here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
287WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
288WH<br />
[Dr Pugh]<br />
between the NPSA and the other operations of that<br />
body? It crosses my mind that risks can allegedly be<br />
increased or decreased by commissioning decisions<br />
themselves.<br />
Under those circumstances, the NPSA has got to be<br />
free to impute itself, as it were, if the national commissioning<br />
body is going to be part and parcel of the same organisation.<br />
So, can the Minister assure me that t<strong>here</strong> will be no<br />
conflict of interest when the NPSA is placed within the<br />
national commissioning body, which may itself—through<br />
its commissioning procedures—be one of the risk factors?<br />
Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.<br />
That is terribly important. It is not only important to<br />
have Chinese walls and be seen to be separate; it is<br />
important to be separate. I will come to that point in<br />
detail in a minute.<br />
Measuring openness is not as straightforward as<br />
measuring reporting. We welcome high levels of reporting,<br />
as they are an indicator of an open and supportive<br />
culture of patient safety, but t<strong>here</strong> are still reasons why<br />
people within the NHS and organisations shy away<br />
from openness. Without a doubt, professionals who<br />
strive for excellence are reluctant to admit errors. The<br />
higher up the tree one is, the harder it is to say, “I’ve<br />
made a mistake.” All of us face that issue in our<br />
professional lives.<br />
People may have unfounded concerns about possible<br />
admissions of liability, even though apologising when<br />
something has gone wrong is not in any way an admission<br />
of liability. The fine line between the two sometimes<br />
prevents people from saying what relatives want to hear:<br />
“I am so sorry this happened.” That is not necessarily<br />
saying, “I have made a mistake.” It is such a shame<br />
when professionals resort to a defensive stance, often<br />
encouraged by myths about w<strong>here</strong> liability lies. Also, at<br />
times, they may fear reprisal, blame and even bullying.<br />
We are considering options for introducing a requirement<br />
for openness and will make a decision in due course.<br />
The hon. Member for Southport felt that we were<br />
hesitating, and was concerned about possible evidence<br />
of Sir Humphreys in the Department. We are considering,<br />
not hesitating. It is important to get it right. Members<br />
have discussed the three options, but I will run through<br />
them quickly and mention a few relevant issues.<br />
The first option is using what is in the existing Care<br />
Quality Commission registration requirement regulations.<br />
It is already mandatory for NHS trusts to report all<br />
serious patient safety incidents. We could also require<br />
organisations to demonstrate that they have met the<br />
openness requirement, which would not require new<br />
legislation. It makes sense to use existing means to<br />
detect and investigate trusts that are not as open as they<br />
should be. The counterargument is that that approach is<br />
not specific enough, and that the wording of the guidance<br />
would need to be made more explicit. We have seen<br />
many cases in which guidance has failed.<br />
The second option involves introducing a new legal,<br />
statutory duty of openness explicit within the CQC<br />
regulations. That would send a clear signal about the<br />
importance of openness and provide patients and<br />
campaigners with a single clear duty that they could use<br />
to demand full disclosure. However, the Government<br />
want to create new legislation only when absolutely<br />
necessary, although when necessary, it should be done.<br />
We would need to ensure that any new legislation or<br />
new approach was not counter-productive. We want to<br />
make it easier for staff to come forward; we do not want<br />
new legislation to have unintended consequences.<br />
The third option involves incorporating an openness<br />
requirement into the new NHS contractual, performance<br />
and commissioning processes, to which the hon. Members<br />
for Leicester West and for Southport referred. It certainly<br />
appears possible to pursue openness through the new<br />
commissioning arrangements. For instance, it could be<br />
written into standard NHS commissioning board<br />
requirements that providers commit to being open. The<br />
hon. Member for Leicester West asked whether the<br />
NHS commissioning board would have time to take a<br />
role on patient safety. In many ways, safety underpins<br />
all commissioning decisions. Any decision on any service<br />
commissioned should have safety wrapped around it.<br />
That is fundamental.<br />
As with any complex matter, each of the options has<br />
its pros and cons. It is imperative that a decision on the<br />
issue is not rushed. I reassure the hon. Lady that<br />
campaigners and organisations have good access to<br />
officials within the Department, and I am sure that all<br />
their views will have been taken into account when a<br />
decision is made, because we are aware of the importance<br />
of getting it right. It is terrible to think that the first<br />
duty of the NHS is to do no harm. Safety wraps around<br />
everything that we do.<br />
The hon. Lady also mentioned the decision to abolish<br />
strategic health authorities. I understand that SHAs are<br />
the performance managers of trusts, yet that did not<br />
help in Staffordshire. In many ways, bringing commissioning<br />
decisions closer to the patient within general practice<br />
will mean that decisions about care and its consequences<br />
rest w<strong>here</strong> they should.<br />
Liz Kendall: The Minister raises the important issue<br />
of Stafford and the lessons to be learned t<strong>here</strong>, and says<br />
that the SHA did not take action. Obviously, we will<br />
wait for the outcome of the independent inquiry, but as<br />
responsibility will move to GP commissioning consortiums,<br />
can she tell us whether any of the GPs in the area raised<br />
concerns about Stafford, or whether any of them have<br />
submitted evidence to the inquiry? I am not aware that<br />
they have.<br />
Anne Milton: I did not point a finger at the SHA; I<br />
pointed out that SHAs were performance managers.<br />
W<strong>here</strong> performance fails, one must ask oneself what<br />
was happening in the management of that performance<br />
that it could fail so abysmally. The hon. Lady must not<br />
forget that the GP consortiums will involve a much<br />
wider range of professionals in commissioning decisions<br />
than just GPs, including a lot of people involved in care.<br />
They will not necessarily consist only of NHS professionals.<br />
Voluntary bodies and other organisations that provide<br />
care will also have input.<br />
The sad truth is that when things go wrong, relatives<br />
want to know what happened, as my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Poole pointed out, but they do not always<br />
find out. They want the truth and honesty, but we often<br />
see precisely the opposite. Doors close, the shutters go<br />
down and NHS organisations resort to a defensive<br />
stance, sometimes quite aggressively. My hon. Friend