NHS letting some patients ‘fall through the cracks' as government urged to do more
The NHS is 'not working' for people in the UK with rare diseases as they are left to 'fall through the cracks,' a damning new report has claimed.
Nearly three in ten (30 per cent) people with certain uncommon conditions say they are waiting for five years between symptoms starting and being diagnosed with their condition.
Many are still facing 'poor care co-ordination' after their diagnoses, the report by the Rare Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease Alliance (RAIRDA) finds, alongside difficulties accessing information and support.
Geographical factors also make too big a difference, the authors add, with where people live making a drastic difference to the level of care they can expect to receive.
The report claims that the UK health system has had an 'increasing focus' on major and common conditions, but people with these rare conditions are being left to 'fall through the cracks'.
Rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases are a group of conditions, including: lupus, Sjogren's, vasculitis, scleroderma and Raynaud's, where the immune system becomes overactive and attacks the body's healthy tissues.
As part of the report, Ipsos surveyed 1,300 people with these rare conditions in the UK and found:
On average, patients waited for 31 months from symptoms to diagnosis, but this varied considerably between conditions. Many people said that they were initially misdiagnosed with other conditions before they received their diagnosis.
Almost one in 10 (9%) said that after diagnosis, they waited for a year before seeing a specialist. The average wait to see a specialist was five months. The Alliance said treatment needs to 'begin rapidly to prevent unnecessary disease progression'.
After diagnosis, 5% of people said they were responsible for co-ordinating their care, while 9% said they did not know who was in charge.
Only a quarter (26%) said they felt their GP understood their condition.
RAIRDA said that the Government 's upcoming 10-year plan for health represents a 'genuine opportunity' to make improvements in care to make sure that people living with rare diseases are not left feeling 'totally alone with their disease'.
The report makes a series of recommendations, including: the expansion of specialised networks; the reduction in waiting times for diagnosis; giving greater access to support; and improving people's experiences of how they are cared for.
Sue Farrington, co-chairwoman of RAIRDA, said: 'As this report shows, across the UK, people with RAIRDs are not getting the care they need.
'The evidence echoes the stories we hear every day from our patient communities – the UK's health system is not working for people living with RAIRDs, and they are falling through the cracks.
'These findings are perhaps not unsurprising, in a system where there has been an increasing focus on major and common conditions.
'The UK Rare Diseases Framework and subsequent action plans have enabled a significant step for rare conditions, but more is needed.'
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'We know that those living with rare diseases and their families face immense everyday challenges.
'Improving co-ordination of care for people with rare diseases is a priority, and in our recent Rare Diseases Action Plan we set out plans to achieve this.
'More widely, our Plan for Change will transform the NHS by driving down waiting lists and investing in quality facilities to ensure all patients – including those with rare diseases – receive the care and treatment they deserve.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Wes Streeting: ‘I won't shrink away from opening NHS to private sector'
Wes Streeting has said he will not rule out leaning more heavily on the private sector to cut NHS backlogs. The Health Secretary said he 'refused to be bound by outdated ideological battles', saying using independent hospitals to provide taxpayer-funded care did not contradict the principles of the health service. Writing for The Telegraph, below, he said he would fight for the future of the NHS, warning of a 'national emergency' facing the country. He made the comments as new figures showed that almost 1.4 million people have had private care on the NHS since Labour won the election. They include more than 500,000 patients – more than the population of Liverpool – who have received such treatment since an agreement to 'turbocharge' such efforts was published in January. The deal with the independent sector, announced by Sir Keir Starmer, offers vacant private care appointments to NHS patients while keeping treatment free at the point of use. Officials have pushed the services particularly in parts of the country that have some of the longest waits and lowest levels of private healthcare uptake. The biggest surge in the use of the private sector by the NHS came in the North East and Yorkshire, followed by the South East and North West. Mr Streeting, a survivor of kidney cancer, said the NHS saved his life and he is now fighting to make sure it is there for others. He said: 'Millions are waiting in limbo for treatment that could transform their lives. 'Behind the staggering six million people on waiting lists are real human stories. Parents missing work to care for children in pain. Grandparents unable to play with grandchildren. People forced to take sick days that threaten their livelihoods. This isn't just a statistic – it's a national emergency. 'That's why I refuse to be bound by outdated ideological battles when confronting this crisis. My priority is simple. And in my effort to get there, I won't shrink away from using the independent sector to get NHS patients seen faster.' On Wednesday, the NHS was declared 'the big winner' from the Government's spending review, with a record cash injection of £29 billion a year. Mr Streeting stressed: 'Money alone won't fix this. We need reform too.' The Government is expected to go further in its use of the private sector, as it prepares to draw up a 10-year plan for the NHS, which promises three major shifts – from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from treating sickness to prevention. Mr Streeting said it was 'nonsense' to suggest that using the private sector was at odds with NHS principles. 