My Lords, briefly, I support this amendment and Amendment 343, which has been tabled in my name. Although the amendments refer to ““clinical quality standards””, I am well aware that the Bill itself refers to them as ““quality standards””. It was I and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who suggested in previous amendments that ““clinical”” should be introduced, but I recognise of course that these quality standards will concern not only clinical but social care, and there should therefore be a reference to clinical and social care.
I have also made the point before that these standards ought to cover the patient’s journey of care, which goes from diagnosis through primary, secondary and tertiary care and on to social care.
I believe that I know something about clinical quality standards, and while the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to standards written in the United States, closer to home there have also been hundreds of standards written over the past eight years. I bet your Lordships now that the methodology that will be used by NICE will be exactly identical, but that is an argument which I will have with the chairman or chief executive of NICE—no doubt over a dinner sometime.
What is important about these standards is that they are evidence based so that it is possible to defend them, just as technological appraisals are evidence based and therefore possible to defend. The evidence that we are looking for is that which will deliver the best outcome for the patient, in terms of safety of treatment, diagnosis, patient experience and outcomes in terms of diseases.
It is also important that they should stand the test of time—that they are written and based on evidence that is tested over time, so that they do not have to change every three months and have people complaining that treatment has moved on. Experience has taught us that it is possible to write those kinds of quality standards, which stand the test of time but, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, they are time consuming to create and therefore they have to be resourced. If you are creating standards for over a patient’s journey of care, it will require several months and expertise to do so. If you intend to have more than five or six standards a year, you require to resource them fully.
Another important issue is that standards have to be tested before they are finalised so that, just as with the technological appraisal of drugs, you do not get complaints from clinicians or anyone else. I can tell noble Lords that doctors are very good at complaining afterwards if they are not consulted. There have to be consultations with both clinicians and the public so that they will feel happier that the standards are evidence based and will deliver the outcomes that we expect.
A third important aspect is that the standards should be easily understood. I was clear when I did the job that every one of the standards written should get a crystal mark, so that they were written in a language that people could understand. If we are going to evolve and develop information standards, a further value is that each of the quality standards is an opportunity to inform the patient about what they should know about their disease and its treatment. There can be simply written questions that the patients or relatives can use to ask about the problem in question. That gives us an opportunity to use the standards not only to manage the care of the patient but to inform the public and the patients about their disease. That way, you make the public better informed and able to demand the kind of quality care that they should get, so the systems will be operating in a way that delivers care.
My Amendment 343 says that standards should also cover long-term conditions. To me, that deals with the problem of complex long-term diseases, which need to be managed in both the acute sector and the primary or community sector. The standards should therefore be written as a patient journey of care over a longer period of time. Those are the quality standards that we should be embarking on and the numbers that we should provide for.
Health and Social Care Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Patel
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 December 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c1642-3 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:59:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796695
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796695
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796695