Stafford Hospital Scandal

Data shows there were between 400 and 1,200 more deaths than would have been expected at Stafford Hospital from 2005 to 2008. However it is impossible to say all of these patients would have survived if they had received better treatment.

But one thing that it is clear is that many were let down by a culture that put cost-cutting and meeting targets ahead of the quality of patient care.

Examples include patients being so thirsty that they had to drink dirty water from vases and at times receptionists were left to decide which patients to treat in A&E.

You may have read about investigations into the scandal before because there have actually been five major investigations into care at Stafford Hospital.

The first investigation began in May 2008 and was prompted by complaints and statistics showing unusually high death rates at the hospital. The March 2009 report following this investigation brought the scandal to national prominence for the first time.

The most recent investigation, the public inquiry, was looking at how the lapses could have been allowed to take place and why they were not picked up sooner. The commissioning and regulation of the trust at the time was also being looked at as this is something campaigners felt had not been looked at properly before.

The resultant report argued for "fundamental change" in the culture of the NHS to make sure patients were put first.

The report made a total of 290 recommendations, including making it a criminal offence to hide information about poor care, introducing laws to oblige doctors to be open with patients about their mistakes, a code of conduct for senior managers and an increased focus on compassion in the recruitment, training and education of nurses.

It was also announced that a new post of ‘chief inspector of hospitals’ will be created in the autumn.

However the fundamental change needed does not mean more reorganisation of the NHS. In fact, the report suggests that one of the factors behind the problems at Stafford Hospital was the constant upheaval the NHS is under.

Despite calls from relatives for the individuals involved in the scandal to face sanctions the report states that the board is ultimately responsible. ‘It was the board which took the decision to pursue a cost-cutting drive to achieve foundation trust status and it was the board which refused to listen to the complaints of patients and at times staff.’

Finally there are still certain questions which remain unanswered for me, for example; Why wasn't the alarm raised earlier? Could an incident like this happen again? Perhaps some of these questions will be answered in the full response to the inquiry due to released next month.