First of all we had Professor Jarman and his infamous HSMR Stats, there has been much debate about these stats and I have no personal plans to revisit them as it has already been established that they are worthless.
However, with regards to Midstaffs and why it was selected; the HSMR was one of the reasons. I would like to draw your attention to a piece written in Computer Weekly as it clearly shows how wrong those stats were and in fact;
"Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust maintained an average rate of patient death for 17 years, according to a rational look at the numbers behind the NHS controversy"
"Mid-Staffs admitted 13,780 seriously-ill patients in 2004. By 2007, such admissions had increased by 2,654 cases, to 16,434. Yet Mid-Staff's death-rate for these high-risk patients actually fell in that time, from 6.4 per cent to 5.8 per cent"
http://www.computerweekly.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=102&tag=Mid-Staffordshire%20NHS%20Foundation%20Trust&limit=20
So bang goes the theory of Midstaffs being the "killing fields" as describe by Cure The NHS.
Since that article was posted on twitter, Cure and their allies have tried their best to counteract the argument that Midstaffs was a set-up and today Professor Jarman posts this:
So were Midstaffs complainant figures any worse than any other ?
Midstaffs complaints*
2005/06 = 447 Complaints 82.1% resolved in 21 days with 0 unresolved by the end of year
70 Trusts had higher rates ranging from 453 - 1264 complaints
2006/07 = 339 Complaints 71% resolved in 21 days with 2 unresolved by the end of year
104 Trusts had higher rates ranging from 340 - 1322 complaints
2007/08 = No complaints recorded by HSCIC, this could be because;
| Information from 23 PCTs states they did not receive returns for some practices within their area and so have submitted incomplete data. |
2008/09 = No complaints recorded by HSCIC, this could be because;
Information from 35 PCTs states they did not receive returns for some practices within their area and so have submitted incomplete data
2009/10 = 0 Complaints
2010/11 = 611 Complaints, no breakdown on number resolved
43 Trusts had higher rates ranging from 613 - 1533 complaints
2011/12 = 492 Complaints, no breakdown on number resolved
56 Trusts had higher rates ranging from 495 - 1062 complaints
So yes Prof Jarman is right there were other complainants but far less than those in other hospitals.
So that just leaves "Patient Pressures" i.e. Cure The NHS in his equation but I think there is another part that needs "exposing" and that is the role the Tories and their MPs had to play;
This is an extract from one of the Francis witness Statements, Mr Ken Lownds, who worked with CTNHS and was the first to initiate the support of local Tory MP Bill Cash, a "staunch supporter" of CTNHS.
Full statement here http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/sites/default/files/evidence/Ken_Lownds_-_witness_statement_and_exhibits.pdf
So here's my equation;
Tories aim to privatise NHS + Vengeful Cure The NHS = Partnership to use Midstaffs as NHS propaganda to justify the privatisation of NHS and the closure/downsizing of Trusts.
* Source: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/
