Skip Navigation



Journal of Public Health Advance Access published online on June 17, 2005
Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdi035
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/3/263    most recent
fdi035v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Macfarlane, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pollock, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Macfarlane, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Pollock, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved.

Article

Are we on track - can we monitor bed targets in the NHS plan for England?

Alison J. Macfarlane 1*, Sylvia Godden 2, and Allyson M. Pollock 2

1 Department of Midwifery, City University, London EC1Y 4TY
2 Public Health Policy Unit, School of Public Policy, UCL, London WC1H 9QU

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Alison J. Macfarlane, E-mail: a.j.macfarlane{at}city.ac.uk


  Abstract

The NHS plan announced sustained increases in funding accompanied by wide ranging reform, the success of which would be measured by targets set across the board, including increases in numbers of beds, staff, hospitals and equipment. In this article we assess progress towards the target of 7000 extra beds in hospitals and intermediate care to be achieved by 2004. Summary points are as follows. (1) Although the 2003/2004 target for availability of general and acute NHS beds in England was achieved, the increase did not offset the overall decrease in all categories of beds. Bed availability fell by 2083, from 186 290 in 1999/2000 to 184 207 in 2003/ 2004, following a fall of 12558 from 1996/1997 to 1999/2000. (2) Lack of standardized definitions and data collection systems both within the NHS and for the independent sector, compounded by ambiguity over the funding of extra capacity for the NHS, call into question the accuracy of data collected about intermediate care beds. (3) Systems for collecting data about intermediate care should be made subject to the same code of practice as official NHS statistics in order to monitor future targets and plan for provision of care. (4) Changes in definitions, lack of detail about criteria used in setting targets and lack of data about private sector care, make it impossible to monitor the overall capacity available to the NHS and assess whether bed availability targets have been met.

Keywords: bed targets, NHS plan, intermediate care.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JRSMHome page
S Godden, D McCoy, and A. Pollock
Policy on the rebound: trends and causes of delayed discharges in the NHS
J R Soc Med, January 1, 2009; 102(1): 22 - 28.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.