Kate Pym, Managing Director of Pym's Consultancy, discusses the barriers involved in getting an innovative product into the NHS.
The NHS will not pay to improve patient safety
You may think that I am saying this to be contentious, but sadly I am not. As an independent business consultant who supports new businesses and entrepreneurs in the health and care sector, this is a conversation which I have on almost a weekly basis.
The reason for this is that most innovations are in response to a perceived problem, and there is no problem more obvious than harm caused to patient during medical treatment. The British are by nature innovative (36,558 Patent Applications were made by UK citizens in 2019, ranking in the top 10 worldwide in several indicators) and, for many people faced with a problem, their first response is to try and solve it, in this instance to prevent another patient from being harmed.
This means that people have an idea, design, prototype or product, then find me to help them take the product to market and sell it. Unfortunately, many years of experience selling to the NHS across multiple organisations, from primary to tertiary care, has taught me that the NHS will not pay to improve patient safety. This applies even in the instance of never events – events that occur with the potential to harm patients, where if all guidelines and protocols are followed correctly this should never happen.
My advice to innovators in patient safety
I tell all prospective and current clients working in the field of improving patient safety to prove their concept in the UK, then sell overseas. An insurance-based health economy aligns the cost of patient harm and litigation with provision of healthcare and, as such, are risk-averse and highly motivated to provide the best possible levels of patient safety. The NHS system does not align costs and consequences of poor patient care with provision.
Why won’t the NHS pay to improve patient safety?
The NHS won’t pay because it is always the responsibility of somebody else’s budget.
In all things commercial you have to look at motivation and reward. If, for example, a surgeon is the responsible clinician in theatres where a never event occurs, that surgeon will be held accountable and go through a rigorous investigation process to uncover the root cause. Although the investigation is not meant to be punitive, the sense of personal guilt, anxiety for the patient and family, and the potential for referral to governing bodies and even loss of their job, means that surgeons are very highly motivated to prevent never events. But the surgeon doesn’t hold the budget. If a piece of technology could prevent a never event in theatres, it would be the theatre manager who holds budgetary responsibility for purchase. However, the theatre budget is always fully accounted for; the NHS runs a very lean ship, and if an additional item is to be purchased something else is not – so what should be left out? PPE? Autoclave? Staff? Another point for the theatre manager is that, although they would be part of any investigation, they are not held responsible for an event and any consequential costs of extra bed days, rehabilitation and litigation are also not their responsibility.
A real-life example...
To give a real-life example, I consulted with Uvamed in 2016. They had an innovative product which reduced the risk of medication errors in anaesthesia.
I conducted research to uncover the scale of the issue in the UK and in 2015 the Patient Safety Update from The Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) reported 7,992 anaesthesia errors between April and June 2015 (yes, that’s right a quarter of a year), of these errors, 2,235 caused harm to patients, including 21 deaths and 22 severe harm. 13.5% of these errors were medication errors.
In 2016 there had been a recent change in NHS Litigation Authority premiums paid by each NHS trust for Professional liability and negligence, using a claims history of 10 years instead of the previous 5 years, which meant that for some trust’s premiums had increased in excess of £2 million per year. This also meant that the litigation history of a trust would impact trust budget for 10 years. A freedom of information request to the NHS Litigation Authority uncovered the total number of anaesthesia claims received in 2014/15 to be 148; the total cost of settling the successful anaesthesia claims over the 10-year period was £140,962,157.17, £6,598,988.38 in the year ending April 2015.
Anaesthesia is usually about a regular practiced routine. Standard practice is that syringes are prepared in advance of surgery and labels are applied to each according to strict colour coding, the syringes are then put in a receptacle (usually a cardboard kidney dish), with a second selection of prepared syringes in case of emergencies in theatre. Most errors involve human factors, such as tiredness or distraction, and in the heat of the moment it is easy to reach for a syringe in a jumble of other syringes and think that you have selected the right one, only for a different syringe to slip into your hand by mistake.
Uvamed's product was Rainbow Trays®. Rainbow Trays consist of a base tray with coloured sections and disposable inserted trays, which are made of bacteriostatic plastic and have physical barriers between sections. The colour coding is the same as that used in critical care labelling for syringes, with sections in a logical progression for use.
Unsurprisingly, anaesthetists loved them and wanted to trial and purchase. Trials went well and everyone was happy. The purchase had to come out of theatre budgets. The theatre managers saw no financial benefit to their department in return for the spend so they wouldn’t pay, neither would any other department.
The happy ending for Uvamed and international healthcare is that Rainbow Trays® are “flying off the shelves” in the USA, Australia and New Zealand. Rainbow Trays are on NHS Supply Chain and have been purchased at quantity by Health & Social Care Northern Ireland for their Nightingale Hospitals. For further information on Rainbow Trays, contact Keith Fawdington firstname.lastname@example.org
Unfortunately, NHS England will not pay to improve patient safety until either the silo mentality of internal budgets is removed (which is as likely as an effective fireguard made of chocolate) or someone at senior level in each trust is made accountable for the impact (financial and social) of unsafe patient care and given a budget to improve outcomes and reduce risks.
Call for action
Some forward-thinking Trusts have Board-level roles for Innovation. I appreciate that no Trust wants a senior member of staff 'bothered' by every good idea out there, but with a triage qualification for appointments this could offer the opportunity for our innovators to help the NHS improve care, efficiency and outcomes.
Institute a team of clinicians and business managers who hold the responsibility for patient safety, making them responsible and accountable for seeking improvements in patient care (both internal and external). This would only work if they are allocated a budget, and a target of identifiable improvements.
Other hub articles you may be interested in
About the Author
Kate Pym AMIHM (mid) is Managing Director of Pym’s Consultancy Ltd, an independent consultancy providing services for SMEs and universities supporting market entry and commercialisation for innovative products and services.
Kate has over 20 years’ experience of working in health and social care for companies, including Allergan Inc., AstraZeneca, Mitie and Baxter Healthcare. With a focus on innovative products and services, she has worked across the NHS, public, private and third sectors to produce patient-centred, high quality, outcome-based services and facilitate the market entry and growth of new products.
Since 2014 Kate has supported over 60 organisations as managing director of Pym’s