Concerns corridor care is becoming 'normal' at Paisley's Royal Alexandra Hospital
A series of heavily redacted emails reveal staff concerns over the situation.
At least two people are 'expected' to be treated by medics in the corridors of the emergency department at the Royal Alexandra Hospital (RAH) every day, NHS chiefs have admitted.
But often that figure can rise to as many as six, documents have revealed. The numbers were obtained by West Scotland Labour MSP Paul O'Kane amid growing fears corridor care is being 'normalised' in the Paisley hospital.
A series of heavily redacted emails – released as part of a Freedom of Information request (FOI) – reveal staff concerns over the situation and that an approach to tackle the problem was 'perceived as the normalisation' of vulnerable people being treated on trollies.
One email titled emergency care in the Clyde region states: 'For RAH, outwith winter, we will hopefully be less than six, but on most days we will have two patients in the corridor. It should at least be part of escalation and surge planning.'
A second details how concerns about 'safe staffing levels' would be made clear in a report to senior management while revealing suggested actions are 'not accepted by medical or nursing staff'.
Reflecting on the emails, shared among staff in January, Mr O'Kane said: 'These emails couldn't make it any clearer that corridor care is happening at the RAH and that it's a problem that's only going to get worse unless some form of drastic action is taken.
'Worryingly, the emails also suggest that actions that were being considered wouldn't get rid of corridor care but could normalise it. It is horrible to think of anyone sitting in a corridor receiving care because there's simply nowhere else for them to be treated.'
The MSP added: 'It's unacceptable that patients at the RAH are receiving corridor care and that RAH staff have to put up with being overstretched and under resourced – they work so hard but they're let down again and again.
'I will be writing to the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) and to the health secretary [Neil Gray] to ask what is being done to prevent corridor care from occurring and seeking reassurance that no plans that entail patients being treated in corridors are being implemented at the RAH.'
Concerns over corridor care were first raised just weeks ago when Healthcare Improvement Scotland highlighted the problem following an inspection of the emergency department.
The subsequent report said 'corridor care' was 'normalised' in the RAH but warned it must 'not be tolerated'.
A spokesperson for NHSGGC said: 'As was the case throughout the country this winter, all our services were under considerable pressure. It would be inaccurate to state that NHSGGC is seeking to normalise treating patients within corridors.
'These issues have been examined in the Healthcare Improvement Scotland report following a review of our emergency departments. NHSGGC is committed to the safety and wellbeing of our patients, and to continually improving the services we provide.
'Earlier this year, we launched The GGC Way Forward – Transforming Together, a bold new programme of transformation, driving whole-system reform.
'The system-wide initiative, which marks an evolution in the way health care is delivered within NHSGGC, will focus on delivering a raft of service improvements to support and ease pressures faced across acute sites.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia
Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The Stitch-Up by Emma Szewczak with Dr Andrzej Harris: Help! My vagina has fallen out
The Stitch-Up by Emma Szewczak with Dr Andrzej Harris (Chatto & Windus £22, 288pp) In 2019, Emma Szewczak was being sewn up following the birth of her second child when the midwife paused and said: 'Your vagina's fallen out.' Those words, the author says, were the worst thing anyone had ever said to her. Not even a problematic first experience of childbirth could have prepared her for this. Eventually informed she was suffering a prolapse, she spent three years seeing specialist after specialist, moving from the NHS to private care to the so-called 'wellness' sector, with no one able to offer a solution. Along the course of that journey Szewczak and her husband Dr Andrzej Harris (Associate Professor of Pharmacology at Cambridge) became angrily aware of how many aspects of medicine let women down. Angry and frustrated, they wanted to find out why there's a complete lack of treatment options for conditions (from endometriosis to menopause and everything in between) affecting vast numbers of women across the world. The couple set out to examine 'how medical misogyny harms us all'. The shocking healthcare failures, in medical care and research, may or may not always be the result of institutional 'misogyny' – although most feminists (as I count myself) would level that charge. The problems are acute. In recent years there have been many books on this subject, from Elinor Cleghorn's Unwell Women to Breaking The Taboo by Theo Clarke. The personal stories are bleak, the cold carelessness in female as well as male medical staff often appalling – as Szewczak and Harris make clear. The case for the prosecution mounts: the outrage of vaginal mesh implants, the lack of awareness of potential birth trauma and perinatal psychosis, unnecessary breast surgeries as well as vaginal nips and tucks post-birth, inappropriate intimate examinations, and (of course) the series of maternity hospital scandals, including Shrewsbury and Telford. Endometriosis makes thousands of women suffer but doctors often fail to consider the condition when women seek help for their specific range of symptoms. Why? Underpinning this densely researched book is a simmering rage that women are so often addressed with patronage or indifference. In case you thought the process of birth a doddle, Szewczak provides a frightening litany of possible complications: 'Perinatal tearing… injuries to the pelvic floor… lacerations… episiotomies can become complicated with infection, pain and excessive bleeding… the bladder and urethra can be injured… severe bleeding and shock… damage to the symphysis pubis… postpartum haemorrhage…'. And much more. Who'd be a woman? Which is my problem with the book. For none of the above horrors will be suffered by biological males calling themselves female – or 'trans women', as they would have themselves identified. Yet routinely Szewczak uses the terms 'cis woman' or 'cisgender' for those of us born with the apparatus likely to cause us trouble throughout life, from the first period to the menopause and beyond. How can a book that claims to attack the neglect of women's health dare to belittle the experience of real women by calling it 'cisnormative'? And, astonishingly, just after the dire 'obs-and-gynae' catalogue above, Szewczak, with a degree in gender studies, attacks 'misgendering' (meaning consciously or accidentally calling someone the wrong gender) and 'obscene waiting times for gender-affirming care' for trans people. Is 'misgendering' really as bad as a prolapse or stillbirth? For Szewczak, the answer seems to be yes.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
I know my public sector pension is great, but I can't afford it
M ohamed Habad has a workplace pension that millions of workers can only dream of. As a foundation doctor at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow, Essex, he was automatically enrolled in the NHS pension scheme. He was contributing 9.8 per cent of his salary and his employer was paying in an enormous 23.7 per cent. So why has he opted out of this generous savings scheme — along with many more of his NHS colleagues? Habad, 28, graduated from medical school last summer but it could be nine years until he completes his training to become an orthopaedic surgeon. He pays £800 a month to rent his room in hospital accommodation, £600 to help his family cover his empty room in their London council flat, about £300 a month on groceries and £200 on gas and electricity.
