This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/15/the-evidence-of-an-nhs-weekend-effect-is-shaky
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The evidence of an NHS weekend effect is shaky The evidence of an NHS weekend effect is shaky | |
| (4 months later) | |
| We call on Theresa May to act in the public’s interest and take immediate action over freshly disputed evidence surrounding a “weekend effect”. Department of Health documents leaked to the Guardian and Channel 4 News revealed NHS policy concerns from Jeremy Hunt’s own civil servants. His repeated claim about thousands of patients dying unnecessarily because of poor weekend hospital care “has not been helpful” in justifying new seven-day services. The internal briefing document proposed other means to vindicate his policy, but repeats the assertion that “eight independent studies have set out the evidence for a ‘weekend effect’ – unacceptable variation in care across the week”. | We call on Theresa May to act in the public’s interest and take immediate action over freshly disputed evidence surrounding a “weekend effect”. Department of Health documents leaked to the Guardian and Channel 4 News revealed NHS policy concerns from Jeremy Hunt’s own civil servants. His repeated claim about thousands of patients dying unnecessarily because of poor weekend hospital care “has not been helpful” in justifying new seven-day services. The internal briefing document proposed other means to vindicate his policy, but repeats the assertion that “eight independent studies have set out the evidence for a ‘weekend effect’ – unacceptable variation in care across the week”. |
| The evidence for these claims is not supported by reliable research. Of the eight “studies” cited by Hunt, only four are independently peer-reviewed, yet peer-review is essential. Three use data from the same population and are not independent, with just two from the last decade. The remainder are not peer-reviewed medical literature, being opinion pieces, the lowest form of clinical evidence. Critically, when his claims began, at least 13 independent, peer-reviewed papers were available to the secretary of state that refute his definition of a weekend effect. | The evidence for these claims is not supported by reliable research. Of the eight “studies” cited by Hunt, only four are independently peer-reviewed, yet peer-review is essential. Three use data from the same population and are not independent, with just two from the last decade. The remainder are not peer-reviewed medical literature, being opinion pieces, the lowest form of clinical evidence. Critically, when his claims began, at least 13 independent, peer-reviewed papers were available to the secretary of state that refute his definition of a weekend effect. |
| Hunt has cherrypicked research, causing a devastating breakdown of trust between government and the medical profession. In making these claims without faithfully representing the evidence, he has obstructed fact and misled parliament and the public. | Hunt has cherrypicked research, causing a devastating breakdown of trust between government and the medical profession. In making these claims without faithfully representing the evidence, he has obstructed fact and misled parliament and the public. |
| We call on Theresa May to commission an independent inquiry into the process behind these policies. It is wrong to waste precious resources, or lives, because of bad evidence. Like NHS treatments, health policy should be evidence-based to demonstrate clinical and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, we call for a pause on any policies or contractual reform driven by this evidence until it can be examined objectively and with rigour. | We call on Theresa May to commission an independent inquiry into the process behind these policies. It is wrong to waste precious resources, or lives, because of bad evidence. Like NHS treatments, health policy should be evidence-based to demonstrate clinical and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, we call for a pause on any policies or contractual reform driven by this evidence until it can be examined objectively and with rigour. |
| Dr Taha NasserDr Ben WhiteDr Hugo FarneDr Antonio De MarvaoDr Rachel ClarkeDr Margaret McCartneyDr Philippa Whitford MPDr Phil Hammond Vice-president, Patients’ AssociationProfessor Alistair Hall EpidemiologistProfessor Trisha Greenhalgh Evidence-based practiceProfessor Neena Modi President RCPCHDavid Owen House of LordsProfessor Robert Winston House of LordsProfessor Stephen Hawking | Dr Taha NasserDr Ben WhiteDr Hugo FarneDr Antonio De MarvaoDr Rachel ClarkeDr Margaret McCartneyDr Philippa Whitford MPDr Phil Hammond Vice-president, Patients’ AssociationProfessor Alistair Hall EpidemiologistProfessor Trisha Greenhalgh Evidence-based practiceProfessor Neena Modi President RCPCHDavid Owen House of LordsProfessor Robert Winston House of LordsProfessor Stephen Hawking |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |