Health and Social Care Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I speak to the amendment to which I have added my name in relation to children, but also speak to a raft of other amendments related to allied healthcare professions. Last week we had a debate about the need for the voice of children in the Bill to be strengthened. On reflecting on this and the debate that we had over other vulnerable groups, it struck me quite forcefully that children are the only group who do not have an independent voice en masse. In all other vulnerable groups, there will be a spectrum of people, some of whom can be outspoken and some who can be advocates for others, even among groups such as those with dementia, the very elderly and those who have come here to this country as asylum seekers. However, children under the age of 16 are completely dependent for consent and for other issues on those who have a legal parental role to act on their behalf and to consider their best interests.

We discussed last week the fragmented society in which some children are now brought up, and the difficulties that individual children face. We also discussed the need for health and social care services to reflect the needs of children. I urge the Minister, in looking at these amendments and those we debated before, to consider very carefully where our society will be heading if we do not strengthen the voice of children on the face of the Bill.

Amendment 330A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Low, has put his name and, I believe, will be speaking, will try to secure a change so that this Bill parallels the change in the Education Act.

I will now address my remarks to the need for representation and consultation of allied healthcare professionals, and in so doing declare my interest as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Physiotherapists are the largest part of the allied health professions’ workforce. The Bill needs to state that allied health professions as a group are consulted, because there is, sadly, great ignorance in medicine and nursing as to the full range of professional services that allied healthcare professionals can contribute. They contribute right across the range; innovative models of service provision now being developed are able to free up medical and nursing time and decrease the number of interventions needed, particularly on aspects such as orthopaedic surgery, where physiotherapists are running clinics and are able to intervene and completely obviate the need for some patients to progress to surgery.

Allied health professionals by and large, and physiotherapists in particular, are focused on re-enablement; on keeping people healthy; working with the parts of them that are healthy and helping them cope with the parts that are not; on preventing absence from work and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions and unnecessary interventions. We are already hearing of delayed discharges from hospital. The Health Service Journal of 27 October this year had a piece on this. Patients are having to wait for care packages, including physiotherapy services, that could enable them to be cared for in their own homes. Without the allied healthcare professional voice being involved at senior-level commissioning, acute services will not be joined up in the community, and that leads to fragmented care for patients and poorer health outcomes. Care in the community setting is viewed as key to the Government’s efficiency savings in relation to hospital admissions. Allied healthcare professionals enable patients to take control of their own care and resume living in their own homes, empowering them and easing the burden on front-line services. There are a whole group of amendments in my name which list allied healthcare professionals. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, my Amendment 332A follows well from the previous two speakers. It would ensure that integrated working in health and social care delivery—particularly the latter, which we know from many noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is often very much the junior partner in these discussions—is given an explicit place on the face of the Bill, rather than simply being relegated to regulations and guidelines. In his report on Fairer Care Funding, Andrew Dilnot commented that when someone has a care or support need, they do not really know which part of the range of state funding is going to provide the services that they need. This particularly applies to people with multiple needs and co-morbidities, which is often the majority. We know that there are many different services delivered at national and local level—for example, the NHS, the adult social care system, social security benefits, public health services and housing services. They can all be critical in meeting people’s needs. The problem is that all these elements overlap and interact, sometimes positively but sometimes rather negatively. Dilnot noted forcefully that when services that are shaped around people work well together, outcomes are better; when they do not, people experience very disjointed services and their experiences are poor.

We need a care system that is more consistent, with less variability, and one in which people feel that services are working for them, not against them. In this context, I welcome the Department of Health’s commitment to breaking down the barriers between health and social care to improve the outcomes and experience of users. Having a National Health Service that is free at the point of need, but a shared-responsibility system of social care, means that difficult decisions will continue to be made if this carries on. For example, in response to the Nicholson challenge, how will clinical commissioning groups ensure that the focus stays on the patient and on integration of services and not on contracting and other arrangements? Do we know what type of support managers need to make integrated services a reality? How can staff be encouraged to work collaboratively? Through this process, how can the correct values and ethos concerning the dignity and respect of patients, which we all believe in, be developed and maintained within and across organisations? There are many examples of where the consequences of having different care streams can seem extremely unfair to people. But when streams have been integrated or a more co-ordinated approach is taken, there is evidence of improved outcomes, high-quality services and better value for money, as well as the fostering of innovation. In my view, the powers proposed in Clause 192 for the health and well-being boards to support integrated working should be extended to encourage explicit joint commissioning.

