I think about this complex topic a lot because I frequently hear from, or meet with, staff and public who raise concerns about care quality. Francis links it to culture, but it remains difficult to understand ‘why’ we have a problem. Until we do understand this, solutions will continue to elude us
We know that most hospital staff are competent and compassionate, and we know that staff who feel valued and supported will deliver good care. We also know from staff surveys that morale is low and that somehow, the system all too often acts to demotivate and disengage the staff who work within it
Sometimes, the impact of this demoralisation overcomes individual professionalism, and care problems occur. Doctors, nurses, and managers can all reach this ‘tipping point’, and we need to think through why it occurs
I suggest there are three overlapping, contributory factors…
The rise of managerialism
The introduction of managers into the NHS was never effectively sold to either staff or public. We know that ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ so, without a convincing narrative, front line culture filled the gap with reasons that were not always positive. Consequently, managers have always struggled to establish their legitimacy. Indeed, years later politicians still see the ‘reduce bureaucracy’ line at election time as a vote winner
Targets and performance culture
Targets were introduced to address failings in access times, trolley waits outside A&E departments, and rising healthcare-acquired infections. All were priorities at the time but a narrative was again lacking which meant that, even today, most front line staff believe the 4hr target to be about politics rather than patient care. This created a ‘values divide’ between staff caring for patients, and managers tasked with delivering the target, that persists to this day
Matters worsened as central performance management strengthened. The 4hr target in particular came to be seen as a measure of ‘good governance’ and therefore had to be delivered at all costs. Boards were now driven by different priorities than front line staff, with targets dominating however much they talked quality. Downward pressure meant that sometimes measures were implemented that ‘hit the target and missed the point’, further diminishing the authority of local management
Growing pressure on hospitals
Hospitals have got hugely busier over the years, and the work is more demanding and more relentless. With shorter lengths of stay, a higher proportion of patients are very ill, requiring more intensive care and support. The communal day rooms of my junior doctor days, where most patients ate meals at table together, have gone because few patients are now well enough to use them
While designed to provide acute care, hospitals have become the default option for the entire system. All other providers close at times, while hospitals remain open, even when full. Consequently, the elderly in particular are admitted because the support needed to allow them to cope at home is not available quickly enough – acute illness is often not the real reason
Another factor is the continual push to reduce capacity, even though there has so far been no ramping up of alternative means of supporting people elsewhere. Commissioners see hospitals as ‘the problem’, hence the bizarre policy of reducing the acute tariff by 70%, when in fact it is the entire system of care they are responsible for that has not kept pace with changing demography
The net effect on front line staff is more patients who are more ill and with more complex needs than ever before, staffing levels that haven’t kept pace with this, and frequent crises caused by spikes in activity against a background of nearly 100% bed occupancy
***
Of course there are counter-arguments to elements of this analysis, but I believe it will resonate with many who are feeling very criticised this week. Those of us who run the NHS have failed to create alignment with our staff, based on agreed common values and priorities – the crucial ‘shared purpose’ of the excellent NHS Change Model. Until we achieve this, the culture change Francis describes will not happen and we risk pockets of poor care from the few whose professionalism slips in the face of daily pressure and disengagement from the system in which they work
Some obvious solutions follow logically from the above, and in my next blog I will discuss some practical approaches we might try in order to bring about the cultural change that many of us feel is long overdue

David O'Regan
Interesting discussion and points
I believe we miss the operative word in NHS. It is service. To serve defines our values and therefore attitudes and behaviours This is the essence of culture. We need managers and doctors at every level – a necessary complementary pair. Unfortunately those roles and responsibilities are often poorly defined This can and does resulin overlap and therefore conflict. I wonder if our organisation structures and boards are fit for purpose.
The second pilar of a service industry is data – compared to othe industries our NHS data is very poor. You cannot manage or understand the business without data
I also agree with Christensen that we have confused the essential business models of health care
Diagnostic
Value based procedures
Networks
Richard Blogger (@richardblogger)
The problem with queues is not so much that you are waiting, but that you do not how long you will wait. As a patient, it causes a lot of anxiety to be told you need treatment but are not told when. People like the security of a date, or time, for when they will be treated.
