Well, we're all human!

Andrew Lansley "appeared" on the Toady programme this morning to give results that he and his colleagues had produced on the issue of mixed wards in NHS hospitals. (Kate Devlin, the Medical Correspondent of the Daily telegraph summarised the findings in the Telegraph on Line yesterday.)

In many of his assertions Lansley was supported by a spokesman of the Confederation of the NHS.

In brief, 86% percent of trusts, in answering an F of I search, admittedly that they still have some form of mixed sex ward or bay, or had mixed sex washing or toilet facilities. (In a 2007 DHS report 20% of hospital trusts were using mixed sex wards.)

About 15% of trusts and 2% of mental health trusts admitted that they still used mixed wards of the large open "nightingale- style".


All this despite repeated promises. In the 1997 election NuLabour promised to "work towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards". In the 2001 they promised, "Mixed sex wards will be abolished". Similarly in 2005. In April 208 Alan Johnson, the minister, assured us that mixed-sex accommodation would be scrapped within a year and that the goal was within touching distance.

(It should be recalled that Lord Darzi, not a career politician, in January 2008 warned us that the policy was "an inspiration that cannot be met". Perhaps he should talk to Mr. Johnson!)

Why is it so important?
Patients in hospital are often at a very low ebb, and really do not need the extra stress caused by the presence of members of the opposite sex. Some are confused and may not act rationally. They may walk about with no clothes on and may make unfortunate comments. Above all, in a situation where washroom doors and toilets are not lockable, highly embarrassing encounters can occur. Patients need dignity, and this may be destroyed by such encounters.

It seems amazing that after twelve years and an enormous financial expansion, such situations occur so regularly. New hospitals have been designed to meet the needs of patients, but the presence of so many "nightingale" wards suggests that there is a long way to go. Lansley suggested that a small amount, perhaps £ one billion or so, could change things dramatically, and provide finance to rebuild some of the wards.

One reason for the continuation of the mixed sex wards is that there are constant variations in proportions of medical conditions across the sexual divide. If we are to aim for full bed usage then the situation is unavoidable. We have scrapped how many beds over the last 12 years, - twenty or thirty thousand? We need more beds, and perhaps MRSA would be reduced in incidence if there were a few empty beds and newcomers were not put into a still warm bed vacated by a previous patient only minutes before.