MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Betraying the NHS: Health Abandoned

2008· article· en· W2137740247 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margot Lindsay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theoryGovernment (linguistics)Health careIndependence (probability theory)Service (business)Public administrationPolitical scienceEconomicsPublic relationsBusinessLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Betraying the NHS: Health Abandoned by M. Mandelstam . Jessica Kingsley , London , 2006 , £14.99 (Hardback), 320 pp. ISBN 9781843104827 . The title correctly defines the evidence provided by Mandelstam on the current dismantling of the National Health Service (NHS). Although the author’s experience is mainly focused on his working area of Suffolk, there is plenty of bibliographical evidence provided in the text that demonstrates that New Labour is attempting to dismantle the NHS by privatizing the provision of its services and throwing it open to market forces. Mandelstam recognizes that the politically correct language of ‘choice’, ‘control’ and ‘independence’ achieved by central government pressurizes local councils into not providing services directly, but instead contracting them out to the private sector. Primary Care Trusts (PCT) that are planning to close hospitals claim that their proposals are about modernization and improvement, and not at root because of financial pressures. Another term that sounds good, until you look at the consequences for patients, is the obsession with targets, both clinical and financial. Mandelstam explains that targets and performance indicators paper over the cracks, declare false harvests and create a mirage of comprehensive, universal health service. The whole NHS has become in a sense disposable: its hundreds of hospitals and other organizations transformed into independent market actors must now increasingly fend for themselves financially. They are becoming answerable to market forces rather than to elected ministers. The increasing scope of Private Finance Initiative, and the financial burden it generates, means that this is perceived to be increasingly responsible for the size of the NHS debt, together with related bed closures and service cutbacks. The book provides horrific evidence of a lack of interest by the Department of Health (DoH) in the views of local people as well as a complete lack of accountability. The DoH refused to hand over 5500 letters and postcards and an 11 500-signature petition to West Suffolk PCT in the final decisions about closing Sudbury community hospitals. This episode quite reasonably led the author to conclude that we no longer have a ‘national NHS’, let alone one that proceeds on vaguely democratic lines. A main concern of the author is the loss of local services to elderly people. Dumping of services and patients onto local councils by the NHS does not work because Social Service authorities have no legal remit nor expertise to deliver health care and many of them are in serious financial difficulty. Patients are being increasingly treated like financial and business units, as NHS trusts endeavour at all costs – both financial and human – to meet targets and save money. Perhaps lessons can be learnt about how financial and political agendas, both rushed and covert, can undermine the effectiveness of NHS decision making. Somewhere, amid the welter of targets, indicators, new technology and hard processing of patients on conveyor belts (officially known as ‘care pathways’), what some would call old-fashioned ‘real care’ appears to have slipped from sight. This might appear not to matter; if it is old it must be bad. The problem is that so-called ‘old-fashioned’ real care actually works because it recognises people as individuals, rather than business units or financial bundles. This book is essential reading for staff and users of the NHS, in order to understand the constraints on the provision of an accountable publicly managed service and hopefully to alert readers of the need to keep our NHS public.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.026
Scholarly communication0.0160.022
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0170.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.506
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207