Category Archives: NHS Scotland

Professional confusion

Posted on by
5

Like all those involved in healthcare I take delirium very seriously. I share in the collective determination to improve our approach, understanding and care of those experiencing this serious condition.

To improve it is important that critical thinking is given room.

This post is about the validated 4AT Rapid Assessment Test for Delirium:

In a recent medical educational lecture organised by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the 4AT was described as a “screening” test.

One of the authors of the 4AT Rapid Assessment Test described it recently as a “screening tool”:

There seems to be a lack of consistency in the stated purpose of this test/tool. Has this test/tool been validated for screening or has it been validated for assessment? This is an important scientific and ethical matter in terms of how this test/tool may be both validated and implemented

 

 

NHS Scotland – it should not take courage to care

Posted on by
1

On the 17th July 2017, the Scottish Government announced an “Enhanced service for NHS Scotland staff”

The Scottish Government began this announcement stating that:

“Staff in Scotland’s health service will continue to benefit from external support should they have any concerns about patient safety or malpractice”

From 1 August, the NHS Scotland Confidential Alert Line will be re-branded as the Whistleblowing Alert and Advice Services for NHS Scotland (AALS).

This was reported in the Scotsman of the 17th July 2017:

The Scottish Government confirm the enhancements that have been made:

Some personal thoughts:

I have never been a “whistleblower”. I have however raised concerns relating to patient wellbeing and safety in NHS Scotland, and in particular for our older generation. I share the view of Sir Robert Francis that “freedom to speak up” is a better and more encompassing term.

My experience of trying my best to put patients first in NHS Scotland has left me with an interest in this matter and I have followed developments over several years now.

My concern is that this “enhanced service” has taken little account of the evidence presented to the Scottish Parliament from a wide range of individuals and professional bodies, including Sir Robert Francis.

Lifeboat NHS from omphalos on Vimeo.

The “enhanced” service will still not be able to independently deal with any concerns raised and so can offer only to “pass concerns on to the appropriate Health Board or scrutiny body for further investigation”. In practice this will be either to the NHS Board the employee works with or to Healthcare Improvement Scotland which is neither independent of Government nor of any of Scotland’s 23 other NHS Boards.

It worries me that senior Scottish Government officials continue to use words such as “grievance” or “pursuers” when talking about those who are trying to put patients first in NHS Scotland. It seems that the Scottish Government are as quick as any of us may be to label individuals.  This “expanded service” has been re-labelled in a positive way when the opposite has happened to many of us who have raised concerns about patient care.

In summary:

I feel that this is a disappointing outcome given the determination of the Scottish Parliament, and the Health and Sport Committee in particular, to ensure that there is freedom in NHS Scotland to speak up and put patients first.

I would suggest that despite this “enhanced service” that it is still going to take a great deal of courage to care in NHS Scotland:

Courage to care from omphalos on Vimeo.

Improvement goggles

Posted on by
2

What follows are three slides taken from a talk given by Dr Brian Robson, Executive Clinical Director, Healthcare Improvement Scotland and IHI Fellow, given at the Edinburgh International Conference of Medicine in September 2016:



 

I most certainly agree that culture is important. But what kind of culture? Is it healthy just to follow one? In this case the Institute of Healthcare Improvement, Boston.

The “Improvement Goggles”, it would seem, come as part of the “toolkit”?

As a doctor who is passionate about improving care it matters to me that I follow science that does not risk being pre-determined.

It is important that there is philosophical depth to the approaches that we take to healthcare.

I understand the overwhelmingly good intentions of all those involved in “improvement science”, however I would suggest that we should carefully consider the potential benefits and harms of a most determined “one organisation” approach that starts and ends with reductionist and mechanical algorithms.

 

 

Unrealistic Medicine

Posted on by
Reply

This BMJ Editorial of the 30th June 2017 has had a number of responses:

The Editorial was a consideration of Academy of Medical Sciences report ‘Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential harms and benefits of medicines’.

The President of the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Chair of the Report, Professor Sir John Tooke, has submitted this reply:

It is most welcome for Professor Sir John Tooke to set out his further thoughts but I found that what he said did not reassure me about the future of science and so submitted this response:

Unrealistic Medicine
Written by Peter, 15 July 2017
Submitted as BMJ Rapid Response.

The further thoughts of Professor Sir John Tooke, Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences report ‘Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential harms and benefits of medicines’ are most welcome.

Professor Sir John Tooke does not reassure me that an era of unrealistic medicine and the business of science will change anytime soon. Meantime the NHS is struggling across the United Kingdom and this may be in part due to the promotion of medical interventions whose evidence base lacks the objectivity that we all surely seek.

I would suggest that most of us fully understand the “reminder” from the Academy of Medical Sciences that potential conflicts of interest can come in all forms and not just financial. But like the public I share the view that we should start with potential financial conflicts of interest as evidence has determined that exposure to industry promotional activity can lead to doctors recommending worse treatments for patients  Godlee and Freer remind us that we expect this from our elected politicians and in other areas of public life.

