{"title":"How much will Mid Staffordshire Public Inquiry change things?","authors":"P. Walsh","doi":"10.1177/1356262214528840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dust is finally beginning to settle following the Government’s response to the Francis report, and we are beginning to see what is actually going to change as a result. A few things still need to be bottomed out of course – not least the question of whether England introduces a full statutory Duty of Candour or some pale shadow of it, which could actually make things worse. This was discussed in some detail in a previous issue. At the time of writing, an announcement has yet to be made about this. However, whilst we eagerly await the Government’s decision – arguably the most central and important potential outcome from the inquiry – some things are becoming clearer. The Government has made much of accepting the ‘vast majority’ of Francis’ recommendations. However, a closer look shows that many of these are accepted ‘in principle’, but the Government is actually going to do something rather different from what was recommended, if anything at all. Perhaps, the most noticeable changes have come in the approach to regulation, the need for which was so graphically exposed by the inquiry. Whilst some of the details of the recommendations such as merger of Monitor with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) were not accepted, the main thrust at least was taken to heart. We are already beginning to see a completely different approach from the CQC. A beefed-up inspection regime; a willingness to engage with and act on intelligence from patients and whistleblowers; and a much more open and principled style of leadership. Some of the disappointments were the refusal to accept recommendations about introducing guidance on minimum staffing levels or to bring in regulation of healthcare assistants. These are decisions which I fear may come back to haunt ministers. Questions about staffing levels and skill mix, and indeed the effect of 12-hour shift patterns are, I fear, going to remain a huge issue. Even more so due to the strain on resources. The issues are commonly a red hot topic of debate in Wales, which has been facing its own Stafford-style scandals. More of that later. Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA)","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"20 1","pages":"58 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262214528840","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262214528840","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The dust is finally beginning to settle following the Government’s response to the Francis report, and we are beginning to see what is actually going to change as a result. A few things still need to be bottomed out of course – not least the question of whether England introduces a full statutory Duty of Candour or some pale shadow of it, which could actually make things worse. This was discussed in some detail in a previous issue. At the time of writing, an announcement has yet to be made about this. However, whilst we eagerly await the Government’s decision – arguably the most central and important potential outcome from the inquiry – some things are becoming clearer. The Government has made much of accepting the ‘vast majority’ of Francis’ recommendations. However, a closer look shows that many of these are accepted ‘in principle’, but the Government is actually going to do something rather different from what was recommended, if anything at all. Perhaps, the most noticeable changes have come in the approach to regulation, the need for which was so graphically exposed by the inquiry. Whilst some of the details of the recommendations such as merger of Monitor with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) were not accepted, the main thrust at least was taken to heart. We are already beginning to see a completely different approach from the CQC. A beefed-up inspection regime; a willingness to engage with and act on intelligence from patients and whistleblowers; and a much more open and principled style of leadership. Some of the disappointments were the refusal to accept recommendations about introducing guidance on minimum staffing levels or to bring in regulation of healthcare assistants. These are decisions which I fear may come back to haunt ministers. Questions about staffing levels and skill mix, and indeed the effect of 12-hour shift patterns are, I fear, going to remain a huge issue. Even more so due to the strain on resources. The issues are commonly a red hot topic of debate in Wales, which has been facing its own Stafford-style scandals. More of that later. Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA)
随着政府对弗朗西斯报告的回应,尘埃终于开始落定,我们开始看到实际的变化。当然,仍有一些事情需要彻底解决——尤其是英国是否引入了一项完整的法定“坦率义务”(Duty of Candour),或者是它的一些苍白的影子,这实际上可能会让事情变得更糟。在前一期中对此进行了详细讨论。在撰写本文时,尚未就此发布公告。然而,在我们急切地等待政府的决定- -可以说是调查最核心和最重要的潜在结果- -的同时,有些事情正在变得更加清楚。政府已经接受了方济各“绝大多数”的建议。然而,仔细观察就会发现,其中许多是“原则上”被接受的,但政府实际上要做的事情与建议的完全不同,如果有的话。或许,最引人注目的变化出现在监管方式上,此次调查生动地揭示了监管的必要性。虽然建议的一些细节,如Monitor与护理质量委员会(CQC)的合并没有被接受,但主要的主旨至少被铭记于心。我们已经开始看到一种与CQC完全不同的方法。加强检查制度;愿意与患者和举报人接触并根据他们的情报采取行动;以及更加开放和有原则的领导风格。一些令人失望的是,拒绝接受关于引入最低人员配备水平指导或引入医疗助理监管的建议。我担心这些决定可能会反过来困扰部长们。我担心,有关人员配备水平和技能组合的问题,以及12小时轮班模式的影响,仍将是一个大问题。由于资源紧张,更是如此。这些问题通常是威尔士辩论的热门话题,威尔士也面临着自己的斯坦福式丑闻。稍后会详细介绍。防止医疗意外行动(AvMA)