That is why waiting time targets are popular with patients: they are a guarantee that, even if the patient does not know *exactly* when they will be treated, they do know it will be before the target. The patient knows that they will be treated before the (totally unacceptably long wait of) 18 weeks from referral or they will be treated before the (totally unacceptably long wait of) 4 hours in A&E. If you get rid of the targets then even if the waits are less, patients will not be happy because you are getting rid of the one certainty they have.
The solution, of course, is to have an appointments system that works, where appointments are “chiselled in stone” and patients know that once informed of an appointment the date will not change. I accept that the RTT target does not help, but before we get rid of it, we have to sort out appointments.
Sebastian Yuen
I had two interesting experiences of waiting unexpectedly that I Tweeted (@S3bster):
At Christmas I accompanied a friend who sustained a nasty wrist fracture party. We waited nearly two hours at a major University Hospital for adequate pain relief and just felt processed. No one gave information / compassion / food / drink / pain relief. Powerless we waited while she suffered in obvious severe pain. The whole situation changed when the SHO finally gave IV morphine.
A couple of weeks later I spun my car in the snow on the M5. When I finally arrived at the rescue yard, I was welcomed with a smile and offered a large mug of tea. I nearly cried with joy! They told me how long I would wait and I immediately accepted a two hour wait. They then helped me order pizza.
There are many reasons why the latter is not like the NHS. It costs nothing, however, to show kindness and takes only a moment to listen. This is also cost effective.
If Francis achieves just one thing, I hope we put the patient back at the centre of care
Suzanne Shale
This is a great blog with fascinating follow up comments. I want to pick out Sebastian Yuen’s and Andrew Vincent’s contribution to the debate. PLEASE excuse me if what comes next sounds like self-promotion, it is genuinely not intended to be. Their comments really reflect themes that came out in my research into medical directors’ moral behaviour and that I write about in my book. I found that MD’s were having to balance five kinds of value driven behaviour that were constantly in tension. I called the behaviours “propriety” for want of a better word. FIrst is fiduciary behaviour, which is about standing up for patients. Next is bureaucratic behaviour, which is a virtue when it is about fairness in organisations and acting in the service of the public not yourself (ie nepotism is the opposite of it). Third is collegial behaviour which is about obligations to your colleagues, and those you lead. It’s about recognising that no clinician acts as a one person band, but can only act with others. Fourth is inquisitorial behaviour, which is about the obligation to inquire fairly into perceived wrongs and harms (eg to respond judiciously when concerns are escalated to you). Last is restorative behaviour, which is about making amends with and on behalf of patients and professionals when things go wrong. The challenge – and this is where I agree with AV’s comments on complexity and not just bland talk about values – is to balance these behaviours when they are in tension. Eg if you are redesigning patient pathways there is a tension between what individual or small groups of patients might benefit from and what other or larger groups of patients might benefit from – ie a tension between fiduciary and bureaucratic behaviour. The other key thing I think is that the “morally successful” and effective MDs I interviewed were people who (a) had a network of trusted advisors so they weren’t making difficult calls alone, and (b) recognised the power of groups as miniature moral communities so they saw moral action (care) emerging as a group property not from individual heroes. So they invested time building the resilience of groups. Sorry for the long post. I hope this is a useful contribution to the discussion.
Andrew Vincent
Suzanne – this is immensely helpful. The successful MD traits quoted at the end fit entirely with my personal view that we must build a leadership approach based on distributed leadership, which, spookily, is underpinned by:
a.) the assumption that complex problems and conflicting priorities need multiple minds to create genuine solutions (trusted advisors),
b.) the principle that once leadership (and accountability) is distributed, the ability of a few with power to apply a direction at odds with the general well-being of patient, organisation and system is balanced by the collective moral compass of the group (who MUST have an equal responsibility in not undermining progress to the detriment of the same), and
c.) the notion that group success comes from successful interactions and consensus, itself underpinned by putting the right intellectual minds at the table to come up with solutions we could agree on
I would love to read your book. Title? (and that won’t be self-promotion – I asked!)
Suzanne Shale
Thanks for your interest Andrew, and your further comments. I really agree with you. The book is called Moral Leadership in Medicine: Building Ethical Healthcare Organisations (Cambridge 2012) I interviewed 24 NHS medical directors in secondary and primary care about the ‘moral troubles’ they perceived in their leadership role, and how exactly they had tackled them. I was really interested to find out how they behaved, that is “enacted” their commitments. They were candid, enriching and moving interviews and I hope I managed to capture some of that in the book. I know the account resonates with other leaders in healthcare (not just MDs) who recognise the complexity of their roles in it. THANKS MARK, for supporting conversations like these on your blogsite.
