Hospital failings allow superbugs to spread

Thousands of patients risk contracting potentially deadly superbugs because NHS hospitals are not taking basic steps to stop the spread of infection, the Daily Telegraph reports today.

Independent research by Dr Foster Research, an independent health information company, into the state of infection control at 167 NHS hospital trusts in England exposed chaotic monitoring systems and hospitals losing the battle against MRSA and other deadly infections.

Only 10 of the trusts surveyed could provide data showing that they had isolated more than 90% of individuals with MRSA. This is the level that infection control experts recommend as an essential safeguard in the battle against hospital-acquired bugs.

In half of the trusts surveyed, patients had to wait up to 72 hours for their screening results to be returned, putting thousands of others at risk of contracting an infection. And only five trusts could show that patients were screened and told whether they were infected in less than 24 hours.

The revelations come at a time when cases of C. difficile and MRSA are soaring and deaths linked to hospital superbugs have increased dramatically.

Office for National Statistics figures show that between 2004 and 2005, the number of deaths recorded as associated with MRSA rose 39%. Those that mentioned Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) rose by 69%. Mentions of C. difficile on death certificates rose from 2,247 in 2004 to 3,807 the following year, while mentions of MRSA rose from 1,168 to 1,629.

Patient groups have branded the revelations as "alarming". Michael Summers, of the Patients' Association, accused the Government of not taking the risk of MRSA seriously and blamed NHS cutbacks for the growing problem.

"Cuts in spending in the NHS have had a devastating impact on infection control. People phoning our helpline tell us that bed sheets aren't being washed and that beds are not being cleaned," he said.

"It's not good enough. The number of deaths from MRSA has been rising steadily since 1993 when 51 people died from the bug. In 2005, almost 1,700 people lost their lives from the infection."

Under-capacity in the health service was also blamed for exacerbating the problem. Countries with low rates of hospital-acquired infections, such as the Netherlands, are able to isolate infected patients because their hospitals are less crowded. Bed occupancy rates in the Netherlands are around 60% compared with more than 87% in Britain.

Yet billions of pounds that could be used to tackle this problem - a factor in the deaths of over 5,000 people in 2005 - by providing hospitals with more resources for cleaning, more beds and more isolation facilities, MPs instead plan to hand over to the EU.

Some MPs claim that the billions they want to pay the EU may not, if saved, necessarily be used for this purpose. But this is a feeble excuse for intending to approve obviously wasteful spending while public services clearly need more support.

More public money is required from somewhere and, until they can suggest another source, blocking vastly increased payments to a wasteful and audit-failing body like the EU is an obvious candidate for consideration.

So will MPs take the responsible course and vote against the EU budget deal? Or expose their supposed commitment to improving public services as nothing more than talk?