170 patients harmed as a result of cyber attack
Pathology services provider Synnovis was the victim of a ransomware attack by a Russian cyber gang in June last year.
As a result more than 10,000 appointments were cancelled at the two London NHS trusts that were worst affected.
And a significant number of GP practices in London were unable to order blood tests for their patients.
Now the Health Service Journal (HSJ) has reported that there were nearly 600 'incidents' linked to the attack, with patient care suffering in 170 of these.
This includes one cases of 'severe' harm, 14 which led to 'moderate' harm with the rest identified as 'low harm'.
According to NHS guidance severe harm occurs when patients either suffers permanent harm; needs life saving care or could have reduced their life expectancy, among a number of other factors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I'm a GP and this is how I'd save the burnt-out NHS
A 'national emergency' is facing the NHS. So says Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who in the coming weeks will publish the Government's 10 Year Health Plan – an 'ambitious yet essential' doctrine to bring the waiting list down from six million, harness private providers, and ensure that patients no longer 'suffer unnecessarily when capacity exists to treat them'. Streeting has also suggested that the new reforms could see GPs take over hospital trusts. 'The NHS should not be bound by traditional expectations of how services should be arranged,' he told the NHS ConfedExpo Conference in Manchester last week, describing the current divide between institutions as 'old-fashioned' and 'increasingly meaningless', in the face of the new plans. The idea is unlikely to thrill the many patients who have found themselves falling through NHS cracks as a result of departments seemingly unable to talk to one another. How this might work practically remains to be seen. Might healthcare professionals welcome a break in the divide between hospitals and GPs, or would it lead to more/inefficiencies? Here, three family doctors share their views. 'We need a new approach to chronic health issues' Martin Brunet, GP GPs think in a different way from hospital doctors, and that's our skill. We're pretty much the only people in general in medicine that look at every aspect of a patient's life; we're interested in all their physical problems, but also their social set-up and what's going on emotionally for them, and we put it all together. In the hospital, you see a cardiologist for the heart and a neurologist for the brain, but what if what's going on crosses all of those areas? Where the health system could be radically different is by challenging the current model, which is biomedical. That means when a patient has symptoms, a doctor makes a diagnosis, usually with the aid of complex tests, and then they find a definable disease with a definable treatment. This works brilliantly for conditions like cancer or pneumonia. But if you've got something like chronic pain or irritable bowel syndrome (9.1 million people are projected to have a chronic condition by 2040) it really doesn't work as well. What then happens is you have all these patients having loads of tests for their pain, none of which really get to the root of the problem, and they end up on lots of medication which doesn't help them, and is a very inefficient use of money. If you could set up holistic clinics – mostly run by GPs, but perhaps with some specialist input from people who really understand how the mind and the body work together – we could more effectively get to the root cause of why someone's brain is not allowing them to recover from chronic conditions, and make a massive difference to people's lives. GPs are very innovative, if you give them the chance. But Streeting's idea to send us into hospitals will not work if we are expected to go in and act like hospital doctors. We don't need GPs to try to pretend to be specialists. We're generalists, and that's our strength. 'We have to change the NHS culture, and how we all work together' Prof Kamila Hawthorne
BBC News
39 minutes ago
- BBC News
Herefordshire and Worcestershire NHS staff facing redundancy
Up to 200 people face being made redundant as an NHS board attempts to halve its move would affect administrative staff at NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire Integrated Care Board (ICB), which has a budget of £2.2bn and commissions healthcare services across the two ICB's chief executive, Simon Trickett, said such a move would free up £23m to re-invest in frontline have been set a target of halving their costs by the government, as part of wide-ranging health reforms that will also see the abolition of NHS England which, in March, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said would take place within two years. Most ICBs are expected to reduce their costs by merging with a neighbouring health board, which in this case would see a merger with Coventry and Warwickshire ICB (CW), although there is no immediate plan to do this. "We are now in the midst of a re-organisation of how the management of integrated care boards work," said Mr Trickett."We won't merge ICBs but we will share management and leadership capacity and have one team running two ICBs – Herefordshire and Worcestershire ICB and Coventry and Warwickshire ICB."The net result of that will be a 50% reduction in running costs – that equates to £23m. This is a lot of money taken out of management to be available to put into frontline care."Addressing Worcestershire County Council's health and wellbeing board on Tuesday, he said it would likely result in between 150 and 200 redundancies out of the estimated 250 people directly employed by the ICB. 'No compromises' Mr Trickett described the deal with CW as "an interim arrangement that can allow the savings to be delivered".However, he said there would be no merger with that board at this stage because the government wanted health boards to align with strategic mayoral savings would be made by not having to service NHS England's infrastructure, Mr Trickett said the role of the board was also changing, with staff being asked to be less "hands-on" as it becomes a more strategic commissioner."The NHS in this part of the country is far from perfect, but we have made some good progress," Mr Trickett said. "We want to continue that."I won't be willing to compromise things that make a difference for patients, to hit this target." This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which covers councils and other public service organisations. Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Time for a rethink about what the NHS is able to provide
I agree that we need to have a rethink about what the NHS and healthcare as a whole should do. We need to change the emphasis from treatment to cure, from prescriptions to prevention. READ MORE: NHS Grampian to scrap free nappies for newborns in bid to save £23m Using myself as an example, I have been a type-2 diabetic for almost 20 years. First I was prescribed Metformin, the dose of which was gradually ramped up, then another drug was added, then another, then another so that I almost rattle when I walk. 20 years ago, no-one said: 'Go on this diet and come back in six months, fatty'. Nobody said: 'I wonder why his pancreas suddenly stopped working properly'. Nobody ever looks at how my body is working in any detail; everyone looks at their own speciality. If they had looked at me properly 10 years ago when treating me for something trivial, they would have seen the early pathognomonic signs of the life-threatening condition I now am being treated for. I wouldn't have been on unnecessary anti-coagulants for years if an ECG recording had been examined by a cardiologist rather than someone trialling new equipment. I have had the ridiculous situation where my GP takes blood from me to check on one thing and the hospital consultant repeats the process two days later to look at another factor. READ MORE: Stephen Flynn clashes with Labour MP in BBC interview: 'Don't talk over me' Medicine and surgery have changed dramatically since the NHS was created. We need to start from scratch and decide what we can afford to do. Life is unfair, and unless the structure of society is radically changed, the majority of us can never have the same options or opportunities that are available to the top 1%. We need more staff and more funding. First of all, we need to train enough staff here in the UK rather than relying on 25% of the staff coming from overseas. Those who gain their initial degrees in Scotland and are trained by the NHS should work full-time in the NHS and the private sector should train its own staff. We need more time spent on initial consultations; regular health MOTs where every common condition that could affect a patient of that age is assessed. We need to stop providing treatments that modern medicine can do but are the 'icing on the cake'. Would society collapse if assisted reproduction wasn't available on the NHS? Should we offer bariatric surgery? I hate to say, it but should we treat OAPs like me if we can't be discharged home to look after ourselves, if the treatment simply delays the inevitable and gives no quality of life? The hospital service in Scotland will definitely collapse if 10% or more of the available beds continue to be taken up by those who do not require further inpatient treatment but just have nowhere to go. If Obergruppenfuhrer Starmer can suddenly decide to double the UK defence budget to keep Nato happy, why can't he do the same for the NHS and keep us all happy? David J Crawford Glasgow MAYBE Norman Robertson (Letters, June 17) missed the sardonic nature of my letter of June 16, but at no point did I single out Israel alone. I noted that each country was equally unstable. I also made clear Netanyahu faced internal opposition to his war from within Israel. What I find interesting is that while Israel is reported on as being a 'state' by UK media, Iran is always referred to as a 'regime'; in fact the orange king of the USA of talks of Iran in terms of a 'regime change' being needed. READ MORE: Angela Rayner does not rule out following US into war with Iran The reality is that without USA defence funding and the backing of Zionist billionaires, Israel is busted. Without a war, Netanyahu is heading for criminal fines and possible imprisonment in Israel, all before the ICC gets hold of him for war crimes in Gaza. The only one who gains from further escalation in the Middle East is Netanyahu. At no time in recent history has bombing of cities changed anyone's minds. The myth of precision bombing still leaves a lot of collateral damage. Ballistic missiles can be off their aiming point from between 200 to 500 metres, no matter their manufacturer's claims. We are now at Sarajevo in 1914 and, courtesy of Mr Starmer getting a 'trade deal' with the orange king, the UK is already being sucked into the active defence of Israel whether any voter in the UK wishes it or not, with the RAF spy plane and increased Typhoon deployment to Cyprus. The Royal Navy is already active in the Red Sea and Hormuz Strait, shooting down missiles fired from Yemen while monitoring Iranian missile launches for the US and Israeli military. READ MORE: Keir Starmer to chair emergency Cobra meeting on Middle East How far away is the UK from putting boots on the ground on behalf of the regime in Israel? I have seen 'active service', suffered having friends killed and maimed, and like many I would say that no matter how the politicians polish this particular turd, it always ends up in some form of negotiation or defeat, which raises the question 'why did we fight in the first place?' Neither Iran nor Israel are worth the death of a single UK serviceman or woman, Mr Robertson, it is as simple as that, no matter who hit who first. We are not talking about a 'jackets aff' fight at the bike sheds here, we are looking at a tipping point for World War Three. Peter Thomson Kirkcudbright