In support for innovation in Part 5, greater regard should be given to the role that service and technology solutions, for example, can have in breaking down traditional boundaries and in encouraging better integration of health and social care services. All generations, including older people, are having their lives transformed by the dramatic changes that we daily witness in communications technology, yet in the UK the adoption of telehealth into health and social care, particularly in prevention and intervention, has sometimes been much slower than in many countries in the industrialised world. In other parts of the world, we have clear evidence of the key role that these systems play in the prevention of ill health, in self-management, in the provision of improved outcomes and in dependence for service users and efficiency savings for the taxpayer. As part of the overall redesign of care, this represents a vital element in the shift towards more preventive care, reducing the imbalance between hospital and primary care spend and making better use of scarce clinical resources. Better integration should facilitate such innovations and would go a long way to making health and social care more self-directed and giving a boost to the personalisation agenda. Integration deserves to be more than a footnote in this Bill. It could be the cornerstone of better quality, value for money and patient-centred care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I hope the noble Baroness will have sensed from my remarks that we want to avoid being overprescriptive. On the other hand, we are clear about what best practice looks like, and in framing JSNAs and the health and well-being strategies we have provided for statutory guidance which can set out what best practice looks like.

I think that that is the appropriate balance, rather than putting “must” in the Bill all the time. Local authorities are autonomous bodies and we must hesitate before directing them too closely. I very much agreed with the points made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on this. It is not, of course, that we regard these as unimportant; it is a question of how much we mandate and how much we leave to local discretion.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I will build slightly on that because I have my name on the same amendments. I understand the Minister’s response regarding the need not to be over-prescriptive, and not to have boards that are burdensome and cannot take decisions easily. He has referred to guidance. It would be very helpful if he could assure us that the contents of this debate and the trends and themes that have come through will inform that guidance, and that the health and well-being boards will be asked to particularly consider and consult with the broad range of professionals and prisoners, and the particular needs of children—which I emphasise. This will ensure that their strategy is broad and really meets the needs, so that there is not, inadvertently, a small board taking narrow decisions.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the substance of this debate will most certainly be fed in. We will be revising the statutory guidance on the joint strategic needs assessment in due course to reflect the changing system. As a result of the Future Forums recommendations, we will also be issuing statutory guidance on the joint health and well-being strategy. There is therefore plenty of scope to build in the very salient and important points that noble Lords have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

337: After Clause 198, insert the following new Clause—
“Health Service Ombudsman for England and Health Service Ombudsman for Wales
All patients receiving care from an organisation that receives any funding from the NHS shall have the right of complaint to the relevant health service ombudsman.”

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this Bill in vast part concerns England only. This amendment concerns both England and Wales. I have tabled it to try to clarify an area in the role of the ombudsman which is currently not clear. Having spoken to the ombudsman in Wales at length about this, and discussed it with the ombudsman in England, with the emergence of any qualified provider and a range of licensed providers in this system, it seems that there is a need to clarify the role of the ombudsman, to make sure that patients have a final port of call when the complaints system has failed them.

I will quote from the Complaints and Litigation report of the House of Commons Health Committee from the previous Session. It states:

“Many people see the role of the Ombudsman as a general appeals process for the complaints system, but the remit under the Health Service Commissioners Act is much narrower than that. The Committee is of the view that a complainant whose complaint is rejected by the service provider should be able to seek independent review. The legal and operational framework of the Ombudsman’s office should be reviewed to make it effective for this wider purpose”.

The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 set out the principle that the ombudsman should be able to investigate an issue if the provider was providing services,

“under arrangements with health service bodies or family health service providers”.

The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales was established in 2005, and also has a responsibility for cross-border work. Last year, however, there was an investigation into a children’s hospice in Wales which revealed the ombudsman’s difficulty when investigating an organisation that provides services for and on behalf of, and receives funding for providing services to, patients in an area but which does not fall under the NHS jurisdiction in any way, and simply has a contractual service-level agreement. The report from the ombudsman in Wales states:

“The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction for the hospice and was unable to investigate Mr & Mrs A’s concerns about the hospice’s actions”.

It goes on to say:

“The Ombudsman commented on his lack of jurisdiction for the hospice, and that there was no other independent body able to investigate Mr & Mrs A’s concerns about the hospice. This is profoundly unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman asked the Welsh Assembly Government to consider what action it could take to bring the hospice into his jurisdiction”.

Hospices are just one area of provision. They are well known, and it is very unusual for there to be complaints in hospices. However, they do occur, and it seems that those using the services of any independent provider in such a way should have the same right of redress as if they were in an NHS facility. The purpose of the amendment is to simply clarify that wherever a patient is being treated, if the NHS has any interest whatever—if this patient is being treated as part of an NHS provision —it should come under the remit of the ombudsman to investigate should the ombudsman feel it is warranted.

