So, a work blog eh, riveting I’m sure, I’ve had to re-write this a couple of times, and I’ve decided to make it a two part special! This first part is a long rant about previous jobs and why the NHS is in the parlous state it’s in. The next one will be about my work in Qatar. So here goes:
In my first blog I said that I’m a health strategist and no-one knows what that means. I’ll elaborate slightly: healthcare is incredibly complex; any change involves thousands of staff and tens of thousands of patients. Healthcare is changing all the time, new research and equipment is constantly evolving how services are being provided, the management structure of the NHS is complex, but the NHS employs fewer managers than any equivalently sized organizations. This, the Daily Mail readers out there would say, is correct. And maybe it is.
The problem is, if the council gets the rubbish collection wrong, or if Vodafone disconnects your account, no-one dies, if the NHS gets it wrong, people die. So every decision is subject to significant scrutiny, rightly again. But at the top of that pile are politicians: ignorant, ill-informed and lumbering around trying to make headlines and leave a legacy, and it is politicians who create bureaucracy, not managers. Because they ask questions, often ignorant ill-informed questions, and then when they misinterpret the answer or the media exerts some pressure, their response is to establish some kind of additional oversight, and with it comes paperwork.
Let me give an example: an MP gets visited by a constituent, the constituent tells them they’ve been waiting almost a year and a half for a knee surgery and they’re upset. The constituent does not tell the MP that they missed a couple of appointments or that they then went on holiday and had to reschedule, or that they had the flu and had to have the surgery rearranged. So all the MP hears is the NHS is keeping poor old Mrs Wilkins waiting, it can’t be the fault of the Doctors, who are embattled heroes struggling against all odds, so it must be the managers’ fault, prioritizing targets over patient safety and feelings. The MP asks a question in parliament, “why has my constituent had to wait almost two years for surgery, it’s a disgrace, this government has introduced more bureaucracy than ever, people are suffering etc. etc.” the government, via the Department of Health has to answer this question, so a few policy people at the Department of Health (DH) will check out the constituency, and identify the relevant regional authority, then an urgent parliamentary question will be sent to that authority, ‘what is the average wait time for knee operations’, the regional authority communications team will talk to their colleagues in performance, who will pull data from an online system and review it, they will talk to colleagues in strategy asking if there’s anything going on at the hospital in question (is a new ward being built, and old one renovated etc.) and they will contact the commissioners and the hospital to get the very latest data and the latest situation report. Dozens of people, literally dozens of people, will be rushing around working to produce a couple of pages of information to support an answer to a question that really didn’t need to be asked. That’s bureaucracy, and it comes from the top.
All of this is meant to set the context for what a healthcare strategist does: we try and change the system, for various reasons, generally safety (killing fewer people), sometimes quality (making fewer mistakes, making good outcomes better), often money. The problem is, no matter how much people moan and carp about the NHS, if you try and change it you get instant and massive backlash, why are you changing the service I love, and will save my life, I will die if I can’t get to the nearest hospital, all emotive arguments, none fact-based. I bet if you tried to close Mid-Staffs, or that maternity unit in Cumbria, there’d be a save my hospital campaign formed within minutes.
But you can’t manage a 100 billion pound service, employing a million people, where thousands of life or death decisions are made daily, based on emotions, or nostalgia, you need to base them on facts. So when we recommend downgrading (or ‘closing’ in the emotive speak) a hospitals A&E, we guarantee that that decision is based on a painstakingly thorough evidence-based review, we guarantee it won’t kill more people, guarantee, full stop.
And you need to trust us, because we know more than you do about the service, we know your local hospital is close, but we also know it’s not safe, and it’s expensive, and it’s going to continue to get more dangerous and more expensive. The NHS consults on big decisions, the consultation process is always called a sham, in truth, it quite often is, because normally there aren’t multiple solutions to a problem, if there are three hospitals trying to stay open without enough people to treat (you need a good throughput of patients to keep clinicians skilled up) then you need to close one, or maybe two of them, the facts and figures will indicate which one should be closed, based on quality, patient throughput and yes, money. All of this data is published alongside every consultation, all of it, and they’ll be the odd mistake, and the odd assumption that might be too optimistic or pessimistic, but it’s rare the debate is sophisticated enough to get into the details, it’s hard to talk facts when someone’s screaming at you that you’re trying to kill their baby!
An example that I’ve heard which I think is great (although potentially apocryphal) is of small hospital in the middle of nowhere, the hospital was too small to support an A&E (again you need a huge amount of back-up services and a high throughput of patients to support a good A&E), but it had a popular and well-respected 24/7 urgent care service. The problem was, this service was called an A&E, it had a big A&E sign on the door, when someone in the centre found this out, they instructed that it had to be changed, as it was misleading. The signage was duly changed (to urgent care centre or something similar) the service did not change one iota, but within hours a local campaign group had been formed to ‘save our A&E’
Resources are finite, to ignore them is stupid. If you want to argue that the NHS in general should have more money, then fine, but that’s a different debate (and one well worth having), you never close a service just because of money (not even the most indebted hospital in the NHS) you close a service because you can save more lives, and more money, by doing so.
