A practitioner of Chinese medicine has pleaded guilty to selling a banned substance to a woman who went on to develop kidney failure and cancer.
Ying "Susan" Wu, 48, of Holland-on-Sea in Essex, has been on trial at the Old Bailey for selling pills containing aristolochic acid to a civil servant.
The judge said he accepted Ms Wu had not meant to harm, and that the case highlighted the need for regulation.
Ms Wu has now been given a conditional discharge.
Patricia Booth, 58, took the pills, bought at Chelmsford's Chinese Herbal Medical Centre, for over five years. She was in her mid-40s when she first sought help from the centre in 1997 for stubborn patches of spots on her face.
The Old Bailey heard the products had been advertised as "safe and natural".
But they contained a substance - aristolochic acid - which when she was first sold them, should only have been given under prescription, and which was later banned.
Traditionally this would be used maybe once or twice by a doctor who would know about its toxicity, but sometimes it might get into a formulation which is then used by somebody who doesn't have this wealth of experience
Professor Monique Simmonds
The court heard Mrs Booth became ill months after she stopped taking the pills. She was diagnosed with kidney failure, and later with cancer of the urinary tract - both allegedly caused by the pills.
The grandmother, who used to manage a government office of up to 60 people, currently goes to hospital three times each week for dialysis.
She had told the court that she had been advised to take about 30 tiny brown tablets three times each day, returning to the shop every two weeks to buy up to three bottles at a time. She became friendly with Ms Wu, who was employed at the shop as a "Chinese doctor" until it closed in 2003.
Ms Wu, who had initially denied the charges, pleaded guilty to selling prescription only medicines without authorisation and to selling a banned substance.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Thursday, 11 February 2010
How can this happen in the 21st century?
An independent inquiry into Stafford Hospital – where patients were starved, dehydrated, left in agony, and told to lie in their own faeces – has heard how:
* The hospital's emergency assessment unit was so unsafe that staff branded it "Beirut";
* Job cuts left nurses so overstretched they became "immune to the sound of pain";
* Receptionists decided which casualty arrivals should be seen first, based on a "gut feeling" of who looked the most unwell;
* When hospital bosses were given notice of a damning inspection report, published last year, they responded by hiring a public relations team and promised to "get MPs on side";
The inquiry, led by Robert Francis QC, was ordered following last year's damning Healthcare Commission report in which regulators described care of patients at Mid Staffordshire Hospital trust as the most appalling scandal they had ever encountered.
More than 900 patients and families, and scores of staff, have given evidence to the inquiry, which is examining the care of thousands of patients treated between 2005 and 2009.
Findings of the inquiry, which were handed to ministers on Friday, are expected to focus on how a culture of "fear and bullying" prevented failings from being exposed.
Mortality rates suggested that there were at least 400 more deaths than might have been expected in a three-year period, while relatives told how their desperate loved ones had been left to drink from flower vases.
In the wake of the scandal The Sunday Telegraph launched the Heal Our Hospitals campaign, which is calling for a review of hospital targets to make sure they work to improve quality of care, and which has been backed by more than 5,000 people.
Closed sessions of the inquiry heard how patients were left in agony, screaming for pain relief, while others were left without medication, food and drink, and left on commodes for long periods.
Basic hygiene was neglected, with one female patient left unwashed for the last four weeks of her life, the inquiry heard.
Nurses told how pressure to hit a Government target for all patients to be treated within four hours of arrival at A&E meant that patients were moved when they were soaking wet, or were left in an assessment unit for hours, or even days, without proper care.
In evidence, staff were highly critical of senior managers who enforced 160 job cuts to cut costs as the trust applied for coveted "foundation status".
When the status was awarded, staff were rewarded with £25 Marks and Spencers vouchers, to the disgust of many, the inquiry heard.
An obsession about the project blinded the board to the problems being suffered by patients, doctors said.
A former hospital worker described how in a conversation about hygiene, Martin Yeates, chief executive until he resigned last May, said the hospital "could not possibly" keep its lavatories as clean as those in the local Asda supermarket.
Staff giving oral evidence to the inquiry reserved much of their strongest criticism for Jan Harry, the trust's director of nursing from 1998 to 2006, when disastrous changes to the organisation of wards were introduced, and plans for swingeing job cuts agreed.
Mrs Harry, who was chief nurse when the trust decided to axe 52 nursing posts told the inquiry that she could not recall the decision, and was "not aware" of plans to drastically alter the ratio of trained to untrained staff.
She also said she had not been involved in separate discussions about 20 job cuts - a situation she admitted was "extraordinary".
Mrs Harry said it was not her job to monitor standards on the wards – a claim later described as "absurd" by Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing.
