How many deaths in St Andrews, Northampton? Who is accountable?

Whichhemaccountability-in-the-nhs-report-jun11

Who protects the vulnerable voiceless, like Bill, and Kristian, paying £6,000 (£4,500 tax free) per week, for their enforced ‘treatment’?

How many of them  have died in St Andrews?

A freedom of information request, revealed, the CQC, apparently, indicating, they were not prepared, to investigate the deaths at St Andrews,

“CQC was aware of the service’s own reviews, following the deaths and, following a meeting with the provider in 2011, we wrote asking for information about their clinical governance and assurance processes with regard to how natural-cause deaths are identified and investigated.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/07/call-inquiry-deaths-psychiatric-hospital

But how can they be ‘natural deaths’?

A ‘natural death’ is defined as

‘death due to a disease running its full course with no other intervening factors’.

But nobody,  dying in St Andrews, appeared, to be suffering from any disease, as far as could be gleaned, from the hospital’s ‘routine’, if not refused, health check.

And if they were, why was their disease not treated, for the providers £4,500 per week payment ?

I was unable to find Care Quality Commission Reports for St Andrews for 2010/11.

But four years later, a CQC report stated it still

requires improvement’, https://www.google.co.uk/#q=st+andrews+health+care+care+quality+commission

Yet, St Andrews own website, appears to boast it is ‘outstanding’.

http://www.standrewshealthcare.co.uk/our-services

And, why is St Andrews, still the only alternative, particularly for young autistic/ learning disabled/ behavioural problems ?

And, as beds in public ATUs, are all to be phased out, on the much publicised excuse, of the abuse in Winterbourne View, (which was a private institution), together with huge political clout, St Andrews, along with Cygnet and a few others, all private, will be the only places mental patients can be sent.

And, its newly opened, 120 bed adolescent unit, was found, by the CQC, to be so understaffed, patients were forced to restrain each other.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2013/12/17/inadequate-staffing-supervision-young-peoples-mental-health-unit-finds-cqc/

How can this be ‘treatment’ and, how can it justify  £6,000 per week, per patient, when tax free element factored in.

So, we have a provider, being paid a fortune, for what, the scant, government controlled oversight of the CQC has, in its light touch inspections, revealed ‘inadequate’.

No accountability for services, and use of huge sums of public money, and no measure of outcomes for the service users.

The perfect business model.

As 3% of St Andrew’s patients, were residents of Northamptonshire.

The Local Healthwatch Northamptonshire, had a statutory right/duty, to go into  this publically funded, privately run local health  service, to assess the care provided, from the perspective of patients, and service users.

They visited St Andrews, and reported in 2014.

http://www.healthwatchnorthamptonshire.co.uk/sites/default/files/st_andrews_summary_dec_2014_ms.pdf

‘that the mix of staff means there are a high proportion of relatively inexperienced and unqualified staff meaning that patients are not always receiving the clinical expertise and knowledge’.

‘ staffing levels, ( 2 registered nurses per ward), are putting patient safety at risk.

Patients who talked about low staffing levels said this has a knock on effect on the quality of care including the ability to increase their level of relative freedom, for example being able to go out in the grounds.’

The Healthwatch, had particular concerns, about the physical healthcare of patients, finding 38% of physical complaints were upheld.

But then, surprisingly, in view of these findings,  Healthwatch concludes,

‘its expectation is that, as commissioners of the service, NHS England, is robustly holding SAH to account for the quality of all aspects of service provision, including physical healthcare’.

But it clearly isn’t holding SAH to account.

But, they do recommend, that SAH reviews, the 7, unexpected deaths during 2013/14, to establish whether there were any actions, that could have been taken, to prevent them.

One, would surely have thought, reviews, would automatically result from  a patient’s death, as a basic safety issue in respect to future treatment, and not need, an external body to recommend them.

Remember, these patients are only mentally ill, not physically, so why are they dying in such numbers ?

This surely says a lot about the lack of their care, and actual treatment ?

Keeping mentally disordered patients alive, surely should be the most basic requirement of care costing £6,000 per week.

And, if patients die, then the service provider should be held liable, particularly, if the patients care costs so much, and they are not physically ill.

Why is the NHS paying that amount. How could it be justified ?

It is unknown, why the report in para 6, states 7 deaths in 13/14.

6. We recommend that SAH reviews the 7 unexpected deaths during 2013/14 to establish whether there were any actions that could have been taken by SAH to prevent the unexpected deaths. We further recommend that SAH commissions an independent review into the 7 unexpected deaths’.  

When the only deaths revealed publically, that I could find, were the 5, in 2010/11.

Have additional deaths, occurred under the radar, after the 5 in 2010/11?

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/health/health-news/appeal-for-st-andrew-hospital-deaths-report-to-be-public-1-6008003

The Healthwatch, wrote to NHS England, requesting  a published independent review. http://www.healthwatch.co.uk/sites/healthwatch.co.uk/files/letter_nhs_england_to_healthwatch_england_august_2014.pdf

But, how could this review, be independent, if commissioned, by NHS England, who themselves  commissioned 90% of St Andrews service?

This means they are investigating into their own chosen services.

If failings were to be revealed, NHS England as the commissioner ,would be liable for them.

The Healthwatch, further recommends a lay summary of the review be published.

As they want,

‘to be assured that SAH has a culture of continuous review and learning from unexpected deaths’.

How about  being  accountable, for them ?

They recommend, that SAH invite the charity Rethink, to talk to the senior management team and the Board about Rethink’s 2013 report “Lethal Discrimination”, which calls for action to tackle ‘premature mortality’ in secure mental health settings.

The latest guidance for investigation by coroners, into deaths of those subject to a DOL under MCA

see link http://www.no5.com/news-and-publications/publications/351-inquests-and-deprivation-of-liberty/

Gil Baldwin, Chief Executive Officer, St Andrew’s Healthcare, commented,

‘our charitable status means that any money we make is used to grow and improve our services for the benefit of our patients’.

But says nothing, of the executives’ huge salaries, as revealed in St Andrews Financial Report to the Charity Commission for 2013/14.

http://www.standrewshealthcare.co.uk/sites/default/files/documents/St%20%20Andrew’s%20Accounts%20for%202013%20to%202014%20(reduced%20size%20for%20web).pdf

So how many  more deaths per se let alone ‘unexpected’ deaths, in healthy people in a mental, not physical hospital,have there been in St Andrews since those in 2014 ?

And where were they revealed ?

And, why was there so much publicity, about the deaths in SLOVEN public provision and none about the deaths in private St Andrews provision

And worse still, this publicity, used to move all mental patients to St Andrews, or, other private provision, as a matter of NHS policy ?

Surely, patient safety, should be paramount not private profit.