RxPG News Feed for RxPG News

Medical Research Health Special Topics World
  Home
 
   Health
 Aging
 Asian Health
 Events
 Fitness
 Food & Nutrition
 Happiness
 Men's Health
 Mental Health
 Occupational Health
 Parenting
 Public Health
 Sleep Hygiene
 Women's Health
 
   Healthcare
 Africa
 Australia
 Canada Healthcare
 China Healthcare
 India Healthcare
 New Zealand
 South Africa
 UK
  NHS
 USA
 World Healthcare
 
   Latest Research
 Aging
 Alternative Medicine
 Anaethesia
 Biochemistry
 Biotechnology
 Cancer
 Cardiology
 Clinical Trials
 Cytology
 Dental
 Dermatology
 Embryology
 Endocrinology
 ENT
 Environment
 Epidemiology
 Gastroenterology
 Genetics
 Gynaecology
 Haematology
 Immunology
 Infectious Diseases
 Medicine
 Metabolism
 Microbiology
 Musculoskeletal
 Nephrology
 Neurosciences
 Obstetrics
 Ophthalmology
 Orthopedics
 Paediatrics
 Pathology
 Pharmacology
 Physiology
 Physiotherapy
 Psychiatry
 Radiology
 Rheumatology
 Sports Medicine
 Surgery
 Toxicology
 Urology
 
   Medical News
 Awards & Prizes
 Epidemics
 Launch
 Opinion
 Professionals
 
   Special Topics
 Ethics
 Euthanasia
 Evolution
 Feature
 Odd Medical News
 Climate

Last Updated: Oct 11, 2012 - 10:22:56 PM
NHS Channel

subscribe to NHS newsletter
Healthcare : UK : NHS

   EMAIL   |   PRINT
Have targets improved performance in the English NHS?

Feb 17, 2006 - 7:05:00 PM , Reviewed by: Priya Saxena
Interestingly, after 2003, reported performance improved in other UK countries, dramatically in Wales and Northern Ireland. This suggests that the naming and shaming policy in England put pressure on the NHS in the other countries, say the authors.

 
[RxPG] The star rating system for English NHS trusts seems to have improved performance, but systems need to be put in place to minimise gaming and ensure targets are not causing problems elsewhere, warn researchers in this week’s BMJ.

Annual performance ratings have been published for NHS trusts in England since 2001. This process of naming and shaming gave each trust a rating from zero to three stars. Although the government has now abandoned star ratings, targets are likely to remain.

But have targets improved performance and what ought to happen in the future, ask professors Gwyn Bevan and Christopher Hood?

The key target for accident and emergency departments was the percentage of patients to be seen within four hours. In 2002, before any target was set, 23% of patients spent over four hours in accident and emergency, but by 2004 only 5.3% stayed that long.

Similarly, reported performance improved greatly after ambulance trusts were star rated on their response times, and hospitals were rated on the number of patients waiting for elective surgery.

Interestingly, after 2003, reported performance improved in other UK countries, dramatically in Wales and Northern Ireland. This suggests that the naming and shaming policy in England put pressure on the NHS in the other countries, say the authors.

But the use of targets results in gaming, they add. For example, extra staff being drafted into accident and emergency departments, operations being cancelled, and patients having to wait in ambulances until staff were confident of meeting the target.

This means that when reported performance meets the targets, nobody knows how genuine the improvements are.

Nobody would want to return to the NHS performance before the introduction of targets, so how can we maximise the social benefits and minimise the costs of a regime of targets with sanctions?

They suggest introducing more uncertainty in the way that performance is assessed and better auditing of performance data. They also call for an independent body to investigate the genuineness of reported improvements and the costs to other services.

Although these changes would not wholly eliminate the gaming problems associated with any regime of targets and terror, they could reduce them, they say. The current combination of performance measures that are highly predictable to managers and an audit system that is poorly equipped to detect gaming, risks losing credibility, they conclude.



Publication: Have targets improved performance in the English NHS? BMJ, Saturday 18 February 2006
On the web: Read the full text of the research article at bmj.com 

Advertise in this space for $10 per month. Contact us today.


Related NHS News
Systematic bias in the assessment of UK doctors
Depression is wrongly seen as natural part of getting older
NRI doctor guilty of unethical tests on British patients
New steps to curb overseas doctors in Britain
Should EU patient information laws be relaxed?
Institutional discrimination by NHS causing unnecessary deaths of people with a learning disability
Should the NHS curb spending on translation services?
The NHS Redress Act may lead to more complaints
Patients should cc the benefits of doctors' letters
Is doctors' pay responsible for the financial crisis in the NHS ?

Subscribe to NHS Newsletter

Enter your email address:


 Feedback
For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 
Contact us

RxPG Online

Nerve

 

    Full Text RSS

© All rights reserved by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited (India)