Political interference in hospital practice

David Nunn is the consultant orthopaedic surgeon who famously ordered Cameron, Clegg and their film crew out of his hospital ward recently.

The "bare below the elbows" policy he was enforcing came into effect in NHS hospitals several years ago, writes Max Pemberton, in an attempt to reduce infection rates.

But, says Pemberton, there is no evidence to show that this policy does reduce infection. He adds:

I'd go so far as to say that it's actively dangerous, because it diverts attention from the real problems.

The research shows that the single biggest factor in the spread of hospital-acquired infections is bed occupancy rate. The quicker the turnaround in hospitals, and the more pressure on bed space, the more infections there are.

Scandalously, this link was emphasised six years ago, in a report funded by the Department of Health. Yet it was ignored by Labour because it did not fit in with its new NHS agenda of closing hospitals, introducing PFI hospitals (which typically have 30 per cent fewer beds) and "streamlining" services.

These policies have left us with some of the highest bed occupancy rates in the developed world, with hospitals often running at over 100 per cent capacity. It's this that is causing the spread of hospital-acquired infections, not shirtsleeves or watches. MRSA rates are more than 40 per cent higher in hospitals with 90 per cent bed occupancy than in those with less than 85 per cent. On the Continent, where bed-occupancy rates are lower still, they have far fewer outbreaks. Then there's the issue of the contracting-out of cleaning services to companies that often seem to be more interested in their own profits than the state of the floors.

By contrast, the "bare below the elbows" policy has "no scientific basis or tangible benefit". Pemberton sees it as a PR stunt to divert attention from tougher issues.

If Pemberton is right, politicians have fooled the public into believing they were doing something effective about hospital infections, and ducked tackling the real causes, because that would have been inconvenient.

Whyever was this a decision for politicians in the first place?