Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 September 2013

GPs continue to do battle with government over telehealth

Telecare Health secretary Jeremy Hunt supports telehealth which could be a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

The greatest benefits from telehealth are yet to come – as a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. But these will only be realised if doctors stop looking for opportunities to reject it.

The development of telehealth has been dogged by politicisation of the issue and the way the conclusions of the "whole system demonstrator" programme were interpreted and debated.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt is firmly committed to telehealth. The day after the publication last November of the first NHS Mandate, identifying its priorities for the coming years, he confirmed that seven pathfinders run by the NHS and councils would be signing contracts to provide access to telehealth for 100,000 people this year.

In the poisonous relationship between the Department of Health and GPs, ministerial support for a big expansion in the technology is interpreted by some doctors as yet another attempt to impose politically motivated change on the way GPs work.

The whole system demonstrator programme showed that telehealth secured significant reductions in mortality and emergency admissions. However, London School of Economics researchers concluded that "telehealth does not seem to be a cost-effective addition to standard support and treatment", claiming that quality adjusted life years provided by the programme cost £92,000, compared with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ceiling for cost effectiveness of £30,000.

Pitched as the biggest telehealth research project to date, and with a name that gave the misleading impression that it was a definitive answer, the conclusions provided sceptics and cynics with ample ammunition. In particular, some GPs resistant to signing up to telehealth programmes have been citing the demonstrator as evidence that it is a wasteful diversion of scarce resources.

But the weight that has been given to the LSE researchers' analysis is a mistake. It is all but a certainty that the cost for each person will fall as use of the technology becomes far more widespread, and that its effectiveness will increase. Improvements in performance will be driven by targeting its use to the patients who will benefit most and, crucially, by more sophisticated use of the information which it provides.

Telehealth technology is not particularly clever – the really clever part is the human system within which the technology is used. Community nurses, paramedics, GPs, consultants and above all the patients themselves are the essential tools of telehealth. As they become more experienced in analysing and acting upon the information which the technology provides, and different services around the telehealth patient become more integrated, patient benefits and cost effectiveness will rise.

Eventually, other costs will start to fall as telehealth becomes a catalyst for wider system change. At present it is a bolt-on to a care system poorly integrated and not adapted for telehealth. It will require clinicians to work together in new ways, particularly in more effective joint working between community and hospital staff. It offers the prospect of ending the drudgery for both patients and clinicians of thousands of pointless outpatient check-ups which daily clog up hospitals. Users should require fewer GP appointments.

But the biggest benefit will come from providing patients with long term conditions with the encouragement and information to manage them more effectively. Patient empowerment must be central to any plan to exploit this technology.

Talk of "expert patients" and "patient empowerment" far outstrips improvements in the involvement of patients in managing their own care. But telehealth is an opportunity to improve people's understanding of their own health, give them a greater voice in decisions – such as deciding the right response to a particular reading – and perhaps most importantly encourage them to be less dependent on meeting clinical staff.

Telehealth has much to offer a financially constrained and struggling health system which is looking for better ways to meet the needs of older patients and others with long term conditions.

Concern among GPs that the primary care system is being overwhelmed is not matched by a willingness to explore new models of working. Telehealth deserves a better hearing from many doctors than it has had so far.

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Thursday, 29 August 2013

GPs continue to do battle with government over telehealth

Telecare Health secretary Jeremy Hunt supports telehealth which could be a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

The greatest benefits from telehealth are yet to come – as a catalyst for service integration and patient empowerment. But these will only be realised if doctors stop looking for opportunities to reject it.

The development of telehealth has been dogged by politicisation of the issue and the way the conclusions of the "whole system demonstrator" programme were interpreted and debated.

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt is firmly committed to telehealth. The day after the publication last November of the first NHS Mandate, identifying its priorities for the coming years, he confirmed that seven pathfinders run by the NHS and councils would be signing contracts to provide access to telehealth for 100,000 people this year.

In the poisonous relationship between the Department of Health and GPs, ministerial support for a big expansion in the technology is interpreted by some doctors as yet another attempt to impose politically motivated change on the way GPs work.

The whole system demonstrator programme showed that telehealth secured significant reductions in mortality and emergency admissions. However, London School of Economics researchers concluded that "telehealth does not seem to be a cost-effective addition to standard support and treatment", claiming that quality adjusted life years provided by the programme cost £92,000, compared with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ceiling for cost effectiveness of £30,000.

