Daniel Taylor and Dawn Goodwin present a case study of the Morecambe Bay Inquiry (MBI), which examined the high rate of maternal and neonatal deaths over a period of 9 years (2004–2013), within the small maternity unit of Furness General Hospital (FGH), one of the three hospitals comprising Morecambe Bay Hospitals Trust.1 They examine this through a conceptual lens, and provide a solution involving changes in medical education. This commentary explores both these elements. First, they use the lens of ‘Normalisation (...) of Deviance’ (NoD) to explain organisational failure. However, other available lenses such as ‘Sociology of Disasters’, ‘Organisational Silence’ and ‘Comfort-seeking Behaviour’ may point to different problems and solutions. More justification for their choice of the lens of NoD would have been useful. Similarly, more justification for their focus on a cluster of five ‘serious untoward incidents’ (SUIs) occurring in 2008 would also have been useful. They suggest that before 2008, the perinatal mortality rate was low, patient satisfaction was high and recent level 2 accreditation of maternity services by the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts all suggested standards of care within the obstetric department were adequate. This stream of positive signals is likely to have contributed towards a genuine belief of safe operation within the maternity unit by staff and board members. However, as they acknowledge, the first problem can be seen in 2004. According to the MBI,2 there were SUIs in the years before and after 2008, but this …. (shrink)

This paper examines some of the key characteristics of a socialist health care system using the example of the British National Health Service (NHS). It has been claimed that the NHS has socialist principles, and represents an island of socialism in a capitalist sea. However, using historical analysis, this paper argues that while the NHS claims some socialist ends, they could never be fully achieved because of the lack of socialist means. The socialist mechanisms which were associated with earlier plans (...) for a national health service such as a salaried service, health centres, elected health authorities and divorcing private practice from the public service were discarded in negotiation. Moreover, even these would have achieved socialism merely in the sense of distributing health care, without any deeper transformation associated with doctor-patient relationships and prevention. In short, the NHS is more correctly seen as nationalised rather than socialised medicine, achieving the first three levels of a socialist health service identified here. It can be said to have socialist principles in the limited distributional sense and has some socialist means to achieve these. However, it lacks the stronger means to fully achieve its distributional goals, and is very distant from the third level of a radical transformation of health care. (shrink)

It has recently been pointed out that the 1989 White PaperWorking for Patients, which provides the basis for the current reforms of the British National Health Service, has some common features with the 1944 White PaperA National Health Service, which was the unadopted model for the service produced by the Wartime Coalition Government. Moreover, it is likely that the Conservatives, if elected in the 1945 General Election, would have introduced a service based on a modified version of the 1944 document. (...) We can compare these two blueprints to shed some light on Conservative thinking on health care over a period of nearly 50 years. There are some similarities in terms of the notions of purchaser and provider, contracts and pluralism. However, there are striking contrasts, notably in their attitude towards planning versus competition and local democracy versus patronage. It is claimed that the profound differences outweigh the apparent similarities and consequently the two blueprints show the discontinuity rather than the continuity of Conservative thinking on health care. (shrink)