I looked back through the report of the Health Service Ombudsman for England and noted that there were 325 complaints last year that did not fall into the remit because they were for privately funded healthcare. This amendment does not ask that the ombudsman’s report should necessarily cover privately funded healthcare. In all honesty, however, if somebody is receiving healthcare, however it is funded, and if that is part of our licensed, inspected and regulated system in this country, where it goes seriously wrong and those bringing a complaint feel it has not been handled satisfactorily, my own view is that we have a national duty to be able to investigate. In doing so, we may find that our inspection processes have failed and that our regulatory processes are not functioning as they should.

That is the background to what might seem a very simple amendment. I really hope the Government will look kindly on it, because having discussed it and its wording in detail with the ombudsman in Wales, I know that it is certainly supported there. I also know that it is not opposed by the ombudsman in England.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, the combination of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Wigley, is a pretty powerful triad by any standards. I express my support for what the noble Baroness said. We have seen some remarkable work done by the ombudsman for England—who I think is retiring from her post—particularly in respect of the care of elderly people. It has been very important in giving the public a sense that they have access to the highest levels when they have a complaint.

My only concern about this amendment is that it is very important indeed that as far as possible complaints are dealt with by health and well-being boards locally, because very often local knowledge is crucial in understanding why something has gone badly wrong. I always think it is significant that the ombudsman for England has been most effective when she has written reports that cover an area. When it comes to a personal complaint, very often it is the local level which is the appropriate one to deal with it. More than that, very much part of the education and understanding that a health and well-being board can bring to the whole issue of patient responses and patient care in the NHS is that people should at least see the local level as the first point of complaint. Having said that, it is obviously important that there is a final, as it were, court of appeal —I do not mean that in a legal sense of the word —and that is what the ombudsman ought to be. Clearly he or she should be independent of any particular interest in the health service, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that it should apply across the board to all providers whether private, voluntary or within the NHS structure.

With those few words, I support the amendment and think it is an important one. However, I emphasise that the starting point should always be, wherever possible, at the local level, and that the ombudsman should be seen as the last and final resort.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the amendment links to an important point of principle which we wholeheartedly support: that any patient or person who receives NHS-funded treatment or care, whether the treatment or care was provided by an NHS or private provider, should have recourse to the Health Service Ombudsman, should their complaint not be resolved through the NHS complaints arrangements at a local level. I assure my noble friend Lady Williams that that is the first stage.

I reassure noble Lords that these types of situation are already provided for in law. I wish to address directly what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised, which is the situation in Wales. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales recently called for his office to be given more power to independently investigate hospices. This follows complaints from the family of a teenage girl who died of leukaemia, about the way their concerns over her care were handled. The ombudsman pointed out that he had no power to investigate the family’s complaints against the hospice, although it received public funds, as it did not fall into the same category as a hospital or a council-run service.

In response to a report published by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales in 2011, we understand the Welsh Government are looking into extending the ombudsman’s remit, to enable him to investigate complaints about hospices and hospice services, as well as extending the existing complaints advocacy arrangements to cover complaints about hospices.

I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by what I have been able to say, in that regard.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I seek a little clarification. If I have understood right, the noble Baroness said that any provider is covered by the Health Service Ombudsman in England, and any cross-border provision would also be covered by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, irrespective of who that provider is. Therefore, the only change needed in primary legislation is to the remit of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, to make sure that the remit for non-NHS providers is extended within Wales; but that otherwise all patients, wherever they are in England, wherever they have come from and irrespective of the provider, have recourse to the NHS ombudsman. I suppose the same should apply to Scotland as well, though there is not the same cross-border flow.

[Baroness Northover]

