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

Administrator’s report due on future of Mid Staffs

  • 1 Comment

The team of administrators charged with deciding the future of the troubled Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust will publish its final report on December 18.

The Trust Special Administrators (TSAs) were appointed by independent health watchdog Monitor earlier this year to come up with a proposal on maintaining essential services at the scandal-hit trust, which runs Stafford and Cannock Chase Hospitals.

In their interim report in July, the administrators agreed with earlier findings that the trust was clinically and financially unsustainable, proposing Mid Staffs be dissolved altogether and some essential services including maternity and paediatrics be moved away from Stafford to other nearby hospitals.

Their then draft proposals would keep the current limited-hours A&E department running at that site, but would see the two hospitals taken over by larger neighbouring NHS trusts.

Campaign group Support Stafford Hospital has criticised any transfer of services away from Stafford because they believe it equates to a downgrade of the site.

TSAs will publish their final proposal on the December 18, following a lengthy public consultation period, although any final decision will have to be made by the health secretary before the end of this year.

The administrators were appointed after the Mid Staffs scandal and the subsequent inquiry which reported its findings in January this year and led to one of the biggest shake-ups in the health service’s 65 years.

The inquiry, chaired by Robert Francis QC concluded there had been basic failings in standards of care, with some patients left lying in their own faeces, given the wrong medication and others so thirsty they drank the water from flower vases.

It had followed a 2009 Healthcare Commission inquiry, which found hundreds more people had died at Stafford Hospital than would ordinarily have been expected, between 2005 and 2008.

In the Francis Inquiry’s final report, 290 recommendations were put forward to the government on how to improve care in English hospitals and avoid another scandal like Mid Staffs.

In its response in November, the Government accepted 281 out of 290 recommendations, including 57 in principle and 20 in part.

Among those changes adopted were that from April 2014 all hospitals will have to publish monthly data showing staffing levels on wards, to aid transparency.

The government stopped short of imposing a duty of candour on individual doctors and nurses to be more open and honest with families about errors and problems with their relatives’ care, as recommended in the Francis report, instead placing the duty on organisations as a whole.

It also strengthened the duty of candour applied to individuals through clinicians’ own professional bodies to encourage such behaviour as best practice among their membership.


Are you able to Speak Out Safely? Sign our petition to put pressure on your trust to support an open and transparent NHS.

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • tinkerbell

    Concerns raised by the proposals in the Department of Health’s consultation document
    Monitor is concerned that the proposals in the consultation document are much too broadly drawn, allowing for a significant use of de-authorisation and raising the possibility of significant interference by the Secretary of State in the decision- making of Monitor, and the autonomy of NHS foundation trusts

    You couldn't make this stuff up.

    Even Monitor, who are meant to be conducting an independent review requested by secretary of state, are concerned about significant interference from the government who asked them to go in and do an independent review.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    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.