Opinion is polarising around the news that, following a recommendation from the Care Quality Commission and its own inquiry, Monitor has decided to put Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust into special measures.
While the move had been widely predicted, following the departure of the trust’s chief executive and finance director last week, it still came as a shock. Cambridge is one of the most high profile trusts in the country and one that likes to see itself as an international centre of excellence and research; although this may, ironically, have been one of the factors that led the CQC to rate it ‘inadequate.’
Professor Sir Mike Richards, the CQC’s chief inspector of hospitals, hinted that the commission had found a culture clash at the trust that had caused a “disconnect” between the front line and senior management so bad that they had different ideas about whether they were trying to run a DGH or a tertiary centre.
|
|
Interestingly, while management journals have all-but launched campaigns in support of chief executive Keith McNeil, and a body of consultants reportedly wants him back, comments on the local Cambridge Evening News website have been far less supportive or flattering.
It’s possible to see that this would be a less than ideal environment into which to introduce a major electronic patient record system; particularly one that requires total buy-in to working in a particular way. But the CQC report indicates that since it went live with its eHospital programme, the trust has experienced booking, reporting and audit data issues that can’t be helping with the demand, financial and quality pressure it is under.
Comments on Digital Health News are divided about the contribution made to Cambridge’s problems by the culture, the EPR route chosen, and the wider strains on the NHS. But lessons need to be learned. Because the NHS needs to digitise; cultural divisions are not rare; and financial pressure is not going away.
|