Sebastian Yuen
Dear Mark
Thank you for starting this great debate.
We Need MORE Managers!
I believe that for many frontline staff, the problem is that managers appear to come from somewhere else to impose (with varying intensity) something unwanted on them, for some unknown reason. At the same time, clinicians have lots they need help with and it seems to them very difficult to get management attention for their priorities.
I think we need MORE managers (or clinical leaders)! They should be embedded in every ward, understand the needs of patients and staff and communicate effectively between the board and floor.
We need, as Julie Bailey (Cure The NHS) says, to turn the NHS the right way up. The Patient and Family Centred Care Programme, starts by shadowing patients and staff to understand their perspective. Patients and clinicians then co-design a better system with executive support.
Targets Are Great!
Targets can be transformational! Patients no longer wait 36 hours in the Emergency Department or 18 months for surgery.
The problem is in the implementation and engagement with staff. Frontline staff and patients need to understand measurement for improvement, data, variation and have immediate access to their own quality dashboard on a plasma screen by the nurses’ station. We need the patients to ask: “why are infections / cancelled operations / delays / staff morale so bad here?”
An emerging field is gamification. This turns work into a game (with targets, points, badges, rewards and a leaderboard). Done well, it is very powerful for engaging staff in corporations and aligning them with organisation priorities.
One example of the power of a self-selected goal to improve health is Nike+ Fuel Band (http://ow.ly/hCMOY). This tracks your exercise, compares with your targets and shares your data with friends via FaceBook. Seeing our own improvement – supported by friends and family – helps us care more about our goal.
30 Seconds Compassion:
We are all increasingly busy. I suggest we start to consider what we stop doing, as long as we still focus on the patient, organisational priorities and the NHS Constitution. We can all also afford 30 Seconds Compassion with each patient and relative and ask, “What could I do to help you?”
MarkN
Hi Sebastian, Very thought-provoking as always! Not sure about more managers – in my mind we need to enable clinical staff to do the right thing (safe, caring, efficient, effective) without being ‘managed’ if at all possible? Then we really will have created the kind of culture we need to move forward. Targets have achieved much, as I acknowledged, but there is no doubt they can lead to unintended consequences, even if there isn;t an oppressive performance culture associated with them. My worry is that the ‘non-targeted’ areas get overlooked and not invested in. Examples of this are care of the frail elderly, a joined up urgent care system to name but two. Gamification is a fascinating concept which could work in selected areas. I would worry about going Trustwide with a novel approach like this – my staff are sceptical about ‘initiatives’ especially if they could be seen as gimicky!
Andrew Vincent
I am inclined to think we have an over-managed and under-led system. In no way I am suggesting that we shouldn’t have managers (which would be an archaic viewpoint) but when we are having to carry the cost of say ‘workforce panels’ and then tying senior service leaders in knots with business cases, cash flow projections etc it is not surprising that it is a.) difficult to balance the books and b.) difficult to get sufficient focus on complex problems and c.) so difficult to get genuine levels of service-level ownership.
My key question for some time now has been “if you’re service leaders would never take a workforce decision that wasn’t in the best interests of service, Trust and system combined, why would you ever want or need a work-force panel?”
If the answer is that you can’t trust them to take such decisions, it points to the developmental journey that needs undertaking to resolve the root cause of needing that panel in the first place! Doctors are extremely well equipped mentally to handle the complexity of issues, more so than most, but they do need some assistance in how to apply their clinical complex problem-solving brain and thought-processes in non-clinical situations, which is frequently about conflicting priorities.
Sorry for the volume…
Sebastian Yuen
Dear Mark and Andrew,
thank you for the feedback and challenge.
Rather than more managers, maybe I should have said more management and leadership capacity and capability. We certainly do not need more administration, bureaucracy, meetings or reports. Many clinical job plans do not allow much time for service development. Many clinicians – even the enthusiasts – lack business and quality improvement skills. Until we have trained a critical mass – and you both already play a key part in this – we will need the support of high quality managers.
This is because we all have two jobs – the one we were trained for – and improving that job. For example, I am developing whole system pathways for asthma and deliberate self-harm (with clinicians, patients, managers and commissioners). Without support, progress is slow. And we need another 10-20 pathways developing!
