I accept that, and I will be pressing those questions on the next group of amendments. There is a real risk that quality accounts will, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, turn into what I call PR guff. The NHS is getting better and better. If you visit an American hospital as a manager, as soon as you walk through the door you will be handed its PR guff. It usually starts with the heart transplant programme and goes on from there. It talks about all the great things that the hospital does and tells you absolutely nothing about what really goes on in the hospital. I worry that there is a potential problem there.
I hope that patients are going to look at the website to see which orthopaedic surgeon they will choose out of those listed for a hospital, or whether they might go to another hospital because it has better outcomes. I certainly hope that that will happen eventually, but this is a start. I support the thrust of the amendments, which suggest that we need to be clear about what we include in the quality accounts that will make the difference to patients, clinicians and the system.
Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Murphy
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 February 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Health Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c162GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:18:00 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_531903
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_531903
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_531903