NHS report author says claim of "13,000 needless deaths" is a misrepresentation

Bruce Keogh, the author of the report into 14 NHS trusts, writes: "Don’t believe everything you read, particularly in some newspapers."

The claim that there have been "13,000 needless deaths" at 14 NHS trusts since 2005 led several of the weekend's papers and has prompted 10 Conservative MPs to call for the resignation of shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, who was responsible for the NHS between 2009 and 2010. In an open letter they write:

It is clear now that the last Labour government oversaw thousands of unnecessary deaths in our NHS Hospitals and failed to expose or confront these care scandals. The patients we represent were betrayed. It would be an outrage if Andy Burnham were ever to return to the role of secretary of state for health.

But while the Tories have seized on the claim for political purposes, the man responsible for the report in question, NHS medical director Bruce Keogh, has entirely rejected the basis for this allegation. 

The figure of 13,000 is based on Hospital Standard Mortality Ratios (HSMRs), which are used to measure whether the death rate at a hospital is higher or lower than expected. But while HSMRS are able to tell us this much, they are, on their own, unable to tell us whether the deaths were due to poor quality care (and therefore avoidable) or other factors. The only way to judge whether or not the deaths were "needless" would be to study each individual's case notes. 

It was for this reason that Robert Francis QC, the author of the report into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, warned that it was "misleading and a potential misuse of the figures to extrapolate from them a conclusion that any particular number, or range of numbers of deaths were caused or contributed to by inadequate care" and that "it would be unsafe to infer from the figures that there was any particular number or range of numbers of avoidable or unnecessary deaths at the Trust."

In addition, as academics at the University of Birmingham have noted, "The HSMR has a poor performance profile (10 of 11 elevated HSMRs would be false alarms and 10 of 11 poorly performing hospitals would escape attention). Crucially, the aim of a post-test investigation into an elevated HSMR is unclear. The use of the HSMR as a screening test for clinically avoidable mortality and thereby substandard care, although well intentioned, is seriously flawed."

When these points were put to Bruce Keogh, the author of today's report, by a reader of the Skwawkbox blog, he replied: 


Thank you. I agree with your sentiments entirely. Not my calculations, not my views. Don’t believe everything you read, particularly in some newspapers.

I am very well versed in this topic, including the abstract you attach.

When you read my report you will regret sending this email!

With best wishes, Bruce Keogh

Having chosen to go on the offensive even before the report has been published, claiming not just that there were "thousands of unnecessary deaths" but that Burnham was to blame, the Tories may well be forced to backtrack when Keogh's conclusions are published in full at 2pm today.

Ambulances are seen at the Accident and Emergency department of St. Thomas' Hospital in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.