, Managing Director, Powertec Systems & Consultancy Ltd, providers of workforce optimisation services.


7

Odd

19 Mar 09 01:51

Something decidedly odd about all this.

Last year this trust was rated "Good" by the Healthcare commission. Now we have a "third world" "warzone" with "patients drinking from flower vases" (hospitals don't have flower vases) "receptionists assessing a&e patients" etc. - a massive failure in nursing and medical care resulting in the collective mass manslaughter of 1000 patients. The unlucky survivors screaming in pain, being denied their drugs, sitting in pools of urine, having their ops repeatedly cancelled etc.

"Junior doctors left in charge at night." Hmmm?

Something strangely witch-hunt-like about all this. I hope these interview statements were all properly verified before being used as the basis for the report. Certainly some spurious ones being quoted ...


8

Shameful CEO comments

19 Mar 09 08:36

Apart from the absolutely shocking catalogue of basic failures highlighted by this report, I am particularly distressed by the shameful comments of the then CEO : 'no cause for alarm' and his attempts to brush it off as just a coding blip. I suppose the only slightly consoling feature of this is that the monitoring tools which highlighted the problem at this Trust, and resulted in the enquiry, appeared to have worked - albeit rather slowly it seems. I do not know why a problem identified in Summer 2007 resulted in an investigation which only started in March 2008. Our smpathies are with all those distressed and affected by these failures.


9

Odd? or not?

19 Mar 09 11:04

In comment to comment 7

As a healthcare professional and as a user of this hospital service i can assure the poster of comment number 7 that there are indeed flower vases in existence in this hospital.

Also, local people and their families have been crying out for the last 2 years to get someone to hear their concerns. The saddest part of this whole story is the fact that these concerns (and they ran into many hundreds, as born out in the local papers) were not the driver for the investigation. In the end, it was simply some statisticians in an office in London who alerted the Healthcare Commission of a potential problem.

The CEO and all of the Trust Board never took their patients concerns seriously and blamed poor data collection for the high death rate. For that reason, all of them should be sacked, let alone the fact they sat by and let what has happened over the last 2 years continue.


10

Odd ...

19 Mar 09 19:34

#9

OK, I accept the allegations as substantially true.

Strikes me we need to return to the days when Medicine and Nursing were professions, not groups of cowed  employees at the bottom of an aggressive target/bonus culture.

Should we be developing computer systems designed to support this - rather than supporting patient care?

The healthcare equivalent of the banking mindset that caused the credit crunch?


11

You get what you measure

tim.benson@abies.co.uk

19 Mar 09 20:36

Mid Staffs will go down as a classic example in the targets v outcomes debate.  With the board obsessing over financial and process targets they let quality slip disastrously.  Mid Staffs was so bad that that they were a clear outlier on the mortality rate table, but this was only picked up after between 400 and 1,200 people had died.  At least we had mortality data.  It is a shame we do not yet have other outcomes data such as PROMs, but Mid Staffs provides one more reason why it is so important to measure what matters to patients, not only survival, but feeling better and being able to do more.


12

deja vu?

michael.paynter@somersetpct.nhs.uk

19 Mar 09 22:17

It defies belief that the emergency services provided by this foundation trust were in such an apparent state of disarray for so long. Extensive work done by the DoH 'emergency services collaborative' in England four years ago clearly identified 'system faults' in the management of acute hospitals. In particular the efficiency of emergency department being compromised by a lack of 'corporate understanding' about their function and role. Sensible workable solutions were found to almost all the issues that appear to have troubled Mid Staffs.

Senior clinicians in the emergency department must have made repeated calls for urgent sustainable investment, clearly this was not forthcoming. Instead it appears that data was fudged by hospital managers, the Trust rewarded with greater independence and the body count rose.

If senior clinicians are to effectively influence change they must have a voice at Board level and act as the patients advocate. 

This latest NHS story makes me think was anything learnt from the BRI enquiry or the more recent Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells fiasco. Are the memories of CEOs really so short?  

Mike Paynter, Somerset


13

Let's blame the information, eh!

david.hawes@pmuw.wales.nhs.uk

20 Mar 09 09:40

Coming from a clinical coding / information background, it doesn't in the least surprise me that those in senior management chose to blame poor performance on poor data / information. It's a systemic, almost institutional, response that i've been experiencing over the past 8yrs since I joined the NHS (in Wales).

Until management and, dare I say it, clinical staff (who are often the most dismissive of the power good information and data can offer) are willing to stand up and take notice of it, failures such as those higlighted in Mid Staff are going to turn up again and again.

Considering the breadth and sheer volume of information and data generated within the NHS, we are shockingly bad at making good use of it.


14

Wood and trees

20 Mar 09 09:54

It is very easy to get carried away with the emotion of this situation and hence fail to see the wood for the trees.   Don't get me wrong:  the standard of clinical care seems to have been questionable (I don't think any of us have access to sufficient information to make that judgement) and there seems to have been an excess mortality rate (again that is not proven by the data that has been published - every statistical distribution has outliers and it is a classic error to jump to the conclusion that an outlier is 'wrong'.   Remember Disraeli - '... there are lies, damned lies, and statistics').    If it is true that clinical care was inadequate and that excess mortality resulted from that inadequacy I am happy to be first in the queue to condemn it and sympathise with those who have been made to suffer.

However, this was a hospital undergoing voluntary scrutiny all the time.   Look in the comments above:

1) Big questions should be asked of the review that allowed them to take Foundation Trust status.

2) Last year this trust was rated "Good" by the Healthcare commission

As a previous contributor has observed:  If the failings of this hospital were so eye-wateringly obvious, how come they got missed the first two times around the merry-go-round?

There is, like it or not, an unavoidable odour of politicians suddenly acquiring a different perspective when their policies start to disintegrate.


15

the answer (sadly)

20 Mar 09 11:08

why was this Trust rated 'Good' only 12 months before it hit the headlines in this awful way? why did it take a statistician looking at death rates to find the problem?

The answer was given on radio 4's TODAY programme the day this story broke: the Heathcare Commission report is largely as self assessment box ticking excercise.

time to quote the old tag "there's none so blind as those that will not see"


16

Use the Information Thats There

chris.bennett@dorset-pct.nhs.uk

20 Mar 09 17:02

One of the lessons of this is that NHS Managers should learn to look at the information that's available. And then, when statisticians tell them a result is significant, believe them and take action. The SHAs and Commissioners should have had this as one of their primary roles. Mortality data is not new to the NHS- we've had it for years, and its all sitting in SUS. Congratulations to the Dr Foster team who spotted this and did make sure that someone took notice - but why the delay? And why did it have to wait for Dr Foster?


17

Patients are on their own

21 Mar 09 22:20

Stafford shows that current monitoring and regulation of patient care has broken down in many parts of the NHS.  As a patient, my only hope is the direct feedback from patients proposed by the Government.  I note with interest that the EHI poll shows a majority against such direct feedback.  This does not altogether surprise me.  Maybe Stafford will be the shock that will show EH insiders the error of their ways.

Last week, Dr Hamish Meldrum, BMA Council chairman, said: “The consumerist approach being advocated by the government is not well-suited to the NHS. Patients are not supermarket customers, and doctors are doing more than providing an easily rated commodity."  I hope that, after Stafford, that statement will receive the same obloquy as the Pope's recent remarks about Aids and Condoms. 

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
Most commented
Most commented
Tags
Tags
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters