The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) has released this year's 'star ratings' for NHS hospital Trusts. The star ratings are part of New Labour's misplaced campaign to 'improve patient choice' through the imposition of somewhat meaningless targets. ("If targets work, so would have the USSR" attrib. John Kay, Economist Apr 26, 2001)
Our local Trust (the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals) has managed to hold onto its single star (or, if you prefer your glass half full, it only narrowly missed gaining a second). And all despite a financial crisis and the precipitous departure of its chief executive and chairman.
The Health Services Journal (HSJ) has spotted that there is a strong North-South divide in the distribution of stars, with the North coming out 'better'. I have written about this before, in relation to CHI's clinical governance reports:
...CHI is somewhat deficient in its attempts to explain or even understand why there is such variability. Funding distribution comes to mind as one possible factor...
The reality is that the star rating system detracts from good clinical care, distorts priorities, and produces dysfunctional behaviour at all levels, as highlighted by a recent BBC Panorama programme.
What all this means for patient choice is perhaps for patients to decide. Choice based on star rating seems somewhat limited for those in the South East region, unless one is prepared to be treated far away from home. This, of course, is not a realistic prospect for many and certainly not for those needing emergency care.