'What contradicts NHS principles is letting people suffer unnecessarily when capacity exists to treat them. The treatment remains free at the point of use – that's what matters,' he said. The Health Secretary said it was 'ambitious but essential' that the NHS meets its target of ensuring that 92 per cent of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. It has not been achieved since 2015. The independent sector agreement, launched in January this year, is part of an NHS Elective Reform Plan to clear waiting backlogs, especially in the most challenged specialities. 'Going further than New Labour' Before the election, Mr Streeting said a new Labour government would 'go further than New Labour ever did' in use of the private sector for NHS patients. 'If you want to understand my appetite for reform, think New Labour on steroids,' he said in a speech in May 2024. Tony Blair's New Labour government funded a network of 30 private clinics carrying out operations and tests for NHS patients between 2003 and 2010. It also introduced patient choice, allowing patients to opt for care in a private hospital. However, the drive divided the Labour party and lost momentum. Polling from YouGov shows strong support for the Independent Sector agreement, with 70 per cent of the public showing strong support for the NHS using the private sector to clear the backlog. The most common procedures delivered through the independent sector are ophthalmology (23.8 per cent of all treatments), trauma and orthopaedics (20.9 per cent) and dermatology (14.9 per cent). Mark Cubbon, the director of elective care, cancer and diagnostics at NHS England, said: 'Independent sector providers play an important role in supporting NHS efforts to get patients the care they need quicker, with the latest figures showing record numbers of treatments are being carried out. 'NHS use of the private sector has risen significantly since 2021, and our new partnership agreement will help us go even further to widen access to treatment for thousands of patients.' 'Pivotal role in NHS's recovery' David Hare, the chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network said: 'These figures demonstrate that independent providers are playing a pivotal role in the NHS's elective recovery, helping ensure patients can get the treatment they need – all free at the point of use and paid for at NHS prices. 'But with so much more still to do to once again meet the NHS's 18-week target by March 2029, it's vital that local NHS areas build on this progress and ensure that they make full use of existing and potential capacity in the sector to give patients greater choice and access to the care they need.' Rachel Power, the chief executive of the Patients Association, welcomed the announcement. She said: 'Patients waiting for treatment tell us they feel like their lives are on hold, while facing real hardship, uncertainty and pain.' Analysis from the Independent Health Providers Network has shown that 96 per cent of people in England live within 30 minutes' driving distance of an independent provider that delivers NHS treatment. Using private help contradicts NHS principles? What nonsense By Wes Streeting I know what it's like to sit in a doctor's office and hear the word 'cancer'. The gut punch. The fear. The questions about what happens next – and crucially, how quickly. Yet millions are waiting in limbo for treatment that could transform their lives. Behind the staggering six million people on waiting lists are real human stories. Parents missing work to care for children in pain. Grandparents unable to play with grandchildren. People forced to take sick days that threaten their livelihoods. This isn't just a statistic – it's a national emergency. That's why I refuse to be bound by outdated ideological battles when confronting this crisis. My priority is simple. And in my effort to get there, I won't shrink away from using the independent sector to get NHS patients seen faster. Between January and April alone, over 500,000 people received vital treatments through our partnership with independent healthcare providers – the equivalent of treating the entire population of Liverpool in just four months. These aren't abstract numbers. They're people getting life-changing hip replacements, knee surgeries and cancer treatments. Some ask whether using private capacity contradicts NHS principles. Nonsense. What contradicts NHS principles is letting people suffer unnecessarily when capacity exists to treat them. The treatment remains free at the point of use – that's what matters. The independent healthcare sector won't affect this principle, and so it would be foolish to turn it away when we so desperately need it in certain specialities. But at the same time, we must see it for what it is. The spending review has delivered proper investment in our NHS with nearly £29 billion in additional funding. But money alone won't fix this. We need reform too. The results of our Plan for Change are already showing. Waiting lists have fallen to their lowest level in two years, marking the first April drop since 2008. We're finally heading in the right direction to creating an NHS Fit for Future. Our Plan for Change sets out the clear milestone: meeting the NHS standard where 92 per cent of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. It's ambitious but essential. Cancer taught me that time is precious. When you're waiting for treatment, every day matters. That's why I won't waste a single day, or a single available appointment slot, in our mission to give patients the care they deserve. The NHS saved my life. Now I'm fighting to ensure it's there – on time – to save yours.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Doctor leaders warn GP practices ‘on the brink' as demand intensifies
