Skip to main content

Is there still a role for smaller hospitals in the NHS?

A paper published in the British Journal of Hospital Medicine asks the questions "Is there a role for smaller hospitals in the future NHS?"

The NHS is challenged by rising demand as a consequence of a population with more complex conditions and the rising costs of paying for that care. Inefficiencies resulting from fragmented primary, secondary and social care services highlight the need for greater coordination and continuity to improve patient outcomes at lower cost. Financial constraints can drive health system review, providing impetus to modify health service delivery within the NHS to maximize value and better align with the needs of our population.

The Naylor (2017) review calls for urgent rationalization of the NHS estate to meet the mandate of the Five Year Forward View. Smaller acute hospitals could be seen as a potential starting point for reconfiguring health services in England. However, local change is not always welcome and the perceived loss of services is often met with staunch political and public opposition.

The NHS Chief Executive Officer, Simon Stevens, has expressed his support for smaller hospitals. In the Five Year Forward View, smaller hospitals have an opportunity to once again be at the centre of defining patient pathways. This will require some change in provision of services. Gaining local public and clinician support will be crucial and small hospital leaders must be visionary. Support programmes such as the New Cavendish Group and New Care Models programme will be increasingly important in helping to ensure that smaller hospitals remain part of the fabric of the English NHS.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2017.78.8.424

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...