Toni Brisby, a former trust chairman, said the evidence provided by Mrs Harry was "at odds" with her recollection that the head nurse had been a strong advocate of proposals to change the way nursing was provided, and had assured the chairman that the loss of 52 posts would not harm patient care.
During the inquiry, Mrs Harry said she had no major concerns about the care provided at Stafford Hospital.
Mrs Harry left the trust "by mutual agreement" in June 2006. She told the inquiry that savings from the ward reorganisation had been "fortuitous" and that changes had been intended to improve patient care.
She said she wanted no part of the trust's financial recovery plan.
In previous evidence to the Healthcare Commission, she said resulting cuts to the number of qualified staff had not been her intention, and occurred after she left the trust.
A year after her departure, she was hired by Dudley Group of Hospitals trust to run a cost-cutting programme as it prepared a bid for foundation status.
After the trust won the status in 2008, its inspection rating dropped from good to weak, and last autumn it failed a basic hygiene inspection, though it has since improved.
Mrs Harry went on to work at Salisbury Foundation trust as interim director of operations between December 2008 and May 2009.
Her replacement at Mid Staffordshire Hospitals, Dr Helen Moss, who left in December to take up a training role across the East Midlands, was criticised by some staff for not acting quickly enough to tackle problems uncovered, but others praised her attempts to make changes.
Helen Morrey, director of operations at Mid Staffordshire trust from 2006 until last year, admitted "risk assessments" about the impact of job cuts were inadequate and accepted responsibility for a failure to thoroughly investigate complaints by patients.
Ms Morrey was put on paid leave last July, before leaving the trust in November.
Kate Levy, the trust's head of legal services, is currently suspended over allegations that she asked for a rewrite of a damning report into a patient's death because she did not want the trust to receive "adverse publicity".
Antony Sumara, who replaced Mr Yeates as chief executive of the trust, said the organisation was committed to work "openly and transparently and will tolerate nothing less from our staff".
Julie Bailey set up the campaign group Cure The NHS after the death of her mother Bella at Stafford Hospital in 2007.
The campaigner said the hospital's treatment of patients had been "absolutely horrific," while those who tried to speak out had been silenced. The group is calling for a public inquiry into the supervision of all hospitals.
"Our biggest concern is that this could happen again, elsewhere, unless an inquiry looks at how this was allowed to happen; the system of regulation, the role of the Department of Health, and its ministers. Nothing else will do," she said.
* The hospital's emergency assessment unit was so unsafe that staff branded it "Beirut";
* Job cuts left nurses so overstretched they became "immune to the sound of pain";
* Receptionists decided which casualty arrivals should be seen first, based on a "gut feeling" of who looked the most unwell;
* When hospital bosses were given notice of a damning inspection report, published last year, they responded by hiring a public relations team and promised to "get MPs on side";
The inquiry, led by Robert Francis QC, was ordered following last year's damning Healthcare Commission report in which regulators described care of patients at Mid Staffordshire Hospital trust as the most appalling scandal they had ever encountered.
More than 900 patients and families, and scores of staff, have given evidence to the inquiry, which is examining the care of thousands of patients treated between 2005 and 2009.
Findings of the inquiry, which were handed to ministers on Friday, are expected to focus on how a culture of "fear and bullying" prevented failings from being exposed.
Mortality rates suggested that there were at least 400 more deaths than might have been expected in a three-year period, while relatives told how their desperate loved ones had been left to drink from flower vases.
In the wake of the scandal The Sunday Telegraph launched the Heal Our Hospitals campaign, which is calling for a review of hospital targets to make sure they work to improve quality of care, and which has been backed by more than 5,000 people.
Closed sessions of the inquiry heard how patients were left in agony, screaming for pain relief, while others were left without medication, food and drink, and left on commodes for long periods.
Basic hygiene was neglected, with one female patient left unwashed for the last four weeks of her life, the inquiry heard.
Nurses told how pressure to hit a Government target for all patients to be treated within four hours of arrival at A&E meant that patients were moved when they were soaking wet, or were left in an assessment unit for hours, or even days, without proper care.
In evidence, staff were highly critical of senior managers who enforced 160 job cuts to cut costs as the trust applied for coveted "foundation status".
When the status was awarded, staff were rewarded with £25 Marks and Spencers vouchers, to the disgust of many, the inquiry heard.
An obsession about the project blinded the board to the problems being suffered by patients, doctors said.
A former hospital worker described how in a conversation about hygiene, Martin Yeates, chief executive until he resigned last May, said the hospital "could not possibly" keep its lavatories as clean as those in the local Asda supermarket.
