View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2025 7:15 pm
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
Private-public NHS partnership failures
Author |
Message |
cloaked_wolf
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm Posts: 10022
|

Sorry, couldn't think of a snazzy headline. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... NTCMP=SRCH |  |  |  | Quote: 'Serco takeover of NHS pathology labs 'led to clinical and financial failures'
The takeover of the NHS's biggest pathology laboratories by the multinational Serco has led to a series of clinical and financial failures and saw London hospitals being forced to lend money to the company, it has emerged.
GSTS Pathology, a joint venture between Serco and King's College and St Thomas' hospitals, described itself as "an exemplar of public private partnership in the health sector", when it took over the hospitals' pathology services in 2009 – deals worth £800m over the next decade.
Pathology laboratories are a key part of the health service – analysing blood and tissue for doctors across the NHS and involved in 70% of all patient diagnoses.
But documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Corporate Watch, a not-for-profit research group, detail 400 clinical incidents in 2011 – including losing and mislabelling samples – at GSTS's St Thomas' labs. The service exceeded the agreed monthly turnaround times for tests 46 times in 2011, with critical risk levels breached 14 times.
The Corporate Watch investigation revealed a computer system caused problems. In January 2012 a patient "received inappropriate blood due to patient history not being flagged" – an incident the company says it took very seriously. In May 2012 kidney damage results were calculated incorrectly after a software fault which GSTS says was highlighted as a "near miss" and the appropriate action taken to learn from it. A month later, the lab's blood group analysers had to be shut for four days after being infected by a computer virus.
GSTS, in which Serco owns the majority stake, admitted an apparent increase in clinical incidents in a review of its performance in 2010, its first year in private hands. The documents said: "There have been a small but significant number of clinical incidents … some of which could have had serious consequences for patients." The incidents remained of "some concern".
It is understood that the company will make a statement on Monday about its pathology services – which it told staff would improve and break even this year.
Clinical failures have been matched by a slide in finances. GSTS accounts show it lost £5.9m last year owing to higher than expected laboratory costs – with the company kept afloat by cash transfusions from the hospitals. In a cost-cutting exercise the company has admitted, in documents seen by the Guardian, that it will have to withdraw from [certain] markets completely. Unions say that experienced staff who leave are not being replaced.
In a question and answer session with staff in July, GSTS management admitted the venture "did not get off to a great start" and "the corporate functions have not always provided a joined-up service".
Serco set up GSTS after a 2006 review of pathology services commissioned by the last Labour government. The report's author, Lord Carter, boss of a private healthcare company and chairman of the NHS Co-operation and Competition Panel (CCP), argued the £2.5bn spent by the NHS on pathology could be reduced if services were delivered by standalone pathology service providers" – and removed from the hospitals they were based in.
By 2009 Serco had set up GSTS with Guy's and St Thomas' hospitals in London and a year later picked up one of the NHS's best labs at King's College hospital – with ambitions to win a 30% share of the pathology services market in England. It won the right to run pathology services in Bedford Hospital in 2010. In GSTS accounts for that year Serco billed its subsidiary more than £8m for setting up the subsidiary, to recover bidding costs and for enacting a "transformation programme" meant to commercialise the operation.
In May this year senior managers admitted they had underestimated the challenges of running the service and now acknowledged clinicians' frustrations, in part due to lack of investment in new technologies.
A report by the Care Quality Commission in June said GSTS was not compliant with the regulation to ensure staff were properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop their skills. A month before the Health and Safety Executive found the competency levels of some staff to be "deficient" after a technician received preventative treatment for possible exposure to the Neisseria meningitidis bacterium that can cause meningitis.
In both instances the company says procedures have been tightened and that regulators are satisfied the labs are now fully compliant. Archie Prentice, president of the Royal College of Pathologists, said that it was "a concern that such actions had taken place. Frankly it's a bit bizarre. We have no problem with contracting out but there are worries because we know private firms are pulling back from pathology when there's less money on the table".
GSTS has installed a new management team and is bidding for the pathology contract for NHS East of England, with labs in Milton Keynes and Kettering as targets. Most services will be transferred to King's College, which the NHS paid £3m to update before it was privatised. Services such as toxicology will be lost from St Thomas'. One scientist speaking anonymously told of low morale and said: "Staff who used to work collaboratively together are now in competition with each other over jobs."
