Brendan Martin and Roger Kline - How the Stafford scandal could renew the NHS
Jeremy Hunt has accused Labour of a “deafening silence” about the horrors at Stafford Hospital, where at least 400 and perhaps as many as 1,200 patients died unnecessarily over four years of neglect and abuse. In fact, Andy Burnham has described the scandal as “a betrayal of everything the NHS stands for”, and he now plans to put its analysis and recommendations “at the heart of Labour's health and care policy review”. (Guardian, 10 February).
Hunt is also wrong to say Labour has failed to apologise for a disaster caused in part by its NHS reforms, since Alan Johnson did that when he was Health Secretary (House of Commons, 19 March, 2009).
However, neither Hunt’s typically opportunistic response to Francis, nor Labour’s contrition, mean we can move on. On the contrary, that would compound the original betrayal, whereas learning profound lessons from Stafford could transform public services for the better.
With nearly 2,000 pages and 290 recommendations, Francis offered plenty of scope for picking and choosing. In his Guardian article Burnham drew three lessons: that the “new managerialism and a focus on finance and targets” had gone too far; that the increasing challenge of an ageing population requires integration of health and social care services; and that reorganisation should not be imposed without consultation.
Undoubtedly those are important issues, but while they allude to Labour’s failed approach to public service reform they neither challenge its fundamental flaws nor provide the basis for the alliance of NHS staff and patients required to defeat the Tory agenda.
The core lessons of Francis involve culture rather than structure, and show that Labour’s approach to reforming the latter did a great deal of damage to the former. The inquiry revealed widespread toxicity in NHS relationships caused not only by top-down targets but also by the way managerial and professional hierarchies were used to enforce them.
The route to renewing the NHS culture finds concise expression in these 40 words of paragraph 1.118 of the Francis Report:
“The patient must be first in everything that is done: there must be no tolerance of substandard care; frontline staff must be empowered with responsibility and freedom to act in this way under strong and stable leadership in stable organisations.”
That sentence not only captures the essential values required but also identifies the key relationships through which they must find expression, as deconstructing it can show:
- “The patient must be first in everything that is done”: don’t take that for granted -- Francis revealed how much it is honoured in the breach;
- “There must be no tolerance of substandard care”. Again, Francis showed how complacent we have become, and not only in Stafford.
- “Frontline staff must be empowered with responsibility and freedom to act in this way ...”. This highlights how to build a culture around the required values. Not only must frontline staff be held responsible for their duty of care; they must also be free from command-and-control pressure to betray that responsibility, and from bullying when they resist that pressure.
- “ ... under strong and stable leadership ...”: The report showed that rather than the macho management of top down diktats that drove the descent into neglect and abuse in Stafford, “strong and stable leadership” supports team work that enables and requires personal and mutual responsibility for maintaining high standards of patient care.
- “ ... in stable organisations”: speaks for itself, and means “please, no more reorganisation for now, even with consultation!”
The focus must instead be on building relationships that enable and require every healthcare organisation and worker to uphold their own and each other’s duty of care. This will enrich working lives too, and provide the strong and stable cultural foundation for any structural change that might be needed to further improve services and productivity.
Public service improvement needs to begin with the essential relationships that define its behaviour and form its culture – the relationships between staff and users, and among staff. Starting from the wrong end, Labour’s reform agenda damaged those relationships in catastrophic ways, whereas a progressive agenda would focus on improving them.
If Labour faces up to that, and if the unions embrace the new roles implied by the cultural revival required, no Tory health secretary will be able to break the social bonds from which the NHS derives not only its enduring strength but its very legitimacy.
Brendan Martin is managing director and Roger Kline an associate consultant with Public World, which has launched a Duty of Care project to support healthcare workers to assert their responsibility and right to put patients first.
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.




















Comments
on 28 April 2013, 12:43:43 PM
The community systematize of teeth is similar across the vertebrates, although there is sizeable converting in their shape and position. The teeth of mammals have profound roots, and this decoration is also rest in some fish, and in crocodilians. In most teleost fish, how, the teeth are fastened to the outer surface of the bone, while in lizards they are fixed devoted to to the inner come up of the jaw by way of harmonious side. In cartilaginous fish, such as sharks, the teeth are joined by means of rough ligaments to the hoops of cartilage that form the jaw.
on 24 March 2013, 2:42:17 PM
Despite the modest changes made to the privatisation model forced on the Tories a few weeks ago, the process of privatisations remains on course. The first of April marks a fundamental restructuring of the NHS which quite probably makes NHS privatisation irreversible. It certainly does so for as long a One Nation Labour is able to dominate the Labour Party.
Leftyunity.org. “the destruction of our nhs explained,” have provided an interview on YouTube explaining in cogent detail the politics, purposes and commercial of NHS privatisation. It is a long interview. But it is detailed and well informed. Those in particular who are not part of the One Nation Labour elite, but who otherwise accept the neo-liberal settlement and the politics of Miliband, Balls, and Cruddas et al should give the interview their particular attention.
Across the neo-liberal consensus, its political elite from Cameron to the current Miliband seek to reduce what the term ‘NHS’ means in the public consciousness to being ‘free at the point of use.’ Of course the NHS was and is more than that. But even that minimalist rightwing position is going to be hard to maintain in practice. Comodification, fragmentation and a political consensus built upon individualism, the market and a developing model of what Tony Blair called ‘co-payment’ will all serve to undermine the free at the point of use position.
To a large extent this is what is happening in England only. But does anyone seriously believe that independent or not, Scotland or Wales will be able to hold out against the political, ideological and economic forces that have given rise to NHS privatisation in England? I hope Scotland and Wales can save the NHS as part of their specific political systems. But it is not clear that One Nation Labour has any useful role to play in this matter,
on 23 March 2013, 12:07:53 PM
My hypothesis is that there is something more fundamental in the way Western society treats 'the other' - the marginal, the frail, the inconvenient. That's how it is possible to walk past people who live on the streets, its what underpins punitive responses to delinquency and its what makes mental distress so hard to acknowledge. It also underpins racism and sexism. It has its origins in that ideology-action-structure complex that we call modernity, with its roots in the colonisation of the Americas, where the techniques for administering the 'other' as used by the modern state were born, for it was there that other humans appear to have been first redefined as subhuman. This is a hypothesis, but if it is right it calls for a different kind of socialism, one that this article is groping towards, one that starts from the ethical relationship between vulnerable, marginalised, oppressed and excluded, and the rest of us (who may also share those qualities to varying degrees). It means a focus not so much on the adminstrative techniques of the state as on the very nature of social relations that we mean to construct. In this it has a lot in common with those early opponents of the modern regime, the Lolards, the Levellers, the Diggers. It connects with concerns of feminism and (in that it rejects the duality human-nature) with the ecological dimension. You can find it in the Melanesian socialism of Walter Lini and the Buen Vivir/Vivir Bien movements of the contemporary Andes.
on 13 March 2013, 10:38:33 AM
on 11 March 2013, 9:20:56 PM
on 11 March 2013, 4:59:55 PM
Leave a comment