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

OPINION

What can we expect from the final Mid Staffs report?

  • 6 Comments

Part six of Peter Nolan’s series on the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Public Inquiry looks at the lessons that should be learnt for the future

As we await the final report from the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust Public Inquiry the question I would like to explore is: What will this inquiry achieve?

It has already had some positive outcomes. During the testimonies, many relatives obtained for the first time a truthful account of the circumstances in which their loved ones died. Members of the public became much better informed about their NHS. There was satisfaction in seeing those responsible for poor services held to account. Members of the media fulfilled their obligation to inform the general public about the structure, function and malfunctioning of the NHS. Multiple legal teams sitting in huddles were able to clarify points of law relating to the NHS. 

Sir David Nicholson told the inquiry that the NHS is not just one organisation, as popularly perceived, but rather a set of organisations, with different cultures and principles.

Sir Liam Donaldson declared that the most serious failing of the NHS is not putting the patient at the centre of all its activities but instead placing activities such as meeting financial targets more highly.

“Nurses in the future must not allow their professional standards to be subverted by the commands of general managers”

Sir Bruce Keogh regretted that the NHS had not yet learnt the lesson that sound clinical governance increases quality of care and saves money. 

The NHS must learn to become more humble, take criticism and act on it. Every member of staff must be alert to threats to the quality of patient care.

What happened at Mid Staffs hospital between 2004 and 2009 was that it became a strategy-free zone where the board did not know what was expected of it and were cowed into silence. A power struggle consumed medical and managerial attention and the majority of nurses took refuge in apathy to avoid confronting what was happening on the wards. Nurses in the future must not allow their professional standards to be subverted by the commands of general managers. 

More than half of those who gave evidence to the inquiry agreed that too many groups are involved in writing standards – the royal colleges, professional bodies, universities, patient groups, regulatory bodies, the Department of Health and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence - and too few are involved in implementing them.

The final Mid Staff report will emphasise that the delivery of healthcare is driven and determined by politics, yet policy makers are prone to discuss healthcare in abstract terms such as efficiency, accessibility, choice and quality without specifying exactly what these mean in practice.  The report is also likely to comment on:

  • The recruitment, training and regulation of healthcare support workers, nurses and senior managers;
  • Strategies for identifying and removing underperforming non-clinical managers;
  • The need for professional regulatory bodies to focus far more vigorously on their “fitness to practice” function;
  • The interface in trusts between regulation, local authorities and governance; between finance, quality and safety;
  • The duty of candour and how to support people to exercise it – protecting whistleblowers.

The report is expected to say that too much change was introduced in a short period of time and inadequate preparation results in unfavourable outcomes. Above all, the report will confirm that the patient’s voice is still not being heard.

It would be a great disappointment to all concerned if the report did nothing more than chronicle past failings in order to appease certain people.

Many members of the public felt that a follow-up review should take place one year after the publication of the final report. 

In his closing remarks, the chair of the inquiry Robert Francis QC emphasised that it is in the interests of all trusts to re-examine their practices in the light of the Mid Staffs inquiry and ensure that there are no further failures in any part of the NHS in delivering acceptable levels of care to vulnerable people.

Peter Nolan is professor of mental health nursing (emeritus)

  • 6 Comments

Readers' comments (6)

  • Anonymous

    The theoretical learning from Mid Staffs is very wide-ranging (although most of the issues were already well understood, in general terms) - but, is it likely that much will actually change ?

    It is one thing for people to have done the analysis and identified the lessons, but sadly the people who can understand the lessons tend to already be behaving sensibly and well - the people who are 'bad' are much less likely to understand and implement the lessons !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    What we can expect is more of the same but with less staff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dr Why ?

    tinkerbell | 15-Mar-2012 11:59 am

    You (world-weary and almost certainly correct) cynic !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    Dr Why ? | 15-Mar-2012 2:13 pm

    Yes whatever became of the young, naive, gullible girl i use to be?

    My husband sometimes asks 'what happened to that nice, quiet young girl i married'

    I reply 'she became a nurse, now where's my supper?'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • tinkerbell

    http://www.goingtowork.org.uk/peers/?campaign=6

    Please contact your Lord to ask for Lord Owens amendments to this Bill and publication of the risk register. A tribunal ruling to make the risks known was over ruled by this government preventing the register being published.

    What are they hiding? We have until 19 March so no rush hey?

    What a devious lot they truly are if you know who i mean.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Juggling Dog

    I can't see much optimism in those posts - why is so much time and effort wasted on repeating reports which almost always find out what was already known, and are then almost never acted on in a way which improves anything ?

    Or is the qusetion too deep ? - I'm only a dog, I don't really get much past chasing bones !

    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.