Bruce Gray
Ref. “Doctors are extremely well equipped mentally to handle the complexity of issues, more so than most, but they do need some assistance in how to apply their clinical complex problem-solving brain and thought-processes in non-clinical situations”.
At least they have a method/mental model to build upon, and from which to bridge to non-clinical situations. Do enough managers have this capability?
Andrew Vincent
I think rather than focus on what managers don’t have, it is better to look at the strength that clinicians do. Daily, clinically – they face having to make balanced decisions based on insufficient data in circumstances where everything is constantly changing… just like a market! They know that to hold back will often bring consequences, just as much as acting incorrectly – just like a market!
My proposal is that the very skill and mind set that predisposes good medicine in acute circumstances is the same skill and mindset necessary to operate in today’s environment, of…
- constantly changing circumstances
- high cost of failure
- failure precipitated by both inaction (really common today) and wrong action (Mid Staffs)
- incomplete information that’s constantly changing too
Simon Hackwell
Hi Mark
I think the two big things that come out of Francis is listen to the staff and listen to the communities we serve. We have perhaps spent too long listening to the system above us rather than those all around us.
We need a much deeper connection with our local people and work with them to define standards, priorities and performance. The problem with this local approach is that it does not sit well within a NATIONAL health service and those who see it as their job to manage and regulate it as a homogeneous system. This is a serious tension and one that will be stretched over the next few years.
For me the future strategy has to be ‘local’ for most of our hospitals. We need more horizontal and bottom-up performance management than the top down kind we have been used to. Who knows we might even find change, reconfiguration and the QIPP agenda easier to deliver as a result.
Simon
MarkN
Thanks for commenting Simon. As you know I completely agree with you!
Bruce Gray
Mark,
It’s not so much that the politician’s cry to reduce bureaucracy is a vote-winner, but rather, a useful smokescreen and bit of ‘red meat’ to throw to the public (& media) to distract attention from HM Tresury’s desire to control the size & growth of the H&SC budget – which is a major vote-loser for all parties.
On Managerialism: having ‘managers’ doesn’t have to mean Managerialism. There are more ways to manage the complex social & technical systems of large organisations than just a public sector version of manage-by-the-numbers Taylorism, which is where Managerialism has its roots. I found a bleak quote from a Charles Moore piece in the Telegraph last year discussing managerialism: “The workers cannot respect their bosses. Management becomes “not symbiotic, but parasitic”. ”
Which segues nicely to ‘Targets and performance culture…everything you write in this section is described by the ‘System Drivers’ element of the NHS Change model (which I also think is excellent).
And finally, the situation you describe in the ‘Growing pressure on hospitals’ section is itself a result of managerisalism – i.e. a point optimsation focus (hospital as silo) combined with a ‘manage by the numbers’ approach rather than understanding & optimisng at a system level.
IMHO, new knowledge leads to different thinking, leads to different decisions and actions, leads to reflection and learning, leads to different behaviours and leads eventually to a different culture. Thanks for kicking this off, let the debate begin…
MarkN
Thanks for the comments Bruce. Re politicians I’m sure you are right but it does illustrate the ‘doctor or nurse good, manager bad’ mindset that is undermining of managers and limits their ability to be a force for good.
I may have used the term managerialism inaccurately? I meant the introduction of managers to run the service as opposed to the previous way. Many clinical staff feel it was/is unnecessary at best and positively harmful at worst. The professional mindset is that it is inappropriate to be managed – hence the partnership model that GPs and lawyers adopt.
Bruce Gray
Ref. “The professional mindset is that it is inappropriate to be managed”.
Which has echoes in the ‘parasitic’ comment in the Telegraph quote.
Encapsulated in this thinking is the traditional hierarchy of an organisation – boss at the top, workers below, and the workers are working for the boss; inward-looking.
But there are organisations that turn this on it’s head and look outwards by thinking about who adds value in relation to whatever the purpose of the organisation exists to achieve. In this context the managers support the value-adders to add value and focus the organisation on the creation of value.
In healthcare the purpose is health & well-being (of our population), the value-adders are the clinicians, front-line staff, etc. So the question to ask of the leaders and staff of an organisation is; how can this organisation continually align it’s resources to best support us to add value and thereby deliver my, and our, purpose?
Would looking at it this way ameliorate the professional attitude to being managed you described?
