Archive for the ‘Policy and Parliamentary’ Category
Diagram shows people’s preferences for choice at end of life – consultation call
NCPC (the National Council for Palliative Care) is doing a consultation for the government on having choices in end-of-life care – you have to reply soon (by 30th September) to contribute. The website has a rather nice diagram showing some of the things that people want choice about when approaching the end of life.
Public policy neglects funeral costs for people living in poverty – international study
This interesting article argues that public policy neglects funeral costs as an issue for people living in poverty; it reports a pilot international study.
Mesothelioma changes may be for insurers’ benefit, not victims; more research needed
Palliative care social workers often have to help people with mesothelioma, the lung disease which usually leads to an unpleasant death, caused by exposure, sometimes unwitting and often decades before the occurrence of the disease, to asbestos. This is an industrial disease and employers must pay compensation, but it is hard to prove where people were exposed to asbestos, and many employers have disappeared in the interim. Provision is often made by insurers, and the compensation payments have been valued by people affected, and their families after their deaths. The insurance industry has been trying to limit its liabilities (which are extensive and ongoing) and the government has been negotiating with them over this. This brief comment from the Kennedy’s Liability Briefs (Kennedy’s are a law firm that specialise in various forms of legal liability) indicates a recent move, and gives you a clue to what’s involved:
The Mesothelioma Act came into force on 1 September 2014, which creates a payment scheme, funded by the insurance industry, in order to help those victims who currently have no redress to compensation. Meanwhile, the Justice Committee has criticised the Government for lack of transparency about the ‘agreement’ drawn up between the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Government in 2012 in which the ABI agreed to pay for the payment scheme. A response by the Government to the call for a fresh review is expected by the end of September.
Link to the Kennedy’s Liability Brief
You might find it useful to look at the legislation:
and look at the Parliamentary debates.
Link to the Parliamentary debates
This was routine government business, so it started out in the House of Lords. You can see the explanation of the Act given by Lord Freud in the House of Lords at the second reading, and this gives you a good idea of what’s involved:
Link to the second reading House of Lords debate
However, the Brief suggests that not all is hunky-dory. The Justice Parliamentary Select Committee published a series of reports about whether people claiming compensation could reclaim legal costs; the government, in its aim to cut legal aid costs has been arguing not, but virtually everyone else argues for it. The government is accused of not being totally transparent in its dealings with the insurance industry, giving rise to the suspicion that it has been keener to help the insurers than the victims of the disease (while also keeping its costs down). the report says, at Para 29:
We are concerned that the Government has not been transparent or open, either with us or with other interested parties, about the fact that its overall policy in relation to mesothelioma has been shaped in accordance with an “agreement”, however informal and elastic, which it had reached with employers’ liability insurers. It is hard to see how a balanced and informed public debate can take place when a prior agreement has been reached between two of the principal parties to that debate, and that agreement is not known to others participating in the debate, including victims.
Link to the Justice Committee 3rd Report on the scheme
Bearing this in mind, it might be good to keep our eyes open for how the Act in practice will work on behalf of victims and families, and encourage some of the interested MPsto tkae up things which do not seem to be going well.
There are lots of other issues, which emerged as the Act progressed through Parliament. For example, MPs were concerned that not enough research was being done to ensure that British NHS patients got the best treatments available elsewhere. You can see this debate in the House of Commons Report stage:
NHS merger proposal that includes patient benefit in anti-competition decision
Some months ago, I commented on a report of a foreign competition review of hospital mergers and said it would be interesting to see what the UK competition authorities did, faced with a hospital merger. Here is a lawyer’s view of the first one. The Office of Fair Trading looked at a proposed merger between hospital trusts around Bournemouth, decided they were potentially anti-competitive and referred them to the Competition Commission. As with the foreign case that I commented upon, the main concern, reported by the lawyer, were:
It is clear from this first case that the OFT’s chief concern was that the merger would result in diminished choice for patients and commissioning groups and therefore reduce incentives to compete on quality, which would have a detrimental impact on patients using these services.
The OFT identified at least two key parameters for competition between the Trusts:
1 competing to attract patients; and
2 competing for funding from commissioners of NHS services.
What this tells us is that there is a potential, when looking at proposed mergers in the NHS, for someone outside the NHS to look at them and see what the evidence is that patients will benefit, including convenient access, not at what the managers say about how they can save money. This provides a new area where campaigners looking at NHS reorganisations can apply pressure to the healthcare system. No independent body has ever looked before at this kind of evidence.