To clarify, I say that all care paid for by the NHS in England is covered—that is the crucial thing. My noble friend Lady Williams also mentioned other care that might be covered. Whoever provides the care, the crucial thing is who pays for the care. Even if there is a private provider or a voluntary provider as well as an NHS provider, if the NHS is funding that care it comes under the ombudsman’s responsibility.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I do not want to detain the House much further, but I think this is something we need to discuss, and probably away from the Floor of the House. One of the issues about hospices is that their care is not fully funded by the NHS: it is only partly funded. Some providers receive grants to provide care because they are mostly charitably funded, partly NHS-subsidised and helped—but it is not that the NHS is paying for that complete package of care. That is where the confusion and the difficulty lie. It would be helpful if we could unpick this later and see whether we need to return on Report with a very small amendment, so that we can make quite sure that the system is watertight for all patients.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very happy to take up the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we discuss this further. I hope she will be reassured by what I can say about Wales. However, if there is a company, for example, that is providing care partly within the NHS funding, the ombudsman would not cover the rest of what they are doing. It could lead to confusion if that were the case. I mean the NHS-funded part of care. However, I am very happy that we should discuss this concern further. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. On the basis of that and of further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 337 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the amendment has been tabled with the support and assistance of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and has been designed as a new clause that amends the Medicines Act 1968. It is also designed to increase patient safety by removing barriers to a learning culture across the prescription dispensing process, and to remove the injustice that pharmacists alone, among healthcare professionals, face through criminalisation. Single dispensing errors should be treated in a proportionate way that retains the ability to prosecute those who have been negligent or who have committed a deliberate act but that does not penalise pharmacists who wish to declare a dispensing error in the interests of patient safety.

The role of pharmacy continues to be vital to communities throughout England. Pharmacists are at the forefront of providing advice to patients in an increasingly high-pressure environment. In 2010 nearly 927 million prescription items were dispensed in England. This is a 4.6 per cent rise on 2009 and a 67.9 per cent rise on 2000. Despite this, the error rate of dispensing remains minuscule.

What is the background to the current state of the law? Sections 58, 64 and 85 were inserted into the Medicines Act 1968 to regulate the quality of medicinal products being manufactured in pharmacies across the country. There were concerns that the production of these items, primarily creams and solutions that could be prepared to suit to individual needs of patients, required a legal standard of purity. Nowadays, the practice of creating preparations in community pharmacies is practically non-existent. However, these sections of the Medicines Act have been used in a way that they were not originally intended for: to prosecute a pharmacist who makes a single error while dispensing a medicinal product. The law as it stands makes a single error an automatic criminal offence that is punishable by up to two years in prison.

Why should we support this amendment? Currently, pharmacists are expected to declare dispensing errors in the knowledge that they will face prosecution if they do not do so. Clearly, any person who is either wilfully negligent or deliberately acts in a way to harm a person must face prosecution under criminal laws. This amendment would allow that to continue but would also enable a proportionate response for those who make an error. Minor errors should be learnt of and dealt with through improved practice rather than through discouraging healthcare professionals from feeling able to report errors. Decriminalising dispensing errors will be beneficial to patients and the pharmacy profession through the creation of a culture of learning.

The current system goes against the spirit of openness in which pharmacists and other healthcare professionals should be allowed to work, so as to enhance patient safety. This amendment, or something similar, is the right way in which to tackle this important issue. The passage of the current Bill presents an opportunity to tackle this, and one that should not be missed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It raises a very important issue, namely what happens when an error occurs. At the moment, there is an enormous disincentive for the pharmacist to do what one would say is the right thing, which is immediately to contact the patient, or their family, carer or nursing home, to try to put an immediate stop to the further use of that medication and to do all they can to correct the error. In the law as it is written at the moment there is an in-built incentive to a pharmacist to attempt a cover-up, to weigh up whether the error is a major or minor one or one which they might just get away with, or perhaps even to make a phone call that fudges the issue and tries to cover up the fact that they have made a dispensing error, and to reclaim the medication in another way.

In addition to the importance of a spirit of openness, there is an actual safety issue here. We know from looking at medicine and nursing that when you make it easier for people to admit immediately that they have made an error and to do all they can to correct that error, they are much more likely to handle things in an open and honest way and to learn from it. Certainly I say to all my junior staff, “I know that you will make mistakes. The only thing that I will hold against you for the whole of your career is if you do not immediately notify whoever is the consultant covering you at the time. Mistakes will happen, but you must let people know immediately and take every step to correct them”. I do not see why we should be treating pharmacists in law in a way that works against that type of principle and which is inappropriately punitive.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I remind the Committee of my role as chair of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, which has an oversight role with the General Pharmaceutical Council. We believe that single dispensing errors should be treated in a proportionate way that still prosecutes those who have been negligent or have committed a deliberate act but does not penalise pharmacists who want to declare a dispensing error in the interests of patient safety—and I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is about patient safety.

In the interests of patient safety and public protection, we of course expect the regulator to be able to co-operate with other agencies if it is aware of a pattern of repeated single-dispensing errors that might reflect wilful and deliberate acts with the intention of harming patients. In those circumstances, there would of course still be recourse to criminal prosecution. With these exceptions, I very much support this amendment.