Fining hospitals for speedy readmission aftre treatment

[Pupp]

Genius - get ready for reports of relapsing patients being treated in the car park

[fatboy b]

Well it's certainly better than Labour's approach of kicking you out before you're ready.

[speedchick]

My Grandad was discharged with pneumonia and c-diff (among other problems), he lasted 16 hours at home before he was rushed back in, and he was in a real state, so if it stops that happening to other sick people, and their families, then I am all for it, the way my Grandad was treated in general was disgraceful, it is time that hospitals were held accountable to the way they treat people.

[julian64]

Tricky one this. Depends how it is implemented.

Gps are currently spending quite a lot of time encouraging most patients to be discharged earlier, and trying to provide community resources instead of costly hospital ones. At that time hospital managers were only too happy to retain the patient to increase the fees.

It would be nice to abandon this and let the system go back to the bed blocking way it was before, but I can't see it as an efficient system.

Trouble is, that wahtever they do, there isn't money to follow it. You can't discharge patients early if the resources aren't it the community to cope, and you can't keep them in hospital unless money comes out of primary care, and into secondary.

Its rather like suggesting you can use a stick and not only not bother with the carrot, but stop feeding the donkey as well.

Going to be interesting how this works.

[Dift]

speedchick said:

My Grandad was discharged with pneumonia and c-diff (among other problems), he lasted 16 hours at home before he was rushed back in, and he was in a real state, so if it stops that happening to other sick people, and their families, then I am all for it, the way my Grandad was treated in general was disgraceful, it is time that hospitals were held accountable to the way they treat people.

agreed, but its a cracking way to block beds.

[Guybrush]

It's a good idea. What happened under Labour's targets obsession was that hospitals would turn you out as soon as possible, knowing you would probably be re-admitted soon after. This benefitted the hospital because they would log a patient dealt with and then log another admission - to hell with the effect on the patient. Labour is stupid you see.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

fatboy b said:

Well it's certainly better than Labour's approach of kicking you out before you're ready.

I'm not so sure.



I agree with the OP. It's just another target.

Replacing one target with another. So instead of kicking people out early........hospitals will now refuse to accept people back in to meet their targets.


Obviously, there is the hope that a lot of people will not need to be readmitted, but there inevitably will be those genuine few that will. So now they will not receive the follow up treatment, because the hospital does not want to receive a fine?


I can see this going badly.


They need to come up with a new way of judging the performance of the health service without imposing targets evrywhere!

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 9th June 09:06

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 9th June 09:07

[Jasandjules]

Pupp said:

Genius - get ready for reports of relapsing patients being treated in the car park

I may be being a bit of a muppet here, but that to me says that hospitals will have to make sure you are actually better before they kick you out. That is a good thing, is it not?

[catso]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

They need to come up with a new way of judging the performance of the health service without imposing targets evrywhere!

How about letting medical people run Hospitals? Just a thought....

[Adrian W]

This is madness, on the premise that a trust is not allowed to make a profit (it is illegal) how would a fine be implemented? The only outcome has to be a reduction somewhere else to offset the “fine”. It political bks for Sun readers.

Who gets fined when a private hospital doing NHS work has the same issue? And they are allowed to make a profit.

[Sticks.]

Guybrush said:

It's a good idea. What happened under Labour's targets obsession was that hospitals would turn you out as soon as possible, knowing you would probably be re-admitted soon after. This benefitted the hospital because they would log a patient dealt with and then log another admission - to hell with the effect on the patient. Labour is stupid you see.

Happened under the last Tory govt too, I'm afraid.

[tegwin]

How does this work then? My sister who is a doctor keeps talking about her frustration of patients who do not want to be in hospital... they discharge themselves ASAP only to be re-admitted days later..... So under this system the hospital would be fined because the old fool didnt want to stay in bed as he was told by his Dr!

[Bluebarge]

Adrian W said:

This is madness, on the premise that a trust is not allowed to make a profit (it is illegal) how would a fine be implemented? The only outcome has to be a reduction somewhere else to offset the “fine”. It political bks for Sun readers.

Who gets fined when a private hospital doing NHS work has the same issue? And they are allowed to make a profit.

As I understand it, there is no "fine" they just don't pay the hospital for the 2nd round of treatment if the patient is re-admitted because they were discharged too early. I believe this system already applies in Wales and Scotland.

Makes sense to me.

[Corsair7]

Would not hospitals become over cautious? Keeping people in TOO long, thus stopping new patients being admitted.

[Adrian W]

Bluebarge said:

Adrian W said:

This is madness, on the premise that a trust is not allowed to make a profit (it is illegal) how would a fine be implemented? The only outcome has to be a reduction somewhere else to offset the “fine”. It political bks for Sun readers.

Who gets fined when a private hospital doing NHS work has the same issue? And they are allowed to make a profit.

As I understand it, there is no "fine" they just don't pay the hospital for the 2nd round of treatment if the patient is re-admitted because they were discharged too early. I believe this system already applies in Wales and Scotland.

Makes sense to me.

It would only make sense if the hospitals were allowed to make a profit on things like private patients etc. If someone is in hospital the costs are coming out of their budget. Now if they are looking for accountability maybe they should fine the overpaid fireproof consultants every time they screw up or dont turn up for clinics because they have a long private list that day.

[Dupont666]

They are damned if they do and damned if they dont...

Keep the old system of targets more people get seen some come back in worse state and some die.

Get the new system and not some many people die who are admitted but some are not admitted and do die cause of no places.

Remove targets and you can guarantee a labour ran survey would come along and criticise the system and say its was better ran under labour, just cause they are st stirrers...

fk me you lot are a hard bunch and no matter what happens there will be someone to bh and complain as that is their job, to complain about it.

I prefer a 4th option, remove the targets, give the hospitals back to the trusts, they get the funds that they usually get and if some make money, then great they get more to spend on helping people (simply reasearch hospitals would be sorted later)... If they run out of funds then they sort it themselves with sackings, services cut, etc. until they are back in credit but they will be investigated at that stage and if it is found that there is anything untowards (jollies for senior management, expensive paints in docs lounge, any other st that is deemed wasting money and not for the hospital) then they will be dealt with like criminals, named and shamed and monies demanded back (like expenses scandal)...

Or we could just shoot the sick and sort it that way