Andrew Vincent
I think it also highlights that the relentless pursuit of more for less in the absence of skills to get do it safely and genuine solutions that work creates a situation where Boards feel under enormous personal threat and yet damned no matter which way they turn.
Do I fix quality and risk financial collapse with immediate personal implications (get fired), or do I fix finances and risk quality (whilst also damaging engagement, motivation etc). Unfortunately, the risks are not even. Delivering financial results ‘might’ cause safety issues but failing to deliver them will frequently cause senior job losses and career failure. Humans are self-preserving and will go with the better chance.
Ultimately, we need to know how to overcome complex problems in the face of this and we need to mobilise intellect to come up with better solutions that combine quality and financial result. This in its own right is a simplification of an enormously complex area.
Mark, you are raising some issues that just don’t have enough debate about them. Me too. It appears that too many others seem to think that just ‘focusing on values’ fixes this complex behavioural problem.
Andrew Vincent, Partner, Medicademy LLP
MarkN
You encapsulate the issues and the need very well Andrew. Like whistleblowing (below) it is complex and we need wide and inclusive debate to arrive at some implementable solutions. Francis is an opportunity we mustn’t let pass without taking this forward!
Andrew Vincent
Thank you for the response. I am determined that the debate should take place in contribution of actionable solutions. Perhaps you might join me?
MarkN
I’d love to Andrew
@BiggusDiggus
Hi Mark
Thanks for this. V interesting. I dont work in the NHS but I know (and guess you do) that there is a group of NHS workers who have complained long and loud at the problems relating to whistleblowing in the NHS which is pertinent to caring. They say that there are many instances where staff who raise issues concerning poor care are black-balled.
I personally have talked to a number of staff who confirm this and say they will only take concerns so far as they are concerned about being targetted. Being able to say that there is a problem without fear of recrimination so it can be fixed is obviously important, as you are on the record as saying a number of times. It does seem clear from the Francis report that whatever the ultimate causes of the problems there, v few people felt able to speak up and those who did got into trouble. Lots of people have been saying that the problems are Midstaffs are extant elsewhere in the NHS. If that is the case I think its quite telling that we are not hearing a stream of whistleblowers speaking up right now.
This is obviously a very complex area but Id be interested to know what your assessment of the nature and scale of this problem (if it is a problem) is.
MarkN
Hi, this is a really complex area as I have written about elsewhere. There is unquestionably a problem with raising concerns/whistleblowing in the NHS – I acknowledge this because the evidence shows there is but i have no idea how widespread it is. Personally I don’t understand the logic of suppressing those who voice genuine concerns – far better to know there is an issue and address it before there are consequences far worse than any embarrassment caused.
I do find that those who are disaffected for other reasons frequently label themselves as whistleblowers, and these people can only damage the interests of those who are genuine. However i guess if we dealt with the whole issue better then the opportunity would not arise?
Sorry cannot be more specific. Like bullying it is a practise we must all condemn. However like so much of Francis 2 there is little guidance as to the practical steps we should take – all good ideas welcome and I would be happy to champion!
Algar Goredema-Braid
A very useful analysis. I would only add that changes have often been imposed and implemented without meaningful engagement of many involved. This has alienated and or demotivated staff. Staff feel disempowered. Having recently returned to front line delivery, I also see staff expected to deliver without the necessary basic resources and in unrealistic timescales. Therefore often they are forced to cut corners.
I totally agree also with W’s comment.
MarkN
Thank you – I agree the combination of lack of engagement and heavy and continual work pressure is an unfortunate combination which can impact on care quality
Fender1961
An Excellent article which contains many truths.
One thing that has struck me about caring, is that we as NHS staff simply don’t care for each another enough. When I joined the NHS 30 years ago – in a lowly clerical job – I was struck by how little time and respect staff seemed to have for each other. It is far too simple an analysis to say that doctors were arrogant and aloof and that nurses were “put upon” by everyone – what struck me and still does is that there isnt a recognition that all of us regardless of our role are there for one common purpose – to care for patients. Instead we spend far too much time on internal issues and worry more about a host of trivial matters but spend too little time sorting out the real problems. Until we do this my view would be that we won’t be able to care for ourselves and thus not for the really important people – the patients.
W
MarkN
Thanks I agree. It is often surprising how little knowledge staff have about their colleagues in other parts of the hospital.