The company says it will turn the service round. In a statement, the company said: "The safety of patients and the quality of our services is the foremost priority of GSTS. The first two years of the partnership were operationally difficult and the necessary change did not happen as quickly as the partners had hoped. The organisation provides high quality pathology services, which it would be happy to measure against any other in the NHS."
Separately Richard Jones, chief executive of GSTS, said: "There were operational difficulties in the early period of GSTS. However, recent clinical, operational and financial performance make us confident that we have turned a corner. Modernisation of pathology is a national priority and GSTS exists to support the NHS in achieving that."
|  |  |  |  |
_________________ He fights for the users.
|
Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:21 pm |
|
 |
cloaked_wolf
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm Posts: 10022
|
Summary:
- private company takes over hospital pathology lab service - multiple clinical incidents rise in the first year of the takeover - private company losing money so NHS hospital has to pay - experienced staff not being replaced; demoralisation of NHS staff - "deficiency" in competence levels of some staff
Essentially, private company wants to make money but the staff want to provide a good service. So rather than employ more staff and train them properly, the private company would rather make a profit and sacrifice standards, staff and morale.
Remember, this is the same company that tried to provide an out-of-hours service and is now under investigation.
IMO, this is why private companies should have no business within the NHS.
_________________ He fights for the users.
|
Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:28 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|

I agree. The problem is that the NHS is currently over administered, though I blame Maggie and John Major for that. Labour did little to remedy the situation. They were run by the same free market ideologues. The Tories wanted to have business management techniques brought in to make it more like any other service company. So that hospitals could price how much a hip replacement operation and so bid for business from all over the country. Except general health is not like any other sector. Too many unknown variables to start with. A road accident could be minimal with just a few scratches, it could be major like mine with a 8 eight hour surgery overnight or even worse with multiple surgical teams required, and many months of rehabilitation. Then if you allow private operators to cherry pick the easy straight forward surgical work they leave the NHS with all the complex high cost loss making business the will inevitably cause the NHS bill to rise. Scams like PFI enabled hospitals to replace old and decrepit wings or hospitals and the cost was spread over a 40 year contract that was very one sided.
This government are probably trying to run the NHS into the ground so that it can be privatised bit by bit for US hospital operators. What is really needed is efficiency savings and that does not even need privatisation in any way. You could simply contract a team to find savings that do not harm outcomes. Departmental budgets need to be changed from a use it or lose it nature to one that enables departments that save money to roll it over into a capital budget if necessary. Pay the team from the savings. So no savings no pay.
If a contractor fails it should be allowed to collapse not get bailouts from hospitals. Look at the companies dealing with the London Underground maintenance. they had similar problems, borrowing money from LU, before going bust.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:51 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
|
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:28 am |
|
 |
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am Posts: 12700 Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
I'm no leftwingist, but the NHS has been [LIFTED] up by all this private involvment recently. Cameron is just mental and Blair, well that was he thinking of with his private funding arrangements? Anyone could have told you that would turn into a massive money black hole.
|
Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:42 am |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|
It was and remains the worst sort of short termist political thinking. Blair & Co didn't give a stuff about the long term consequences. They couldn't afford to build hospitals, schools etc so they arranged a scheme where someone else would have to pay later but they still got the nice photo opportunity opening a nice shiny new building and in the short term some people (the dim ones, basically) thought they had been given a good deal and voted for them.
It's exactly the same psychology as a woman buying an expensive dress on a credit card she can't afford to pay off because wearing it makes her look nicer and feel happier (I appreciate that's slightly sexist but I couldn't think of a good gender-neutral analogy - although men have their feel good toys too).
They maxed out the credit card and now we've all got to pay the bill for them.
|
Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:43 am |
|
 |
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm Posts: 5041 Location: London
|
But I would like to know how often the pathology lab got it wrong when it was just NHS - I don't believe that they never got it wrong
|
Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:08 am |
|
 |
cloaked_wolf
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm Posts: 10022
|
I agree that it would be better to have figures but labs tend not to publish them externally. IIRC there's an acceptable error rate (think thousands of blood tests being performed each day). There has been a rise since SERCO took over - what we need is the past error rate figures so we can see if there's a genuine jump or just an annual rise.
_________________ He fights for the users.
|
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|