Sometimes the press adopts the stuck needle pose (those of
you not familiar with music on vinyl, ask an older person) and appears not to
understand that its repetition just for the sake of it is not proving
productive. So it has been after the remarkably coincident ranting of the Sun and Mail at the NHS for apparently making pay-offs to departing
employees conditional on confidentiality.
There seems to be an agreement within the Fourth Estate that
this kind of thing applies only to the parts of public service they like to bad
mouth, and the EU. I can tell those who scrabble around the dunghill that is
Grubstreet that it applies across both public and private sectors, and that is
the reason that many people do not take to the airwaves slagging off former
employers.
But, as Clive James might have said, I digress. The
discovery that some people have had to sign confidentiality agreements has
meant one thing: despite his having announced his imminent departure, David
Nicholson is now being told that he has to go even sooner (were he to end it
all by jumping under a train, Paul Dacre would complain that the train was not
of a type which met with his approval).
So why should Nicholson depart even sooner? What slice of
damning evidence is being marshalled in support of this argument? Have the Mail and Sun discovered some new and yet more appalling episode in the NHS
that demands instant retribution by as many hacks and pundits as can be
summoned? Don’t bother expecting anything new, because there isn’t anything
new.
Sun Says lays it on the line: “He
passed the buck over the 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital which happened on
his watch”. The tedious and unfunny Richard Littlejohn at the Mail
takes a short break from farting in the shallow end to assert “he
was the hospital administrator who presided over the deaths of 1,200 patients
in Mid-Staffordshire”. I told you it wasn’t exactly original.
Now, as Zelo Street has noted on more than
one occasion, there is no question that there were instances where standards of
care at Stafford Hospital were, to put it directly, not good enough. Patients
suffered unnecessarily. This is not in dispute. What has been shown, time and
again, to be wrong is the “1,200 deaths”
figure. This was a result of poorly coded patient information.
Those wanting to see the story behind this number should
consult Steve Walker’s excellent analysis HERE.
In the meantime, no-one is stopping the press from commenting on David Nicholson,
although it would be a nice change if that were occasionally based on facts,
rather than pundits’ inept interpretation of figures that resulted from
Stafford Hospital not having a coding manager at the time.
What does that PCC code of practice say about “accuracy”? Just asking, chaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment