Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Stafford MP's patient safety bill to legislate for zero NHS harm

  • 5 Comments

The impact of a nurse’s actions on “public confidence” should be a factor considered in fitness to practise cases in future, under proposals likely to be passed by parliament.

The proposals are contained in a private members’ bill put forward by Conservative MP for Stafford Jeremy Lefroy, which has won the support of the coalition government and Labour.

“The bill will help create clarity about the responsibility of the regulators for upholding public confidence in regulation”

Harry Cayton

Mr Lefroy’s bill – named the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill – aims to establish new rules requiring professional regulators to consider public confidence in fitness to practise decisions.

The move is intended to provide a mechanism for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to sanction nurses who may be technically fit to practise but whose actions have damaged public confidence, including nurse managers who retain their registration but no longer work on the frontline regularly.

It follows the cases of Jan Harry, a former director of nursing at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, who had sought to use as a defence that she was not directly involved in care that had led to patient harm.

Meanwhile, her successor, Helen Moss, was never sent to a fitness to practise hearing by an NMC investigation committee and the reguator had no power to overrule it.

In addition, the NHS could be required to achieve “zero avoidable harm” if the government-backed bill makes it onto the statute books.

Conservatives

Jeremy Lefroy

It would also place a duty on organisations to share information and use a common patient identifier, such as the patient’s NHS number, across health and social care.

The government whips’ office has now taken control of the timetable for the bill, which has already had its first and second reading.

With the support of the coalition, it is likely to move to committee stage in December.

Mr Lefroy told Nursing Times’ sister title Health Service Journal: “This bill is all about patients, we have had enough bills about structure. This is about writing the principle of putting patients first into law.”

If successful, the bill could lead to the creation of new regulations to prevent health and social care providers from causing avoidable harm to patients.

According to Mr Lefroy, instances of such harm could include leaving patients without adequate food or drink, patients being left unsupported in accident and emergency for long periods, poor records resulting in drug errors, and neglect as a result of understaffing.

The bill excludes harm that could not be “reasonably avoided” to take account of clinical risk.

In a speech to parliament earlier this month, Mr Lefroy cited a study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which identified 12,000 avoidable deaths in the NHS per year.

“How many lives would be saved if all providers had the same standards as the best in class? That is why it is so important to address avoidable harm through legislation,” he told MPs.

He accepted that legislation alone, without improvements in culture and leadership, would not solve the problems of avoidable harm, but added: “It is my belief and hope that it will make a recurrence much less likely.

“My constituents in Stafford will then know that all they have gone through over so many years will not have been in vain,” he said.

The British Medical Association said it supported the clause on avoidable harm, but said it was “very concerned” about changes to professional regulation.

“[This] could lead to regulatory committees and panels punishing professionals who pose no threat to the public, solely on the basis that failure to do so might incur the disapproval of the public,” it said.

Harry Cayton, chief executive of the Professional Standards Authority which oversees the work of professional regulators, said the bill was a “partial step forward” after proposals from the Law Commission for reform of healthcare regulation were not included in the Queen’s Speech.

Harry Cayton

Harry Cayton

He added: “We think the new definitions included in the bill will help create clarity about the responsibility of the regulators for upholding public confidence in regulation as well as protecting the public.”

Health minister George Freeman said: “We fully support this bill. Mid Staffs was a turning point for the NHS, and Jeremy Lefroy’s proposed measures are a major step forward in making the NHS safer.”

  • 5 Comments

Readers' comments (5)

  • Many Senior "nurses" cause harm to patients by deliberately enabling short staffing of wards/depts.

    Failing to provide safe staffing levels should result in these incompetents being struck from the register.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Neglect as a result of understaffing??? Does this then mean that a nurse should refuse to work in an area where there are not enough staff on duty?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If there are two nurses and two carers to look after 30 patients on a ward, many of whom may require assistance at mealtimes and be frail, vulnerable, elderly patients how on earth would it be possible for these care staff to deliver high standards of care at all?
    Staffing levels need to be addressed urgently!!Management need to act fiercely to protect the nurses who work on the wards and get them FULLY STAFFED!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another piece of healthcare reform?? written by people who have probably no healthcare training/experience

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    'Public Confidence' is probably the wrong term, for this idea: there are very serious dangers, in terms of spin and cover ups (i.e. the opposite to 'transparency and openness) if 'public confidence' morphs into 'reputational damage', where the bosses of an organisation are the people who assess 'reputational damage'.

    While I support this general idea:

    'The move is intended to provide a mechanism for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to sanction nurses who may be technically fit to practise but whose actions have damaged public confidence, including nurse managers who retain their registration but no longer work on the frontline regularly.'

    it should be described by a different term - something such as 'behaviour incompatible with [the objective of] the role' (which admittedly is a mouthful !).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.