British shocked at NHS hospital death rates. Among world's worst, inferior to US

[ArcadiaGP]

British shocked at NHS hospital death rates ? among the world?s worst and (gasp) far inferior to U.S. hospitals | Conservative Intelligence Briefing#

 

[spirit390]

But everyone has excellent healthcare coverage yeah this needs to be in purple

 

[9mmfan]

No surprise there. I know a British doctor practicing here who told me horror stories of rounding in British hospital.

 

[mdmayo]

You just fell in the hole.

This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."

 

[9mmfan]

You just fell in the hole.

This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."

I have my own source, who I'd believe over any internet source. He worked in the environment through the British version of residency. He moved here to actually make money.

 

[cobber]

You just fell in the hole.

This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."

Please enlighten on the DT origin. (source?) The link is to UK Ch 4, not the DT.

About C4 - Channel 4 - Info - Corporate

Channel 4 is a publicly-owned, commercially-funded public service broadcaster. We do not receive any public funding and have a remit to be innovative, experimental and distinctive. Channel 4 works across television, film and digital media to deliver our public service remit, as outlined in the 2003 Communications Act and most recently the 2010 Digital Economy Act.

And here's the BoD:
Channel 4 Board - Channel 4 - Info - Corporate

Purely conservative as in Margaret Thatcher, as opposed to John McCain.

 

[netsecurity]

You just fell in the hole.

This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division. Look at its origins (The London Daily Telegraph) and references; purely conservative (and not in the sense that we know and love) and far from unbiased, it's a Rupert Mourdoch-owned company. Heavily biased media in either side of the balance doesn't represent truth or our interests, it represents the interests of greed and power. Nothing of merit to see here; it is only factual in the sense that "everything you read on the internet is true."

Wow, are you saying the NHS is not inferior because the source was conservative? How about these:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-death-rates-45-2267948

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...mortality-rate-higher-than-in-us-8810310.html

 

[netsecurity]

How about from the NHS itself:

Death rate 'much higher' in English than US hospitals - Health News - NHS Choices

 

[pudly]

You just fell in the hole.

This article represents precisely the kind of reporting (read mass-media dis-information) that leads nowhere but division.

So you are recommending against them so that we can all be exposed to exactly the same information and think the same things?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd be careful drawing any major conclusions. From the NHS site linked by netsecurity:

Therefore, it's worth noting that the mortality rates presented in the data reflect death rates in hospitals and not among people who die outside hospital. It is possible that the poorer groups in society could fare equally well in the NHS, or even better, than they would do in the US.Further, the differences in the way healthcare systems are paid for in the US can potentially have an influence on the way episodes of healthcare are recorded.
It should also be noted that high HSMRs should not automatically be taken as an indicator that all hospital care is poor.

On the opposite side of the coin:

Professor Jarman notes in his report that compared with several of the other countries examined, England has:

• poorer cancer survival
• longer waiting lists
• lower patient input, with only a small proportion of hospital complaints formally investigated
• lower GP out-of-hours on-call service
• lower rates of services, including lower use of diagnostic procedures such as MRI, heart surgery, and lower immunisation rates
• a lower number of doctors per bed and per 1,000 population
• a lower number of acute beds per 1,000 population

Does anyone know if the UK has hospice and nursing home care like the US? People who are beyond saving here are often transferred outside of the hospital where they eventually die.

 

[spirit390]

When you can't dispute the message attack the messenger

 

[Smokepole]

I'd be careful drawing any major conclusions. From the NHS site linked by netsecurity:



On the opposite side of the coin:



Does anyone know if the UK has hospice and nursing home care like the US? People who are beyond saving here are often transferred outside of the hospital where they eventually die.

Here is an article from the Times on the unusually high death rate in British hospitals. Scandal of NHS deaths at weekends | The Sunday Times about unnecessary deaths at hospitals on the weekends because hospitals run only skeletons crews.

And this one from The Times Hospitals ?pay private company to hide death rates? | The Sunday Times reports that NHS hospitals have been using a company to RECLASSIFY deaths to hide an unacceptable death rate.

The company, CHKS, advertised to NHS trusts that it had reduced by a third the mortality rate at one hospital, which is now being investigated for its high death rates. The reduction was achieved by categorising patients so that their deaths were seen as unavoidable and had less impact on mortality league tables.

The disclosure will lead to concerns that practices exposed at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, where 1,200 people died unnecessarily, were more widespread than previously thought.

Never mind where they are putting terminal patients here, look what they are doing with the data over there.

And if I remember correctly, in the U.K. NHS won't house terminal patients in hospitals because it is too costly unless they are receiving "approved" treatment". And if they are old and nearing the back end of the mortality and morbidity tables they won't be granted the treatment to begin with. As opposed to over here if the hospital and the Doc are getting paid it doesn't matter how old a patient is. Unless we are talking about at transplant.

mdmayo, you should pay less attention to which news agency is doing the reporting and look at the SOURCE of the data. Unless you do you are shouting out YOUR bias. And maybe willful blindness.

