Re: 1.2m patients a year hit by NHS blunders


"Kim Bolton" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n3v2b2tfslh2bdt594elq42buv7l5p920q@xxxxxxxxxx

Uno-Hoo! wrote:


"Kim Bolton" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bjnva2pk4orr1vb28aolk8pt57drnas1vg@xxxxxxxxxx


I accuse you of pedantry because you appear to misunderstand that NG's are
informal debating forums rather than courts of law with rules of evidence.


If you are having a 'rant' and can't or don't want to deal with
replies to your postings, then a disussion forum probably isn't the
best place for you to do that.

Do you 'deal' with every reply to all of your posings?

You appear to want to set the parameters under which a discussion will
take
place - much like a pompous barrister standing up in court and balling out
'objection'.


Well, you sound like PC Plod - "This is so 'cos I say so"; hardly a
successful debating tactic.

Not at all, and I'm neither saying nor implying that. It was you who said
that you wanted to restrict comment to the Daily Mail article despite the
fact that I was moving on to producing the actual report that the Mail was
commenting upon. Now why did you want to do that? The topic of the post is
the number of patients affected by NHS blunders - not how accurate Daily
Mail reporting is!

Your wish, in an earlier post, to want to contain the
discussion to the Daily Mail article is an example of this. I raised the
issue of mistaken killings in the NHS and I will bring into the debate any
reports or articles that support my case!


But you didn't start from there.

So what? Are you suggesting that because someone begins a topic with a
newspaper article they are somehow barred from introducing additional
'evidence' to support their case as the discussion progresses?

You quoted from the Daily Mail, and I answered that posting. It was
only later that you fell back on the Official Report.

I did not 'fall back' onto the official report - I 'moved onto' it - for the
obvious reason that using the report removed any suggested media bias.

If you are going
to attack the NHS based on a newspaper report, don't be surprised if
people answer on that basis.

I have no problem with that at all - my argument was with you wishing to
contain the discussion to the newspaper article and prevent the introduction
of more accurate and detailed information.

You state that I use official figures that I cannot explain without giving
me the opportunity to explain them. One of your main arguing points is
about how the Daily Mail reported the findings of the report. Quite
frankly
I couldn't give a damn about the Daily Mail article - that was simply the
vehicle that brought me to the government report - a report that
supported
arguments that I had been making about the NHS for some time.


I'll say it again: if you don't give a damn about the Daily Mail
article, then don't use it as a basis for your posting. It's simple
enough a concept to grasp.

Usenet is a minor hobby of mine. Despite the fact that I am retired I do
have a life outside Usenet and have no time for in-depth research on every
topic I comment on. The Daily Mail article was relevant to a matter I had
raised before. I made use of it. When the discussion began to question the
article, I moved on to the report itself. Do you see any problem with that?


Everyone is entitled to their opinions. They are also entitled, if
they wish, to justify those opinions with evidence. It is in the
nature of a discussion forum such as this one, that opinions will
differ, and evidence can be countered or queried. That is why it is a
good idea to marshall one's thoughts *before* posting, rather than 'on
the fly' as the discussion unfolds.

I would imagine that almost every poster on NGs, including yourself,
raises
issues 'on the fly' as the discussion unfolds. That is the nature of
debate.


I didn't say 'raise issues on the fly'.

Your original points were worthy of some discussion. What a shame it
is you couldn't rise to that.

And what a shame that the points you raise are stupid points about how the
Daily Mail writes an article, rather than the report itself.


I'll leave it to others to decide who is being stupid here. Look at
this exchange from earlier:

Kim Bolton: "Quite frankly, that reporting by the Daily Mail was poor"

Uno-Hoo!: "In what way? It was no different to the same story that
appeared in the Times!"

You asked the question, and you got an answer, and now you call me
stupid? And then you justified the Daily Mail article by referring to
The Times.

So please drop this claptrap about the Daily Mail reporting: you used
it, and you initially tried to justify it by referring to another
newspaper.

The only matter you took issue with was a minor one that did not affect the
overall picture. A picture that was further developed when the actual report
was brought into the discussion.

I now introduce a NAO report: "A safer place for Patients: Learning to
improve patient safety"

This report answers one of your earlier queries and defines 'Safety
Incident' (more properly: Patient Safety Incident)

"Patient Safety Incident: any unintended or unexpected event that lead to
death, disability, injury, disease or suffering for one or more patients."

"Near Miss: any situation tht could have resulted in an accident, injury
or
illness for a patient, but did not, due to chance or timely intervention
by
another."


So, now we know for the first time that 'near misses' were not actual
events. What would you count as a police 'near miss'? Omitting the
American Embassy, of course. Perhaps, just perhaps, the NHS might not
look as bad as you are trying to suggest.

I have never attempted to equate the overall number of PSIs with the police
situation - only the number of accidental/preventable deaths.


The same report includes the following information:

"A retrospective study of patient records in two English hospitals found
10.8% of patients experienced an adverse incident; of which half (5.2%)
were
judged to have been preventable. These adverse incidents cause permanent
impairment in six per cent and contributed to death in 8% of cases."