Staff giving oral evidence to the inquiry reserved much of their strongest criticism for Jan Harry, the trust's director of nursing from 1998 to 2006, when disastrous changes to the organisation of wards were introduced, and plans for swingeing job cuts agreed.
Mrs Harry, who was chief nurse when the trust decided to axe 52 nursing posts told the inquiry that she could not recall the decision, and was "not aware" of plans to drastically alter the ratio of trained to untrained staff.
She also said she had not been involved in separate discussions about 20 job cuts - a situation she admitted was "extraordinary".
Mrs Harry said it was not her job to monitor standards on the wards – a claim later described as "absurd" by Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing.
Toni Brisby, a former trust chairman, said the evidence provided by Mrs Harry was "at odds" with her recollection that the head nurse had been a strong advocate of proposals to change the way nursing was provided, and had assured the chairman that the loss of 52 posts would not harm patient care.
During the inquiry, Mrs Harry said she had no major concerns about the care provided at Stafford Hospital.
Mrs Harry left the trust "by mutual agreement" in June 2006. She told the inquiry that savings from the ward reorganisation had been "fortuitous" and that changes had been intended to improve patient care.
She said she wanted no part of the trust's financial recovery plan.
In previous evidence to the Healthcare Commission, she said resulting cuts to the number of qualified staff had not been her intention, and occurred after she left the trust.
A year after her departure, she was hired by Dudley Group of Hospitals trust to run a cost-cutting programme as it prepared a bid for foundation status.
After the trust won the status in 2008, its inspection rating dropped from good to weak, and last autumn it failed a basic hygiene inspection, though it has since improved.
Mrs Harry went on to work at Salisbury Foundation trust as interim director of operations between December 2008 and May 2009.
Her replacement at Mid Staffordshire Hospitals, Dr Helen Moss, who left in December to take up a training role across the East Midlands, was criticised by some staff for not acting quickly enough to tackle problems uncovered, but others praised her attempts to make changes.
Helen Morrey, director of operations at Mid Staffordshire trust from 2006 until last year, admitted "risk assessments" about the impact of job cuts were inadequate and accepted responsibility for a failure to thoroughly investigate complaints by patients.
Ms Morrey was put on paid leave last July, before leaving the trust in November.
Kate Levy, the trust's head of legal services, is currently suspended over allegations that she asked for a rewrite of a damning report into a patient's death because she did not want the trust to receive "adverse publicity".
Antony Sumara, who replaced Mr Yeates as chief executive of the trust, said the organisation was committed to work "openly and transparently and will tolerate nothing less from our staff".
Julie Bailey set up the campaign group Cure The NHS after the death of her mother Bella at Stafford Hospital in 2007.
The campaigner said the hospital's treatment of patients had been "absolutely horrific," while those who tried to speak out had been silenced. The group is calling for a public inquiry into the supervision of all hospitals.
"Our biggest concern is that this could happen again, elsewhere, unless an inquiry looks at how this was allowed to happen; the system of regulation, the role of the Department of Health, and its ministers. Nothing else will do," she said.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Spending like there's no tomorrow
This morning’s Independent contains an almost incredible splash that £26bn has been wasted on IT projects over the last decade. It's a litany of binary bungles - the incompetence: staggering; the forecasting: inept; and the planning (or lack of it): simply shocking. Contending with such absurdity whilst staring down the barrel of a £175bn deficit, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Let me take you on a whistle stop tour of dud investments made on our behalf. The major culprits are the NHS’ national IT programme (over budget and late at £12.7bn and used by only 160 health organisations out of 9,000), the MoD’s defence information infrastructure (over budget and late at £7.15bn and which was commissioned without a pilot) and the ID cards scheme (£2bn over budget and virtually scrapped at any rate). The government enjoys an impeccable reputation for throwing good money after bad bureaucracy; all three examples are evidence of the blinkered approach Labour still takes and the system that facilitates that approach.
In many ways, the modest examples of waste are more indicative of what is wrong with our bureaucracy and why it needs reform. In 2006 the DWP introduced the benefit processing replacement scheme, the aim of which was unclear; three months later it emerged that the scheme had been dropped, having already cost £106m. Money was spent for the sake of it on a gimmick that was quietly dropped after initial applause had subsided. Indicative of the Civil Service’s inability to cost anything, GCHQ decided to move its computer systems at an estimated cost of £41m; the final reckoning exceeded £300m. But the cream of the jest is the Department of Transport’s shared services centre. Bright and breezy analysts opined that rationalisation would save £51m; eventually the scheme cost £81m, but it was not without its benefits. After a little application, the unfulfilled vehicle licensers of Swansea came to enjoy Goethe in the original: the programme communicated in German.