 

[Smokepole]

And here's a search page with many articles on the failings of the NHS ( I hope it carries). nhs death rate | Search | The Times

 

[mdmayo]

The presentation, if not the interpretation, of the material presented was undeniably biased by the source. Statistics are very... plastic. And variables, like where terminal patients are sent to die, do affect the statistical picture dramatically. Experts are still looking at this very critically. As lay people in the scientific world, We too should be sceptical.

 

[CarmelHP]

The presentation, if not the interpretation, of the material presented was undeniably biased by the source. Statistics are very... plastic. And variables, like where terminal patients are sent to die, do affect the statistical picture dramatically. Experts are still looking at this very critically. As lay people in the scientific world, We too should be sceptical.

You've shown no credible reason to discredit the report. If you don't like it, find contrary credible evidence.

 

[Rhoadmar]

The presentation, if not the interpretation, of the material presented was undeniably biased by the source. Statistics are very... plastic. And variables, like where terminal patients are sent to die, do affect the statistical picture dramatically. Experts are still looking at this very critically. As lay people in the scientific world, We too should be sceptical.

So look into it. When the raw data supports the claim does it matter whether it was Rush Limbaugh or Huff po that pointed you towards researching it. Where are your sources?

 

[mdmayo]

Google (well, Startpage actually) is still your friend. Just one of many, incidentally from the same sources used to refute the point. See here: Keogh review into 14 NHS hospitals did not find disaster on scale of Mid Staffs | Society | theguardian.com
Presented are some very credible reasons, both to be vigilant and to be skeptical. We are too quick to hop on the train to blame a system rather than ensuring that the data is apples to apples, and that it's not being misinterpreted (and not necessarily with any agenda, statistics once again are tricky and malleable.) Our system is broken, their's may be damaged, both are fixable and neither alone are the answer.

Also, it isn't raw data. It has been reduced and analyzed and had recommendations made based on its veracity. The raw data needs to be looked at through other filters, it is amazingly easy to unintentionally skew data in any of the steps and bears further scrutiny.

Just like our "global warming" debates. the initial knee jerk to the statistical models didn't grab all of us up. When we questioned it aloud we were shouted down. Just now are other scientists looking at arguments that we presented a decade ago that influence the interpretation of the data, in ways that are yielding results that do not support the forgone theoretical conclusion of man-made climate change.

 

[printcraft]

 

[Rhoadmar]

Google (well, Startpage actually) is still your friend. Just one of many, incidentally from the same sources used to refute the point. See here: Keogh review into 14 NHS hospitals did not find disaster on scale of Mid Staffs | Society | theguardian.com
Presented are some very credible reasons, both to be vigilant and to be skeptical. We are too quick to hop on the train to blame a system rather than ensuring that the data is apples to apples, and that it's not being misinterpreted (and not necessarily with any agenda, statistics once again are tricky and malleable.) Our system is broken, their's may be damaged, both are fixable and neither alone are the answer.

Also, it isn't raw data. It has been reduced and analyzed and had recommendations made based on its veracity. The raw data needs to be looked at through other filters, it is amazingly easy to unintentionally skew data in any of the steps and bears further scrutiny.

Just like our "global warming" debates. the initial knee jerk to the statistical models didn't grab all of us up. When we questioned it aloud we were shouted down. Just now are other scientists looking at arguments that we presented a decade ago that influence the interpretation of the data, in ways that are yielding results that do not support the forgone theoretical conclusion of man-made climate change.

Keogh is certainly un biased, being the director of NHS. Look at raw numbers.

 

[CarmelHP]

Google (well, Startpage actually) is still your friend. Just one of many, incidentally from the same sources used to refute the point. See here: Keogh review into 14 NHS hospitals did not find disaster on scale of Mid Staffs | Society | theguardian.com
Presented are some very credible reasons, both to be vigilant and to be skeptical. We are too quick to hop on the train to blame a system rather than ensuring that the data is apples to apples, and that it's not being misinterpreted (and not necessarily with any agenda, statistics once again are tricky and malleable.) Our system is broken, their's may be damaged, both are fixable and neither alone are the answer.

Also, it isn't raw data. It has been reduced and analyzed and had recommendations made based on its veracity. The raw data needs to be looked at through other filters, it is amazingly easy to unintentionally skew data in any of the steps and bears further scrutiny.

Just like our "global warming" debates. the initial knee jerk to the statistical models didn't grab all of us up. When we questioned it aloud we were shouted down. Just now are other scientists looking at arguments that we presented a decade ago that influence the interpretation of the data, in ways that are yielding results that do not support the forgone theoretical conclusion of man-made climate change.

So when independent reviewers say their system is broken, you don't believe it, but when the guy who is responsible for (and would get the blame) says everything is OK, you swallow it hook, line and sinker? Wow, you really convinced me.