The voluntary ABPI Register is not working. Its database is only a little more than half complete. This really does challenge the “E” in EBM.

The pharmaceutical Industry has, over the preceding year, increased payments to healthcare workers for “promotional activities” from £109 million to £116.5 million.  This is a major part of Industry budget. Furthermore, we do not know how much may be being paid by device makers and other forms of industry for promotion of their products.

It is welcome, but somewhat “after the bell has rung”, that Professor Sir John Tooke confirms that the Academy of Medical Sciences intends to “review” its approach to public transparency. But one wonders how many “houses” do we need to “get in order” to address this issue effectively? I find myself worrying that it could be like a game of Monopoly that never seems to end.

The most effective and cheapest way to address this matter would be Sunshine legislation. This would avoid multiple, overlapping and generally unsearchable databases of interests.

I would suggest that the reputation of science is at stake as is the balance between benefits and harms for us all

Roy Porter, who sadly died prematurely was considered as one of the United Kingdom’s finest historians of science and health. He ends “Madness: A Brief History “ with a teasing question: ‘Is folly jingling its bells again?’

 

We need a Renaissance of Generalists

Posted on by
1

I aspire to be a generalist.

We live between the microscope and the telescope. I am of the view that the art and science of being a doctor requires such necessary width of focus.

Bettina Piko argued in 2002 that we need a “renaissance of polymaths”. It saddens me to consider that the western world, in the time since, has encouraged, and supported, the greater development of specialisms.

This post is about General Practice. My wife Sian has been a GP for more than 25 years.

This week the Royal College of General Practitioners has accused the Scottish Government of “longstanding under funding” of General Practice.

1 in 4 GP practices have a vacancy in Scotland.

I found myself part of a conversation about the current and future state of General Practice on the Stephen Jardine programme, Radio Scotland, on the 14th July 2017:

‘Official Interference’

Posted on by
1

This is my reply to a blog that was posted in the Holyrood Magazine:

Thursday 13th July 2017

Dear Tom,
I read the blog post titled ‘Official Interference’ written by you in the Holyrood Magazine on the 7th July 2017.

It is welcome to see this matter considered further. I can be a bit slow on the uptake but I wasn’t entirely sure of the main points that you were trying to get across? I am not sure what you mean by “the real story” being about “accusations” of “subjectivity”? I am also not sure what Holyrood’s views may be on the necessary independence of report writers and the public accountability of civil servants?

Let me be entirely open. I have found my experience of communicating with senior civil servants working for the Department of Health and Social Care (DGHSC) most unsettling. In my communications I have put patients first. I have been a longstanding  advocate for ethical considerations in healthcare.

As a public servant (NHS doctor) I have been as open and transparent about my experiences as possible – and I have shared all that I can on my website Hole Ousia.

Over some years I have become aware that my personal experience of communication with senior civil servants has been shared by a significant number of others, many of whom have been labelled by DGHSC as “vexatious” or having a “grievance”.

DGHSC civil servants would seem to follow an approach that Prof Walter Hume described as familiar “the various techniques used by bureaucratic organisations to avoid responsibility when things go wrong: these include silence, delay, evasion, buck-passing and attempts to discredit complainants.”

Following the Times report by Helen Puttick and the subsequent report in the Scotsman, I compiled this blog-post:

Honesty and Openness: ‘not an edited official tale’

I should say that I am just an NHS doctor who has a number of interests and that I have neither any skills in politics nor in journalism. I am however interested in ethics and this includes consideration of the integrity of those who occupy positions of genuine power (such as elected politicians and publically paid senior civil servants).

On becoming First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon stated:

“I intend that we will be an open and accessible Government” (26th November 2014)

When giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament, the Director General for NHS Scotland, Paul Gray said:

“I think transparency in the NHS makes sense” (29 January 2014)

I would suggest that there is a growing public concern about senior civil servants working for the Scottish Government in terms of what they say and do.

The Commission on Parliamentary Reform’s “Report on the Scottish Parliament” published on the 20th June 2017 outlined steps that might help improve parliamentary approaches to ensuring necessary accountability of the Scottish Government. I have been made aware, for example, of a number of Petitions under review by the Scottish Parliament that may have been closed as a result of behind-closed-doors “advice” by senior civil servants working for the Scottish Government.

I will stop there Tom. No need to reply unless you so wish.

One closing point. It is most demoralising for hard-working NHS staff to hear repeatedly repeated, parrot-like, from Scottish Government “spokespeople” of “record NHS levels of staffing”. This fighting of reality is not helpful and suggests the sort of “subjectivity” that perhaps you were alluding to in your piece for the Holyrood Magazine?

I will be staging a peaceful protest (I am not party political) about the integrity of senior officials working for the Scottish Government this August at the Martyrs Monument.

Kind wishes,

Peter

Dr Peter J Gordon (writing in my own time and in a personal capacity)

Psychiatry Without Borders

Posted on by
1

The International Congress of the Royal College of Psychiatrists took place in Edinburgh, the city of my birth, between the 26 – 29 June 2017. This International Congress was called “Psychiatry Without Borders”.