So my most recent role in the NHS was working on this issue, there are two resources that are usually fixed in the NHS: money and people. The NHS has a legal obligation to break even, this is just sensible. Hospitals get reimbursed based on how much work they do, there is a very detailed tariff for almost every procedure, this takes into account both the physical cost of the procedure, but also the more general costs, i.e. cleaning, electricity, reception, portering.) The hospital’s job is to operate as efficiently as possible, both clinically and financially. Hospitals estimate how much activity and therefore how much income they will get in a year, and then try and work out how to deliver that activity as efficiently as possible. They can be more efficient in many ways: are their operating theatres in use all of the time, and are procedures being done quickly, are patients staying too long in hospital beds after, or before surgery, is the staff mix right: are senior doctors doing complex, senior things and junior doctors doing basic things, is their building physically arranged or designed to be efficient, to save people time, the list goes on. But what you end up with are some hospitals that are more expensive to run than others, either through bad management, a lack of focus on these issues, an unruly clinical body (who refuse to see that they could be more efficient) or bad contracts (PFI being a prime example). There’s also just something about being a nice place to work, if a hospital has a bad reputation, and unpleasant facilities, then they’ll probably have a high vacancy rate, meaning they need lots of expensive temps and locums (greater regulation of this market would give massive dividends to the public purse, but I think most of the big NHS temp agencies are owned by senior politicians or party donors, so don’t expect a spotlight to be shined on this rip-off).
All in all, some hospitals spend more than they get, sometimes millions more. Is this a reason to close a hospital, on its own? No, but the problem with hospitals that are losing money, is that with the losses, tends to come other problems, the hospital can’t invest in new facilities or staff, or the latest bit of equipment, maintenance might start to fall behind, and all of this means fewer staff want to work there, so the cycle repeats and gets worse each year. Board members, directors and senior doctors will start looking for jobs elsewhere, where they can make decisions on the future, rather than desperately struggling to stay afloat. Eventually, this all starts to have an impact on clinical safety, and that’s when you need to start making changes.
I also said that staff was a fixed asset, you can’t suddenly go out and get a load more doctors, and as I said at the top, the NHS is constantly evolving in technology and procedure, there’s now an almost overwhelming amount of evidence that having 24/7 senior doctor presence saves lives, London is leading the charge in this, and reports have shown that the death rates outside of normal working hours (evenings and weekends) in London are significantly higher than during the week, generally because the more senior doctors get first dibs about when they want to work, and they like being home in the evenings and weekends with their families. So new policies are being developed to mandate that this 24/7 cover is present in all hospitals. The problem is, there aren’t enough senior doctors to do this in every hospital in the country. London again is a prime example, there are over 30 hospitals in the capital, and there are just not enough senior doctors to go around.
The choice then is, let hospitals continue to operate as they currently do, knowing full well that they are killing and maiming people unnecessarily, or do you try and ‘rationalise’ services, i.e., start closing some, to make the rest better. Now, almost everyone would agree with this principle, everyone wants a big, shiny, well staffed hospital. The problem comes not with the theory, but with the practice. The process is relatively simple, you take a region of London, it has maybe seven hospitals, but it only has enough senior doctors to keep five open safely (in reality you review every service in every hospital, to work out exactly what could stay where, so you might be able to support six A&Es, but only five intensive care units). This is the first bit of work, and it normally causes chaos, but because the argument is clinical, and not linked to a specific hospital or service, you can normally proceed without politicians and the public getting too riled. So you now know that you can only keep five A&Es, with all the ancillary services they require, so you look at capacity, and travel times, if I close hospital X, then 25% of those patients would have to go to hospital Y, but hospital Y is too small etc. and you work out which combination of closures means that all patients are still within a safe distance (30 minute drive in a blue light ambulance is the London standard) and that there are enough beds/theatres/etc in the remaining hospitals to treat everyone. Then, finally, you look at the money, closing hospital X costs this much and saves this much, offset by the investment required to expand hospital Y. All this comes together to give you a decision to be consulted upon, as I said, it’s normally such a massively complex web of interdependencies, that there is only one real solution, anything else is a bastardization, normally based on politics (we can’t possibly close hospital Y, it’s in the prime ministers constituency) so you develop a back-up option, that would generally cost more, or have more clinical risk, but be more politically palatable.
And that is how a service reconfiguration happens, and that’s one of the things a strategist does.
Editor’s note: Strategists also write long blogs about the health system. Congratulations if you made it this far. Pat yourself on the back, go for a walk and stretch your legs, get some fresh air. Part two is coming up!

