Brown says information key to promoting self care

Tags: Choice

02 Jan 2008

Self care supported by information and advice from professionals is a major theme in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s New Year message on the NHS.

He also pledged to bring in a new constitution for the service – celebrating its 60th anniversary this year - setting out the rights and responsibilities associated with an entitlement to NHS care.

The word “information” appeared three times in the 1,000 word message which made clear that patients and the public would be expected to do more to look after themselves. In healthcare IM&T, the message will underline the importance of moves to give patients access to their records and to the use of technology to monitor long term conditions remotely.

Brown wrote: “We need an NHS that gives all of those with long-term or chronic conditions the choice of greater support, information and advice, allowing them to play a far more active role in managing their own condition in partnership with their clinicians.

“And even when healthy, we know all of us will benefit from earlier information about potential health risks and advice on how we can keep ourselves fit and well.”

The Prime Minister promised “a broadening and a deepening of reform to ensure that the NHS as a whole attaches the same priority to a personal and preventative service as many of you already reflect in your own day-to-day decisions. And I believe they will transform the experience of the NHS for millions of people in this country.”

He also reinforced the importance of the 18 week referral-to-treatment target, writing: “Achievement of the 18 weeks target by the end of the year will mean the shortest waiting times since the NHS was established - almost unthinkable just a few years ago.”

Brown praised NHS staff saying: “The best of NHS care has always depended on its staff for innovation, for commitment and for professionalism and we will continue to draw on your ideas and look for ways to empower you.”

Reader's Comments

Information the key (or the cause)?

02 Jan 08 10:01

Of course, another interpretation might be that the reason that is NHS is having to transfer care to individuals (surely a "cutback") is that so much money that could have been put to better use has been wasted on NPfIT.

effective technology is the key

02 Jan 08 15:01

Why is there so much bleating about the NHS saving money? This is public money and as such should be carefully controlled and targeted. Long term illnesses will continue to put increasing pressure on the public purse and if high quality technology solutions can provide a better quality of life for sufferers whilst simultaneously reducing the spiralling costs associated with traditional care routes, then it can only be for the common good - for patients, clinicians, family carers and the tax-payer

Effectiveness

02 Jan 08 16:01

And the hard evidence for the effectiveness of CfH's deliverables is ......

..... missing?

Deja view

03 Jan 08 08:01

'He also pledged to bring in a new constitution for the service ... setting out the rights and responsibilities associated with an entitlement to NHS care.'

Perhaps we could think of a great new name for it. Let me think... What about: The Patient's Charter? That sounds good eh?

negativity

03 Jan 08 11:01

I am concerned at the amount of negativity that correspondents are writing. I wonder where they are within the organisation and how much weight they carry?

I work with a number of trusts and am struck by the variety of readiness available. Some trusts are in advance of what the LSP's are offering and are happy And some have no systems in place and welcome what ia available.

But some trusts have handed over control of their systems (& data!) to differing 3rd party suppliers and have no control over what they already have or resource to take it back on board. Would they want to host/support the systems if they were given the money?

So negativity towards NPfIT is different from what they have now in what way? Sour grapes?

Control and responsibility

03 Jan 08 17:01

It's a bit off the original topic, but the last poster asks a question.

The difference between a locally negotiated outsourcing deal and NPfIT is about, for a local deal, visibility and influence over the contract terms, an ability for any penalty payments to find their way back to the Trust and department where the extra staff have to cover for system failures, a local risk assessment and organisational acceptance that remotely hosted and managed services are worth the risks, and a business case that stacked up against other priorities for spend. In our locality, we did not believe outsourcing represented best Value for the taxpayer, but negotiated contracts that delivered real and useful clinical solutions to short timescales.

NPfIT through the LSPs has promised advanced clinical records, but so far delivered basic administrative solutions way behind schedule. Yet they appear to have done this in the most complex and over-expensive way imaginable. I have a great concern about the ability to ever extricate from the NPfIT arrangements.

Not sour grapes so much as a longstanding weary plea that this was obvious to many of us from very early on. PM Brown's widening and deepening reform is likely to squander yet more money on these largely inappropriate and inflexible solutions.