As a psychiatrist who has worked in NHS Scotland for 25 years I made a peaceful protest outside the International Congress.

I have previously petitioned the Scottish Parliament to consider a Sunshine Act for Scotland which would make it mandatory for healthcare workers and academics to declare potential financial conflicts of interest on an open public register.

The pharmaceutical Industry has this year increased payments to healthcare workers and academics for ‘promotional activities’ –  from £109 million up to £116.5 million today.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) has, from 2015, established a voluntary disclosure system with searchable database. It remains the case that 65% of those who have received payments have opted out – and this accounts for 60% of the total payments (as reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ 2017;357:j3195)

What follows here are the ABPI disclosures made by some of the speakers at the 2017 Royal College of Psychiatrists International Congress.

It is important to note that it is my understanding that no speaker 
was paid for giving presentations at this International Congress. 

These declarations relate simply to the voluntary declarations
for the years 2015 and 2016 respectively.

If you click on each declaration you will get a closer view.

In previous posts I have provided as much public transparency as there is currently available  relating to the potential financial conflicts of interest of those involved with the British Association of Psychopharmacology (BAP). This Association works closely with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in providing Continuing Medical Education.

A number of those involved in BAP have chosen not to declare on the ABPI Register. For this reason, I attach the declarations given along with the new BAP Guidelines for treating dementia as Professor John O’Brien was giving a talk about these guidelines at the 2017 International Congress:

A few personal thoughts:

Well done to those who have declared on the ABPI Register.

However, it remains the case that we cannot scientifically consider the scale of potential biases that financial incentives may bring to the prescribing of medications in the UK. This is because we have an incomplete dataset. This is surprising given that we do have longstanding evidence that exposure to industry promotional activity can lead to doctors recommending worse treatments for patients.

I would like to see the College, of which I am a member, support the public’s request for sunshine legislation.

 

 

Honesty and openness: ‘not an edited official tale’

Posted on by
2

When Nicola Surgeon became First Minister of Scotland she said:

“I intend that we will be an open and accessible Government” (26 November 2014)

On the Front page of the Times of  the 7th July 2017 was a report by the Scottish Health Correspondent, Helen Puttick that outlined the considerable efforts, made behind closed doors, of senior civil servants working for the Scottish Government to “tone down” this Report by Audit Scotland.



Further pressure was made to influence the Audit Scotland Report:

In considering the findings of this FOI inquiry, the Editor of the Times said that “the public deserve to know the true story on NHS funding and not an edited official tale”

The Civil Service Code of Conduct for Scotland outlines these core values:

These core values are what the public should expect from its civil servants if they are to fulfil the intention of Scotland’s First Minister.

 


Statements made by senior Psychiatrists working in the British Isles

Posted on by
Reply

“you are either abstinent or promiscuous when it comes to industry. Well you can see which side I am on”.

“For those of you who watch Panorama, I do not give my consent for you to film this”

“Who would have thought that Pharma Hospitality could cause excessive weight gain and type II diabetes? They kept that quiet”, I replied, ruefully patting my stomach.

“this latest non-problem”

“it is time we all grew up”

 

‘How to Improve’

Posted on by
1

The Nuffield Trust has recently published “Learning from Scotland’s NHS”. This report was based on a select group of “30 senior leaders and experts from Scottish health and care”.

One of the primary “learning points” of this report was that Scotland should be considered as “the model of how to improve healthcare across the British isles”. What is not made clear in this report is that the improvement methodology that Scotland has embraced was introduced from the USA not by “30 senior leaders” but by three:

  1. Derek Feeley, President of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and former Director General for NHS Scotland
  2. Professor Jason Leitch, who is a Dental practitioner, IHI Fellow and National Clinical Director of Healthcare Quality and Strategy (Scottish Government)
  3. Dr Brian Robson,  IHI Fellow and Clinical Director of Healthcare Improvement Scotland

The “30 senior leaders and experts” would seem to be “marking their own homework”.

A few personal thoughts:

I am a passionate about science but am of the view that passion should not pre-determine scientific method and process.

I have previously argued why it is unhelpful to pre-determine science as “improvement”.

I fully welcome a coordinated approach to improving healthcare.

I worry about the inherent reductionism that is the basis of IHI “improvement science”

IHI promotes learning to healthcare based upon the experience of Industry (mechanical engineering). This may work well for less complex interactional processes, such as Hospital Acquired Infection. However healthcare is rarely linear (it is more often Bayesian) and reductionist interventions (however well intentioned) can cause harm.

I have found that Healthcare Improvement Scotland (IHI) does not routinely include ethical considerations in its approach to “improvement science”.

In summary:

I would suggest that it would have been more accurate (evidence based) for the Nuffield Trust report to have been titled: “Learning from the USA”.

I welcome all learning and from all reaches of the globe. I also seek improvement. But as a philosopher and NHS doctor (of 25 years) I worry about any one-system approach.

Science needs to consider culture, ethics, narrative, and the experience of being.

“How to Improve” needs to consider the voices of people and place. It should not just be the voices of the “senior leaders and experts from Scottish health and care”.