Let me take you on a whistle stop tour of dud investments made on our behalf. The major culprits are the NHS’ national IT programme (over budget and late at £12.7bn and used by only 160 health organisations out of 9,000), the MoD’s defence information infrastructure (over budget and late at £7.15bn and which was commissioned without a pilot) and the ID cards scheme (£2bn over budget and virtually scrapped at any rate). The government enjoys an impeccable reputation for throwing good money after bad bureaucracy; all three examples are evidence of the blinkered approach Labour still takes and the system that facilitates that approach.
In many ways, the modest examples of waste are more indicative of what is wrong with our bureaucracy and why it needs reform. In 2006 the DWP introduced the benefit processing replacement scheme, the aim of which was unclear; three months later it emerged that the scheme had been dropped, having already cost £106m. Money was spent for the sake of it on a gimmick that was quietly dropped after initial applause had subsided. Indicative of the Civil Service’s inability to cost anything, GCHQ decided to move its computer systems at an estimated cost of £41m; the final reckoning exceeded £300m. But the cream of the jest is the Department of Transport’s shared services centre. Bright and breezy analysts opined that rationalisation would save £51m; eventually the scheme cost £81m, but it was not without its benefits. After a little application, the unfulfilled vehicle licensers of Swansea came to enjoy Goethe in the original: the programme communicated in German.
Friday, 15 January 2010
The hazards of over eating
A floor collapsed beneath a group of about 20 members of Weight Watchers as they gathered to compare how many pounds they had shed over Christmas.
Members of the weight-loss club were lining up to compare readings on the scales when they heard a bang as the floor came away from the walls of their meeting room in Växjö in southern Sweden.
“We suddenly heard a huge thud – we almost thought it was an earthquake and everything flew up in the air. The floor collapsed in one corner of the room and along the walls,” one of the those present told the Smålandsposten newspaper.
They abandoned the room as the floor started to give way in other areas.
Members of the weight-loss club were lining up to compare readings on the scales when they heard a bang as the floor came away from the walls of their meeting room in Växjö in southern Sweden.
“We suddenly heard a huge thud – we almost thought it was an earthquake and everything flew up in the air. The floor collapsed in one corner of the room and along the walls,” one of the those present told the Smålandsposten newspaper.
They abandoned the room as the floor started to give way in other areas.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Sign of the times
I was driving to work in Bedford this morning when I found myself behind a Group 4 security vehicle taking prisoners to Bedford prison. Someone had written in the dirt on the back of the vehicle "Caution, may contain nuts".
Watch out, the taxman's about
HMRC, desperate to make up for lost tax revenue from the recession are launch9ing a new blitz, initially to target doctors and dentists.
Doctors and dentists were identified yesterday as the first groups that HM Revenue and Customs inspectors would target.
Other white-collar workers including solicitors, barristers and accountants were expected to be targeted in coming months in what inspectors have named the “professionals campaign”.
Previously the revenue has focused on people in blue collar occupations, such as publicans and taxi drivers, when fighting tax evasion.
It was disclosed yesterday that attention would switch to the accounts of professionals earning more than £100,000.
Tens of thousands of individuals were expected to be audited.
Experts accused the Government of unfairly seeking “easy pickings”.
They suggested that the decision to chase high-earning professionals for unpaid taxes had been forced on the revenue by the Treasury, in an attempt to raise funds to reduce the national debt.
The revenue said a “significant” minority of medical professionals were engaged in tax evasion.
Examples cited included not declaring fees for private work done for medical care providers, payments for private consultation work or cash sums for drafting medical reports. Under a three-month amnesty, hospital consultants, GPs and dentists have until March 31 to make a voluntary disclosure about any income they have not declared.
In exchange, they will have to pay the outstanding tax. They will also face a fine of 10 per cent of the amount owed — but the action will stop there.
However, anyone who refuses to disclose their unpaid tax, and is caught after the deadline, faces criminal prosecution and up to seven years’ jail. They could also find themselves “named and shamed” on the revenue’s website.
Tax inspectors can issue formal notices asking people to hand over bank statements and business records if they believe they have grounds for suspicions. They can also legally inspect business premises using their civil powers. Tax evaders could also be identified through their previous tax returns.
Mike Wells, the revenue’s director of risk and intelligence, said: “I strongly urge any in this group [the medical profession] who think they may have outstanding tax liabilities on their income to get in touch with HMRC and get their tax affairs in order simply and on the best available terms.
“The message is clear: contact us before we contact you.”