The snap survey ran from 6 May to 21 May this year and received 1,670 responses, with 38% of GP partners in Scotland taking part. Nearly half of GPs in Scotland who responded to the survey said the future of their practice is precarious or not sustainable. A total of 45% of GPs said this was the case, representing a rise of 10% since 2023. Four out of ten GPs (41.61%) said their practice is unable to meet patient demand for access and there is 'no realistic chance of this in the near future'. Most GPs (98.5%) believe urgent and sustained investment into General Practice is necessary. Meanwhile, more than nine out of ten GPs say they would take on additional GPs if they had sufficient funding (95.62%) Nearly all participants indicated that they could take on more General Practitioners (GPs) if they received adequate funding. The BMA found that an additional 160 whole-time equivalent (WTE) GPs could potentially be available, which would provide approximately 700,000 additional appointments annually. READ MORE: Doctors demand 1800 more GPs to improve patient care Scottish Government urged to improve NHS governance to deliver reforms This increase in capacity would be achievable if all sessional GPs seeking more work were able to secure their desired number of working hours. Dr Iain Morrison, chair of the Scottish general practitioners committee (SGPC), said the findings were "stark" in revealing the pressures GP practices are under. Dr Morrison also said the survey showed the 'devastating' impact of years of underinvestment and the results must act as a wake-up call to Government, with an urgent plan needed to see £290m deliver full funding restoration for GP practices and stabilise the position. The chair of the SGPC said: 'The findings of this survey show the crisis that GPs across the country are facing and must act as a wake-up call to government that we need a radical change of approach as to how it supports General Practice. 'At a time when we have record levels of demand, general practices are having to think about reducing services – we simply cannot continue to provide more and more for less and less resource. 'It is a situation which is completely unsustainable and is taking a toll on GPs who are all too aware of the challenges patients can face in accessing services. GPs want to deliver a service they can be proud of, rather than one they need to apologise for. 'This survey has found most practices would be able to take on more GPs if they had the funding available, as well as showing there are GPs who are looking for work. "Patients will rightly be bewildered that there are GPs struggling to find enough work while they can face a struggle to get an appointment. If the required funding was made available, patients would be able to rapidly see the benefits with the equivalent of 160 WTE GPs currently seeking to take on work.' The BMA's Scottish general practitioners committee has recently launched a campaign calling for a £290million funding gap to be addressed, which includes posters in GP surgeries explaining the issues to help patients understand why they may be struggling to get the service or access they want and need. Patients are also being urged to 'Stand with your Surgery' and back the call for general practice to receive more funding. Dr Morrison said: 'The survey also reveals an alarming number of practices are on the brink, with nearly half of GPs expressing concern about the sustainability of their practice in the future. 'Surgeries are at the heart of communities and we simply cannot afford to lose one more as a consequence of erosion of funding and rising cost pressures. That's why we are also calling for everyone to 'Stand with your Surgery' and advocate for General Practice to receive more funding, to be able to better serve their communities. 'This must begin with urgent action to deliver £290m for full funding restoration – around one percent of the Scottish NHS budget - which would initially help to stabilise General Practice and then grow the GP workforce to improve access and services for patients. 'The survey shows the devastating impact of years of lack of action and we cannot allow any more practices to close or GPs to leave the profession as a result. The government must now take the opportunity to support general practice and reverse years of decline before it is simply too late. 'General practice provides 90% of patient contact and can deliver the solution to the perpetual NHS crisis – but only if it is given the resources to do so.' One GP said despite working "harder than ever" she has recently faced more negativity around her line of work. Dr Karen Hopkins, a GP Partner in Stepps, North Lanarkshire, said: 'I used to be proud to tell people I was a GP; it used to be met with respect and appreciation. Now when people ask me, I tell them and brace myself for the barrage of frustration I know is about to be thrust upon me. 'Not out of malice, but because people - my friends, my family, parents in the playground- are increasingly frustrated with the NHS and service that is not fit for purpose. Yet my colleagues and I in primary care are working harder than ever. Longer hours, no lunch breaks, logging on at home on unpaid days off or holidays. 'Primary care is both the first point of access and the backbone of the NHS. Funding restoration would mean better access. It would mean more appointments with GPs and nurses. It would mean your chronic disease checks could be done promptly and on schedule. It would mean being a GP would once again become a more attractive job – 11-hour days with no break is not something any of us thought we were signing up for becoming GPs. 'Our nation has never been more unhealthy-obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease. Preventing and treating this is the bread and butter of general practice, and yet while we are fire-fighting the insatiable demand, this important work cannot be done. Funding restoration needs to happen for the future of General the future of the NHS.' In its report, published in March, Audit Scotland, found Scottish Government ministers were "unlikely" to hit their target of delivering 800 more GPs by 2027. The BMA has previously said £290m is needed to plug a funding gap for GP surgeries and has warned if it is not addressed in the coming months then the "current direction of travel" is leading towards a formal dispute with Scottish ministers. The Scottish government said it has increased investment in general practice and is determined to increase the number of GPs in Scotland. Scotland currently has the highest number of GPs per head in the UK with 82 GPs per 100,000 population, compared with 64 in England. Health Secretary Neil Gray said: 'We want to make it easier for people to see their GP and are taking steps to address the challenges facing general practice. That includes ensuring that a greater proportion of new NHS funding goes to primary and community care. "We are in bilateral discussions with the Scottish GP Committee about core funding for general practice. 'GPs play an incredibly important role and we want to see more of them in Scotland. That is why we are determined to increase the number of GPs by 800 by 2027, with an additional 360 GPs added since 2017."