Pitched as the biggest telehealth research project to date, and with a name that gave the misleading impression that it was a definitive answer, the conclusions provided sceptics and cynics with ample ammunition. In particular, some GPs resistant to signing up to telehealth programmes have been citing the demonstrator as evidence that it is a wasteful diversion of scarce resources.

But the weight that has been given to the LSE researchers' analysis is a mistake. It is all but a certainty that the cost for each person will fall as use of the technology becomes far more widespread, and that its effectiveness will increase. Improvements in performance will be driven by targeting its use to the patients who will benefit most and, crucially, by more sophisticated use of the information which it provides.

Telehealth technology is not particularly clever – the really clever part is the human system within which the technology is used. Community nurses, paramedics, GPs, consultants and above all the patients themselves are the essential tools of telehealth. As they become more experienced in analysing and acting upon the information which the technology provides, and different services around the telehealth patient become more integrated, patient benefits and cost effectiveness will rise.

Eventually, other costs will start to fall as telehealth becomes a catalyst for wider system change. At present it is a bolt-on to a care system poorly integrated and not adapted for telehealth. It will require clinicians to work together in new ways, particularly in more effective joint working between community and hospital staff. It offers the prospect of ending the drudgery for both patients and clinicians of thousands of pointless outpatient check-ups which daily clog up hospitals. Users should require fewer GP appointments.

But the biggest benefit will come from providing patients with long term conditions with the encouragement and information to manage them more effectively. Patient empowerment must be central to any plan to exploit this technology.

Talk of "expert patients" and "patient empowerment" far outstrips improvements in the involvement of patients in managing their own care. But telehealth is an opportunity to improve people's understanding of their own health, give them a greater voice in decisions – such as deciding the right response to a particular reading – and perhaps most importantly encourage them to be less dependent on meeting clinical staff.

Telehealth has much to offer a financially constrained and struggling health system which is looking for better ways to meet the needs of older patients and others with long term conditions.

Concern among GPs that the primary care system is being overwhelmed is not matched by a willingness to explore new models of working. Telehealth deserves a better hearing from many doctors than it has had so far.

This article is published by Guardian Professional. Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to receive regular emails and exclusive offers.


View the original article here

Saturday, 17 August 2013

The Lancet: UK government is treating NHS like a failing bank or business

Main Category: Public Health
Article Date: 16 Aug 2013 - 2:00 PDT Current ratings for:
The Lancet: UK government is treating NHS like a failing bank or business
not yet ratednot yet rated

An Editorial published in The Lancet today [Friday 16 August] examines recent turmoil in the NHS, accusing the UK government of appearing to treat the NHS as a failing bank or business, based on recent headlines about NHS 'bailouts' and cost-cutting. According to the journal Editors, "This stance is one of the most cynical, and at the same time cunning, ways by which the government abdicates all responsibilities for running a health-care system that has patient care and safety at its heart."

The Editors implicate recent NHS reorganisation in creating a system where the state's responsibility to provide health services has become so fragmented that "The exact responsibilities are at best complex, not easily understood, and at worst deliberately obfuscated. Who exactly is leading and to what end is even less clear." While the Editors welcome the conclusions of Don Berwick's recent report, Improving the Safety of Patients in England, they warn that its recommendations will need to be taken seriously by the next Chief Executive of the NHS if they are to "have the slightest chance of turning around the NHS from its current path to a market commodity to its true purpose of a compassionate, free, equitable, and effective health system with patients' health, wellbeing, and dignity as its goal and top priority."

In a Comment published in the same issue, Professor Sir Brian Jarman, of the Dr Foster Intelligence Unit at Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, London, UK highlights the fact that despite extensive regulatory reorganisation in recent years, the NHS still has no official investigator of poor clinical care, and urges policy makers to introduce a number of measures to improve the quality of care in UK hospitals.

Amongst other recommendations, Professor Jarman suggests that Independent Review Panels (which formerly investigated patients' complaints about hospital services, before being abolished in 2004) and Community Health Councils should be reintroduced, along with a regular monitoring system for complaints, similar to the mortality alerts which ultimately led to the uncovering of the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal. According to Professor Jarman, "There has been a decade of concerns about the quality of care in our hospitals: patients have been ignored, the regulatory systems have failed, and there has been a culture of denial. With political will the proposed reforms could lead to marked improvements."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our public health section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Lancet, The. "The Lancet: UK government is treating NHS like a failing bank or business." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 16 Aug. 2013. Web.
16 Aug. 2013. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'The Lancet: UK government is treating NHS like a failing bank or business'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here