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

Staff shortages cited as factor in delayed discharge

  • 8 Comments

Workforce capacity issues in health and social care organisations are making it difficult to discharge older patients from hospital effectively, a report has warned.

Across the health and social care system, providers and commissioners said that staff recruitment and retention were a significant cause of delays, according to the National Audit Office report.

“The number of delayed transfers has been increasing at an alarming rate”

Amyas Morse

It warned that vacancy rates for nursing and home care staff were up to 14-15% in some regions, and fewer than half of hospitals felt they had sufficient staff trained in the care of older patients.

Efforts to speed up discharge was also being inhibited by health and social care organisations not sharing patient information effectively, despite a statutory duty to do so.

While hospitals were financially incentivised to reduce discharge delays, there was nothing similar to encourage community providers and councils to speed up receipt of patients, added the report titled Discharging older patients from hospital (see attached PDF below).

As a result, the NAO said many older people were still being kept in hospital without a need for acute clinical care, hampering their independence and costing around £820m a year.

An ageing population and more people being admitted to hospital meant there needed to be a “step change in performance to resolve the problem” of delayed discharge across the country, it warned.

The spending watchdog described the health and social care system’s current management of discharging older patients as “not representing value for money”.

Longer hospital stays can not only have a negative impact on older patients’ health as they quickly lose mobility, but keeping them in hospital longer than necessary is also an “additional and avoidable pressure” on the financial sustainability of the NHS and local government, it said.

“The NHS needs to be much more ambitious about fixing this now”

Anna Crossley

In addition, the NAO report claimed that official data on delayed transfers of care substantially under-estimated the range of delays that patients experienced.

Over the past two years, the data suggested there has been an increase of 270,000 (31%) in days in acute hospitals when beds have been occupied by patients who have had their discharge delayed unnecessarily – to the current figure of 1.15 million days.

These figures, however, only accounted for delays after clinicians deemed a patient to be ready for discharge, and did not include all patients no longer in need of acute treatment, said the report.

Based on the evidence it had gathered, the NAO said the true figure for patients aged 65 and older who are no longer benefiting from acute care could be as high as 2.7 million days.

In addition, although overall length of stay for older patients following an emergency admission had decreased from 12.9 to 11.9 days in the last five years – suggesting improved efficiency – the overall number of bed days still increased by 9% from 17.8 million to 19.4 million days.

Among the NAO’s recommendations is that the Department of Health, NHS England and NHS Improvement should set out how they will break the trend of rising delays against the demographic challenge of growing numbers of older people.

However, the NAO noted that it was important to achieve the correct balance between minimising delays and not discharging a patient from hospital before they were clinically ready.

National Audit Office

NHS workforce planning has ‘serious shortcomings’

Amyas Morse

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “The number of delayed transfers has been increasing at an alarming rate but does not capture the true extent of older people who should not be in hospital.

“While there is a clear awareness of the need to discharge older people from hospital sooner, there are currently far too many older people in hospitals who do not need to be there,” he said.

“Without radical action, this problem will worsen and add further strain to the financial sustainability of the NHS and local government,” he added.

Anna Crossley, professional lead for acute, emergency and critical care at the Royal College of Nursing, said: “Keeping an older person in hospital, when they are well enough and want to go back to their own home, benefits no one.

“Continuing as things are and paring back services when the numbers of older people are rising rapidly is not an option for either patients or NHS finances,” she said. “The NHS needs to be much more ambitious about fixing this now.”

“Investing in community health care means older people can receive more appropriate care which maintains their independence and reduces the pressure on the wider health and social care system,” she said.

Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said: “The National Audit Office’s report highlights, yet again, the blockages in the system. Often, older people are ready to be discharged from hospital, but they lack the necessary ongoing support.

“The discharge process needs to be better managed and planned; not forgetting the role that care homes can play in offering step-down and intermediary care, if they can be sustained by realistic funding levels,” he added.

  • 8 Comments

Related files

Readers' comments (8)

  • michael stone

    I sent an e-mail to Professor David Oliver this morning, about something [different - about delirium] which he has just written about on BMJ, and in his reply he said '... and see today's Kings Fund blog'.

    It turns out that David has written a piece about this in the blog, and his piece also includes some suggested 'solutions' - I not certain the link will work if I paste it, but here goes:

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/05/older-people-leave-hospital


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MICHAEL STONE or whatever your real name is

    https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/1936059

    Naff off, stop interfering and leave busy healthcare professionals alone to do their work without your constant meddling, and for G...'s sake leave this threads free for nurses to exchange their comments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    Anonymous 26 May, 2016 5:45 pm

    'MICHAEL STONE or whatever your real name is'

    Mike Stone is my real name - I'm guessing that Anonymous isn't your real name, however.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mike stone or whatever

    Do try and use whatever remnants you have left of a brain

    Why do think NT offer this option


    Ask them or better still take you stuff elsewhere. There are plenty of patients associations

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-zent-/professionally-speaking-a_b_5437599.html

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Stone - sent e mail to professor .... (about delirium) ! :-)

    Biiiiiiig boy!

    But you should really consult your GP or tel 111 about such matters and stop worrying other busy professors and health care professional specialists with all your emails and trolling on these pages.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    Anonymous28 May, 2016 10:09 am

    You are perhaps confusing your own delirium with my absence of delirium - my e-mail to David Oliver was in connection with something he had written about delirium on BMJ, but in his reply (note - he replied to me, which should tell you something) David also pointed a this piece on KF which is about the same topic as this NT article..

    Anonymous28 May, 2016 10:01 am

    I'm not entirely sure why NT offers an anonymous option, when BMJ doesn't. Probably because without the option, far fewer nurses would comment - but it seems to encourage anonymous abuse, as well.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For goodness sake stone, for once and for all, in case you failed to notice, NT and bmj are two entirely separate publications with different editors who are perfectly free to decide on their own formats and options. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Don't think just because these are healthcare publications You can come here with all your thinly disguised problems. We are not majority proops. There are other publications with problem pages for the purpose. using a name as you do has unfortunately not in any way prevented you from abusing this site or its posters and their profession. Professionalism is the very reason many nurses choose this option and your suggestion in you las sentence is odious. As I said before, go away if you don't like it and your general dislike of the profession or address your queries to NT as only they are in the position to offer you a solution.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michal stone

    can you provide the evidence you are not breaking copyright laws by using this image as your avatar?

    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.