"Our analysis of trust surveys found that 169 trusts were able to provide
data on the number of deaths as a result of patient safety incidents. This
showed that in 2004-5 there were some 2,181 deaths recorded but it is
acknowledged that there is significant under reporting of deaths and
serious
incidents. Other published estimates of death as a result of patient
safety
incidents range from 840 to 34,000 but in reality the NHS simply does not
know."


And, due to your quoting from the report, we now know that this
terrible figure includes adverse reactions to sticking-plaster.

I'm not sure that it does - but I'll let that pass. I would reiterate,
however, that I have never attempted to use the overall number of PSIs in
any comparison with the police. The only thing I was interested in was the
number of preventable deaths. I did this for one reason only - to
demonstrate that the vilification of the police for a mere handful of
accidental shootings over a number of years was out of proportion when
considering the number of preventable deaths that take place in the NHS
every year.

So, working on those figures (which are admittedly vague but quite
horrifying nonetheless) we can glean the following conclusions:

In 2004-5 there were some 2,181 deaths recorded as a result of patient
safety incidents - but it is acknowledged that there is significant under
recording of deaths so the figure is, in actual fact, much higher.

An analysis of PSI's shows that around half are preventable.

This would appear to suggest that in 2004-5 the NHS were responsible for
the
deaths of 1,090 patients *at an absolute minimum* which were preventable.

Now *that* is the whole crux of my argument. Forget the Daily Mail and its
manner of reporting, concentrate on the fact that in a single year the NHS
were responsible for killing *at least* 1,090 patients. That's 1,090
patients that may well still be alive today had mistakes not been made or
proper procedures followed.

Now compare that figure with the number of people that would still be
alive
today if the police had not made mistakes.


But, unfortunately for your argument, you are not comparing like with
like. People who are ill, sometimes gravely so, sometimes with
multiple conditions, go to hospital, and sadly some die. But those who
come into contact with the police are largely *not* ill beforehand.

Accepted.

Note that we are now down to just over 1000 preventable deaths.

Well, no we are not. That is an absolute minimum obtained from official
figures. It is acknowledged that there is 'significant' under-reporting of
deaths and serious PSIs - so the the number of preventable deaths is likely
to be much higher than 1000.

Now
tell me, do you have any idea of the number of people who come into
contact with police in a year, and the number who wind up dead as a
result? Perhaps *that* figure is the one you should use as your
yardstick.

I will do some research - but I would suggest it is far far lower than 1000
!

Here's a statistic for you, as you like quoting them: the NHS treats a
million people...every day. That's 365 million treatments a year,
which in 1019 cases someone winds up dead due to errors. I'll leave it
as an exercise for you to determine if the police figures are better
or worse than 1019 deaths per 365 million contacts with the public.

Again, an artificial yardstick because of those 365 million treatments, many
will be treatments such as X-rays, scans, and even cut fingers or other very
minor matters that could not remotely be turned into serious PSIs or deaths.
Also it would be impossible to compare like with like because using your
comparison you would have to include every single interaction between a
police officer and a member of the public (Got the time officer?) and that
is clearly impossible.

If you want to defend the police, don't use the NHS as your
whipping-boy. If you want to quote statistics, try to understand what
it is that is being referred to. If you don't want to discuss a
newspaper report, don't use it as a basis for a posting.

I am not using the NHS as a whipping boy. You will note that I have never
referred to NHS staff as murdering thugs - something that many posters on
this NG are not adverse to doing in relation to the police. I accept that
accidents and mistakes occur in the best of organisations -although steps
should be taken to minimise them. My whole point, as I have mentioned
previously, is to illustrate that it is unfair in the extreme to vilify the
police for a handful of mistaken shootings over a period of years when other
organisations, who have similar powers of life and death over people, kill
many more with hardly any comment. That is it - that is my point, nothing
more and nothing less.

Do you have any other contributions to make on this topic?

Not unless you take serious issue with anything I have typed above!

Uno-Hoo!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1.2m patients a year hit by NHS blunders
    ... about how the Daily Mail reported the findings of the report. ... Incident' (more properly: Patient Safety Incident) ... data on the number of deaths as a result of patient safety incidents. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: 1.2m patients a year hit by NHS blunders
    ... only later that you fell back on the Official Report. ... Incident' (more properly: Patient Safety Incident) ... data on the number of deaths as a result of patient safety incidents. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: 34,000 a year killed by hospital blunders.
    ... The report said that 2,081 avoidable deaths had been reported for April 2004 ... Daily Mail than the NHS - they don't even bother to justify it, what contempt they have for their readers' intelligence. ... And if you give a police officer a gun and send him into potentially lethal situations you are also bound to get the occasionaly mistake. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Deadly Restraint- Part II, Hartford Courant
    ... Subject: Lisa was hacked by an All-Jewish Law firm in New York...Re: ... Many Restraint Deaths Unreported ... Don't, Report Says ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: Deadly Restraint- Part II, Hartford Courant
    ... Subject: Lisa was hacked by an All-Jewish Law firm in New York...Re: ... Many Restraint Deaths Unreported ... Don't, Report Says ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)