Patricia Hewitt’s review of the latest NHS reforms
BMJ 2023; 381 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p837 (Published 14 April 2023) Cite this as: BMJ 2023;381:p837
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
I have tried on many occasions to ask this:
Where is the workforce plan?
Where is the workforce plan?
How can any organisation be expected to function if it has no idea of the number of people it requires to perform its role and meet its objectives?
The Government set the budget for the NHS until 23/24 BEFORE it tasked the IPRB 2 years ago. Any statement from the Health Secretary saying the IPRB is free of Government interference is simply untrue. Additionally the IPRB has repeatedly been sent remit letters far too late for the April pay rounds; DHSC and NHSE have added to the problem by submitting their written evidence up to a month late.
According to my (Conservative) MP, the Government simply provides the funding: it is, apparently, NHSE’s responsibility to set the priorities and objectives for the NHS. I wonder, therefore, what the point is of having a Health Secretary at all.
It is OUR money that is being spent. The Government has a duty to ensure it is spent correctly. If the Government and NHSE have not provided a workforce plan, by what yardstick can anyone measure whether OUR money is being spent effectively?
The Hewitt report fails to address this fundamental point, on which every single one of her recommendations must rest.
So, I ask again:
Where is the workforce plan?
The BMA, RCN, and the BMJ have a duty to keep asking this until there is an answer. Without one, nothing else matters.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Patricia Hewitt’s record is quite bad.
Dear Editor
As a born again advisor and former Labour secretary of state Patricia Hewitt brings a track record of destruction and despair.
Notably her "nationalisation" of out of hours GP services, followed by repeated cutbacks in the name of efficiency is largely the cause of the mess emergency care is in now. The well-functioning, self-financing GP co-ops, as welcome relief from shorter duty rotas within the 24 hour contract, reaped great benefits for patient care and cost effectiveness.
Primary care included palliative care and recognising and supporting end of life care with a timely response in a crisis. Also we did triage for hospital admission to the right place avoiding the bottleneck also known as A&E. And of course GPs could and did provide "conventional" primary care for those who could not (and often should not) wait for the next surgery session.
So with this track record, why is she back advising the Conservatives?
Competing interests: No competing interests