This is potentially a good counter-balance to financial pressures towards NHS mergers that disadvantage patients, if campaigners can use it.
Here is the link to the report: OFT’s first review of NHS Foundation Trust merger – Lexology.
No comeback for poor care in privatised healthcare?
The Care Quality Commission (the health and social care regulator) has published its annual ‘state of care’ report, which has had some press coverage, mainly about poor standards of staffing and respect in care in quite a lot of nursing homes and hospitals.
Link to the CQC ‘State of Care’ report here, or click the pic.
It is interesting to surmise what the consequences of this kind of information is. One sign is an interesting article by a lawyer who supports patients making ‘clinical negligence’ claims. She says that because older people have more complex needs, they are likely to be let down by poor staffing, and poor record-keeping may mean there is no comeback, because there is not sufficient evidence of negligence in the records.
I’m more cynical than she is. Could private sector providers (where recording is worse anyway) purposely degrade recording so that there is no comeback? Will this be another consequence of poor private sector care provision in the newly privatised NHS?
Here’s an excerpt from what she says:
It is a frankly astonishing that almost a quarter of the homes inspected did not have adequate staffing levels. These are the nursing homes which provide for complex health needs. 16% of hospital services failed to meet the staffing requirement levels that the CQC considered appropriate. This is a significant number of hospitals failing to provide sufficient staff to deal with care needs of patients.
The other issue which was equally important, particularly for lawyers, is that as a result of the increased pressure on limited employees, the level of appropriate record-keeping was deteriorating. In addition, so was the management of medicines.
As lawyers we depend a great deal on the medical records that were contemporaneously completed. In the private sector medical records can often be poor. In the NHS sector they tend to be more thorough. It is a worrying aspect of the report that across the board record-keeping was beginning to deteriorate. Not all institutions were poor, but a significant minority were not providing the level of record-keeping that should be expected.
And further on:
For clinical negligence lawyers it is likely that we will see an increase in potential claims to consider. What is worrying, however, in addition is that, as lawyers, we may not be able to ascertain fully what is happening because the medical records have not been completed properly.
Whilst by far the majority of inspections clearly demonstrated adequate care, there is a significant minority where the care does not meet the standard and where it is much more likely that serious accidents will occur. At the same time as the legal system is changing so that it will become more difficult for claimants to seek compensation for clinical negligence, we are dealing with a health care system which is failing a number of its own clients. The overall result may be fewer claims to the NHS and other bodies, but that does not mean that the negligence is not happening. It does not solve the problem of what happens after somebody has had an accident and requires further care as a result.
National End of Life Care Prog giveaway
The National End of Life Care Programme says it’s got hard copies of its publications to give away free. What do you think its logo signifies? Stepping delicately towards the end of life?
Liverpool Care Pathway has become a tickbox exercise, not a thoughtful shared process
As I said in a recent post, there have been increasing concerns about the Liverpool Care Pathway, and this has finally led the government to set up some inquiries to get the heat out of the situation.
Link to BBC News report about the inquiries.
The BBC’s Health correspondent, Nick Triggle has written a clear and balanced account of the issues.
Link to Nick Triggle’s article.
The newspapers (the Telegraph) who have been drumming up criticism have reported the Department of Health statements. Attached to these articles are some good comments.
Link to the Telegraph article and comments.
Link to an alarmist Mail Online article
My comment
It’s important to understand what the LCP is. It is a protocol, basically a list of things to do, once you have identified that a patient is nearing the end of their lives. The purpose of the LCP was originally to transfer experience of hospice care to general hospitals. An important aspect of the LCP is discussion with patients and relatives about what you are doing.
But the situation is different. Hospitals are busy places focused on treatment, whereas hospices are calmer environments focused on care. Hospitals cover a range of illnesses at lots of different stages of treatment, whereas hospices deal mainly with cancer (still) and other illnesses where there is a clear prognosis that the patient is nearing the end of their lives. The different situations mean that identifying when someone is approaching the end of life and then having a thoughtful discussion with patients and their relatives is more difficult to do in hospitals. It requires judgment and planning, but the hurried ‘acute treatment’ environment in many general hospitals does not make that very easy.
Another problem is that the government has pushed for the rolling out of LCP to improve the care of patients in hospitals; there is talk of financial incentives as ‘bribes’ to clear beds of people who are dying. But the real problem is the assumption that a list of things to do can be ‘rolled out’. What happens is that it becomes a tickbox exercise instead of a thoughtful shared process. And this unfortunate campaign against it is the result.