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Parent says no, stop the screen rot in schools
Bravo to the education committee for finally saying what we all know to be true: for young children, screens are like — and I'm paraphrasing here, but not by much — crack, in terms of rotting their brains and being ludicrously addictive. In its new report, 'Screen time: impacts on education and wellbeing', the committee concluded, 'The overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to us suggests that the harms of screen time and social media use significantly outweigh the benefits for young children.' In other words, it's not social media that's the problem. It's screens themselves. So, boy oh boy, that education committee will be really angry with whoever just made this decision: from September the national statutory tests for five-year-olds, the 'reception baseline assessment', will require at least two touchscreens — one for the teacher and one for the very young child (adult and child, side by side, both on screens, just as God intended.) Who on earth thought it was a good idea to test five-year-olds on tablets? Oh wait, it's written here in small letters, let me get my glasses …It was the Department for Education. Ah. By now, bodies ranging from the World Health Organisation to the NHS have published guidelines about screen time for young children. But these guidelines are arguably too little and definitely too late: a 2020 Ofcom report found that an astonishing 57 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds in Britain have a tablet. As a result of this large-scale outsourcing of parenting to screens, last week a coalition of schools, nurseries and colleges published a letter saying that children were now starting school with speech and emotional difficulties 'that are likely to have been exaggerated by or are even directly attributable to excessive screen time'. And yet the DfE has decided that those same screen-addicted kids should be tested on screens. And just to prove that too much screen time rots adults' brains too, I'm going to respond to this mess with an internet meme: DfE! Make! It! Make! Sense! • Schools issue parents with screen time limits from birth to age 16 So I emailed the department to ask — politely — what it was thinking. Why was it telling parents to give their kids less screen time while telling schools to give the kids more? Alas, to judge from the computer-says-no response I got, the DfE is now run by AI, which might explain its compulsion to test kids online: 'Digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.' So young children will get to interact with teachers more by interacting with them less. Or something. Schools switched to digital learning during lockdown, and many found they enjoyed this easing of the 'administrative burden' so much, they never switched back. No surprise, given how much investment has been lavished on it: the UK-based primary school educational platform Atom Learning raised £19 million in 2021 and is now near ubiquitous. In April I wrote about the rise in primary schools of 'ed tech', aka education technology, aka teaching children via the medium of computer games, whizzy apps, tech portals and emojis. You don't need to be Mr Gradgrind to query the benefits of this gamification of education, teaching children from the age of five to expect lessons to be taught in ten-second bite-sized graphics. And we wonder why today's kids have such decimated attention spans. • Book holidays with bad wi-fi to get teens reading, says Winchester head Since then, I've heard some truly fascinating defences of education technology in primary schools. I was told that screens 'enrich students' learning experience', although when I asked if there was any proof of said enrichment, answer came there none. In fact, studies show that primary school kids experience what neuroscientists in one study describe as 'deeper reading' when learning from a paper text, whereas when they learn from a screen 'shallow reading was observed'. I was told that it's important to teach children how to use these devices for their future employment prospects, as though the devices weren't designed to be entirely intuitive, and addictive. And in any case, they will be utterly obsolete by the time these kids are in the workplace. Some argue that ed tech isn't social media, and that's true. But telling young children to do their school projects online is as ridiculous as telling them to do their homework in front of the TV: distraction is always a click away. And my personal favourite: 'The students really enjoy it.' They'd also enjoy eating sugar all day, so let's provide glucose on tap and see how that pans out. The one decent defence schools have for putting young kids on screens is that this is how they will increasingly be tested. Most GCSEs and A-levels will be online within a decade — so why not start them in primary school, seems to be the thinking. But five-year-olds are not 16-year-olds. One educator said to me breezily that this is simple 'market forces'. But schools — and certainly the DfE — should not be uncritical, passive consumers of tech. Mike Baxter, principal of City of London Academy, said last week, 'Over the past 20 years, schools and families have too often blindly trusted technology to aid and even enhance the education and wellbeing of our young people. However, the reality couldn't be further from this.' I have yet to meet anyone who can explain why it's better for children to write an essay online and upload it to Google Classroom than write one by hand in a notebook. If schools can't say how any of this benefits the pupils, they shouldn't do it. Computers aren't the only thing that can say no.
