An ad for the government’s ‘NHS Choices’ website
In the staff room of the emergency department where I work, reviews left online at www.nhs.uk are often put up on display. The feedback given is invariably positive about staff – but negative about things beyond our control, like the long waiting times.
Satisfaction surveys of hospitals are regarded as unnecessary by the public and should be dropped, according to recent opinion polls – yet now every patient will be asked routinely for feedback on their stay as part of their discharge. The methodology of such surveys is often criticised – but the issue at stake is wider than that. The big question is: what happens when such reviews say the hospital is appalling?
These websites are already full of horror stories about waiting on trolleys in corridors being ignored – yet this does not stop the inexorable rise in accident and emergency department attendances and breaking of four-hour wait targets. Neither do these reviews alter the reality of the lack of preparation for the population growing as health services shrink.
Bad reviews do not create capacity, employ more staff or provide more services if the money is not available or being reduced.
David Cameron is preparing the way for greater ‘choice’ from our health system, but what choices exist if you are acutely unwell? Time for a quick scan of the reviews for different healthcare providers to decide which one suits your needs the most? One hospital has comfier trolleys than another?
Many hospital trusts now offer morbidly live updates online of A+E waiting times, with some even having webcams of the waiting room. But by definition, if you are perusing the internet to decide where the best place to go is, you’re not likely to have the greatest need and therefore will be looking at the longest wait.
Let us be honest about this debate and what the issue of reviewing attempts to normalise and distract from. There is no ‘National’ Health Service; it died quietly and without a state funeral – no protest songs entered the charts. What has come into public discourse is the fight by those who feel they have a claim to its estate.
We do not pretend supermarkets, GP surgeries or high street pharmacies provide a National Pharmacy Service. In the NHS though, there exists a ready-made brand ripe for private companies to exploit, brimming with popular support, guaranteed customers and funding. We are already used to reviewing our purchases online. The only things national about Serco, Care UK and Circle are the donations they (or their shareholders) make to the government parties of the day and the subsequent 8 per cent profit they want to make from our ill health. It has already been demonstrated that if you want a GP out of hours, Serco in Cornwall is not the place to go shopping.
Then there are the commissioning groups made up of GPs. A General Practice is a private business in itself. Partners share in the profits the practice makes – the more money the practice makes or saves, the more the shareholders (GP partners) take home. This is a taboo subject usually only mentioned by the right wing press, who conveniently ignore the contradiction of supporting privatisation on the one hand and then expressing horror at the profits made on the other.
GPs have been and remain the very fabric of our current system. Are all GPs or practices motivated by profit? Absolutely not, but the market is; its sole function to make a profit for its shareholders. State revenue is yet again recycled into private profit with the inherent risks socialised. It makes little difference if the practice is called ‘North Road Practice’ or Virgin as either way, accountability will not exist. It is that estimated 30 per cent of GPs on commissioning boards have interests in for-profit private healthcare providers.
If we want to give feedback or comment about the NHS, we should first debate whether it is right to speak ill of the dead. I applaud resuscitation attempts, but depending on your criteria, the N in the NHS has already likely passed away. In the stages of grief, aren’t we in collective denial?
Paul Teed is a junior doctor in accident and emergency
#226 Get Socialism Done ● Special US section edited by Joe Guinan and Sarah McKinley ● A post-austerity state ● Political theatre ● Racism in football ● A new transatlantic left? ● Britain’s zombie constitution ● Follow the dark money ● Book reviews ● And much more
And you choose how much to pay for your subscription...
Racism marred the Manchester derby this weekend. This blemish on the game is an echo of our Prime Minister’s words, says Remi Joseph-Salisbury.
If elected, the next Labour government can finally depart from the neoliberal consensus and deliver a major shift in wealth and power, argues Adam Peggs
Simon Hedges shares his famous-on-Twitter analysis of the state of the left today
The Scottish struggle for independence is one of several issues at the centre of debates over where power in the United Kingdom should be located, writes Isobel Lindsey
As Sanders and Corbyn head to the polls, Peter Gowan describes a new spirit of international collaboration on the left
The 2017 Labour election manifesto was good but the 2019 version is the document we’ve really been waiting for, argues Mike Phipps
In 2017, Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes. Brian Eno explains why he's backing Emma Dent Coad in the seat - and why voting Lib Dem is ‘voting Tory without admitting it’
Following Labour’s manifesto pledge to educate the public on the histories of empire, slavery, and migration, Kimberly McIntosh explains the dangers of colonial nostalgia in the national curriculum
The stakes could not be higher during this election. Help us cover what's really happening
Suki Ferguson reviews the XR guide to climate activism