Phil Berwick, the director of tax investigations at the law firm McGrigors, said targeting the medical profession alone was “without precedent”. “It is people who are going to be averse to naming and shaming and probably in a position to make a payment to the revenue,” he said.
“By offering an amnesty, HMRC is hoping to get a significant amount of tax into the Treasury’s coffers very quickly and at a reduced cost to itself. The parlous state of the public finances and the pressing need to reduce the deficit has probably forced HMRC’s hand to an extent.”
The middle-class initiative follows a previous revenue amnesty scheme to allow people with offshore bank accounts to declare how much tax they owed and pay a small fine. About 10,000 people made use of the scheme.
Richard Limburg, from Vantis Medical Group, the accountancy firm, added: “It is likely that HMRC sees the medical profession, especially consultants, as easy pickings and this could raise substantial amounts.”
A British Medical Association spokesman said doctors with concerns should consult a financial adviser. A spokesman for the British Dental Association said: “This plan serves as a useful reminder of the importance of ensuring everything is up to date.”
Doctors and dentists were identified yesterday as the first groups that HM Revenue and Customs inspectors would target.
Other white-collar workers including solicitors, barristers and accountants were expected to be targeted in coming months in what inspectors have named the “professionals campaign”.
Previously the revenue has focused on people in blue collar occupations, such as publicans and taxi drivers, when fighting tax evasion.
It was disclosed yesterday that attention would switch to the accounts of professionals earning more than £100,000.
Tens of thousands of individuals were expected to be audited.
Experts accused the Government of unfairly seeking “easy pickings”.
They suggested that the decision to chase high-earning professionals for unpaid taxes had been forced on the revenue by the Treasury, in an attempt to raise funds to reduce the national debt.
The revenue said a “significant” minority of medical professionals were engaged in tax evasion.
Examples cited included not declaring fees for private work done for medical care providers, payments for private consultation work or cash sums for drafting medical reports. Under a three-month amnesty, hospital consultants, GPs and dentists have until March 31 to make a voluntary disclosure about any income they have not declared.
In exchange, they will have to pay the outstanding tax. They will also face a fine of 10 per cent of the amount owed — but the action will stop there.
However, anyone who refuses to disclose their unpaid tax, and is caught after the deadline, faces criminal prosecution and up to seven years’ jail. They could also find themselves “named and shamed” on the revenue’s website.
Tax inspectors can issue formal notices asking people to hand over bank statements and business records if they believe they have grounds for suspicions. They can also legally inspect business premises using their civil powers. Tax evaders could also be identified through their previous tax returns.
Mike Wells, the revenue’s director of risk and intelligence, said: “I strongly urge any in this group [the medical profession] who think they may have outstanding tax liabilities on their income to get in touch with HMRC and get their tax affairs in order simply and on the best available terms.
“The message is clear: contact us before we contact you.”
Phil Berwick, the director of tax investigations at the law firm McGrigors, said targeting the medical profession alone was “without precedent”. “It is people who are going to be averse to naming and shaming and probably in a position to make a payment to the revenue,” he said.
“By offering an amnesty, HMRC is hoping to get a significant amount of tax into the Treasury’s coffers very quickly and at a reduced cost to itself. The parlous state of the public finances and the pressing need to reduce the deficit has probably forced HMRC’s hand to an extent.”
The middle-class initiative follows a previous revenue amnesty scheme to allow people with offshore bank accounts to declare how much tax they owed and pay a small fine. About 10,000 people made use of the scheme.
Richard Limburg, from Vantis Medical Group, the accountancy firm, added: “It is likely that HMRC sees the medical profession, especially consultants, as easy pickings and this could raise substantial amounts.”
A British Medical Association spokesman said doctors with concerns should consult a financial adviser. A spokesman for the British Dental Association said: “This plan serves as a useful reminder of the importance of ensuring everything is up to date.”
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Poetry corner
Proof that Gordon Brown cannot do anything right. Brown, fresh from surviving the Hoon-Hewitt assassination attempt, tells us that the poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley is his inspiration.
"Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul".
Who else was inspired by that poem? Not just Nelson Mandela, it transpires.
Psychopath Timothy McVeigh, who chose it as his final statement before he was executed in 2001 after killing 168 people in Oklahoma.
You'd have thought Downing Street might have thought this one through a little bit better, rather than choosing the convicted terrorist's poem of choice.
"Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul".
Who else was inspired by that poem? Not just Nelson Mandela, it transpires.
Psychopath Timothy McVeigh, who chose it as his final statement before he was executed in 2001 after killing 168 people in Oklahoma.
You'd have thought Downing Street might have thought this one through a little bit better, rather than choosing the convicted terrorist's poem of choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)