Are Government Targets Undermining The Fight Against Hospital Superbugs?

A major clinical organizations has accused the government of putting targets before patients in a damning report published recently. Board of the British Medical Association has told Science that patients are being put at risk of hospital bugs like MRSA and C. difficile, because of policy objectives. The pressure to treat patients with too much too quickly and keep beds occupied leaves little time for adequate cleaning, the report of the BMA.

The report shows the UK, second in an international league of hospital infections – only behind Sweden – although the numbers are going down. However, recent figures seem to support the BMA’s report, showing that although the numbers dropped sharply in the past year, the number of MRSA infections and C. difficile are creeping upward. The argument is that government policy is putting patients at risk because there is neither time nor resources to ensure that deep cleaning methods are actually employed on a regular basis. The report says that short-term solutions are backed by little or no evidence that the methods that actually work and long term strategies are needed to ensure the safety of all patients at risk of infection of germ.

Doctors are unanimous in their support for the call for longer-term measures to combat the spread of MRSA and C difficile, but are increasingly concerned that the objectives of the hospital are in the way of developing an effective strategy that is applicable in the NHS. A belt and braces approach “to the health clinic for medical staff (both hand washing with soap and water followed by the use of alcohol gel) is a fundamental aspect of that process.

The problem is that it only takes one incident of a staff member or, more likely, a visitor to the village forget that the infection process to claim another victim. Deep cleaning of hospital wards is considered reasonably effective, but only if all other measures are implemented, as well and is part of a package of preventive measures carried out and religiously the highest possible levels. The concern is that the need to meet the objectives may undermine the good intentions that pave the way for the eradication of germ.

The principle aspect of medical malpractice claims is not only to compensate victims of what may be regarded as failures in the normally high standards set by the NHS. They are also a key way of highlighting the errors and operational aspects of a unit that may have led to a failure in duty of care to patients. It is through repeated exposure to the truth of the situation that has served the NHS and health authorities to take measures to combat the spread of MRSA. Now it seems that health professionals in the frontline feel hampered by the pressure to meet targets rather than ensuring that every possible measure is taken to protect the vulnerable from superbugs.

A 1999 study found that infected patients stayed in hospital for a period of 11 days, costs the NHS an extra £ 3,000 per person for additional treatment. Add to that the rising costs of patients suing the NHS and it is obvious that this money would be better used in a concerted and coordinated effort to produce a long term solution. In medical negligence cases highlights the failures of a system that is struggling hard to give patients the best care possible. If you are burdened by the accounting estimates and greater pressure to meet government targets that do not take into account the underlying price for both patients and welfare and the cost of maintaining a clean environment, then the battle against the super has a new enemy – the state itself.