Modern monetary theory for the post-pandemic NHS: why budget deficits do not matter

NHS clinical directors are responsible for balancing departmental budgets, which can encompass staffing, equipment and operating theatres. As trust income is generally fixed, expenditure reduction is often attempted via recurrent cost improvement plans. In orthodox monetary theory, a departmental deficit contributes first to the hospital, then to the NHS, then to the national deficit. In the orthodox view, governments in deficit need to increase taxes and/or borrow money by issuing bonds (akin to mortgage loans), the interest on which is paid off for generations. Modern monetary theory offers a different perspective: government deficits do not matter as much as orthodox theory claims, if at all. This is because governments have the monopoly right to create the money in which the deficit is denominated (so do not ever need to borrow something that they can create). Therefore governments cannot default on debt in their own currency. Furthermore, government deficits equate to private surplus. This new perspective should influence microeconomic budget management at the clinical director level: the new emphasis being to deliver value and not just implement local savings to eliminate departmental deficits. This approach will become increasingly important in managing the huge surgical waiting lists that have accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 System Shock Framework: Capturing Health System Innovation During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: COVID-19 has resulted in over 2 million deaths globally. The experience in Australia presents an opportunity to study contrasting responses to the COVID-19 health system shock. We adapted the Hanefeld et al framework for health systems shocks to create the COVID-19 System Shock Framework (CSSF). This framework enabled us to assess innovations and changes created through COVID-19 at the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network (SCHN), the largest provider of children’s health services in the Southern hemisphere. Methods: We used ethnographic methods, guided by the COVID-19 System Shock Framework, to map innovations and initiatives implemented across SCHN during the pandemic. An embedded field researcher shadowed members of the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) for nine months. We also reviewed clinic and policy documents pertinent to SCHN’s response to COVID-19 and conducted interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, including clinical directors, project managers, frontline clinicians, and other personnel involved in implementing innovations across SCHN. Results: The CSSF captured SCHN’s complex response to the pandemic. Responses included a COVID-19 assessment clinic, inpatient and infectious disease management services, redeploying and managing a workforce working from home, cohesive communication initiatives, and remote delivery of care, all enabled by a dedicated COVID-19 fund. The health system values that shaped SCHN’s response to the pandemic included principles of equity of health care delivery, holistic and integrated models of care, and supporting workforce wellbeing. SCHN’s resilience was enabled by innovation fostered through a non-hierarchical governance structure and responsiveness to emerging challenges balanced with a singular vision. Conclusion: Using the CSSF, we found that SCHN’s ability to innovate was key to ensuring its resilience during the pandemic.

Reflections on how to approach early career psychiatrist roles and challenges

Objective: To reflect upon and provide experiential advice to address the roles of early career psychiatrists. The main roles include leading patient care; working in teams; clinical supervision and governance of trainees, and of the psychiatrist by clinical directors/managers. While these roles vary across public and private sectors, the discussion focuses on common elements. Conclusions: The first several years of an early career psychiatrist’s work often involves roles for which formal training cannot provide direct guidance, and which benefit from planning and reflective practice. Learning how to navigate clinical care, clinical supervision and governance, formal/informal mentoring and peer review are necessary to effective practice.

Abortion provision in Northern Ireland: the views of health professionals working in obstetrics and gynaecology units

IntroductionAbortion became decriminalised in Northern Ireland in October 2019. Until that point there existed no evidence concerning the views of health professionals on decriminalisation or on their willingness to be involved in abortion care. The purpose of this study was to address this lack of evidence, including all categories of health professionals working in obstetrics and gynaecology units in Northern Ireland.MethodsThe online survey was targeted at medical, nursing and midwifery staff working in the obstetrics and gynaecology units in each Health and Social Care (HSC) Trust in Northern Ireland. The survey was issued via clinical directors in each Trust using the REDCap platform.ResultsThe findings showed widespread support for decriminalisation of abortion up until 24 weeks’ gestation (n=169, 54%). The majority of clinicians stated they were willing to provide abortions in certain circumstances (which were undefined) (n=188, 60% medical abortions; n=157, 50% surgical abortions). Despite regional variation, the results show that there are sufficient numbers of clinicians to provide a service within each HSC Trust. The results indicate that many clinicians who report a religious affiliation are also supportive of decriminalisation (n=46, 51% Catholic; n=53, 45% Protestant) and are willing to provide care, countering the assumption that those of faith would all raise conscientious objections to service provision.ConclusionsThe findings of this study are very encouraging for the development, implementation and delivery of local abortion care within HSC Trusts in Northern Ireland and should be of value in informing commissioners and providers about the design of a service model and its underpinning training programmes.

A National Survey on Mental Health Professional Development in Juvenile Justice Facilities: Implications for Youth Reentry

A national study of clinical directors examined professional development (PD) focused on mental health provided to professionals in juvenile justice facilities for adjudicated youth. A total of 85 clinical directors responded to a mail survey (45% return rate). The survey questions related to (a) topics of staff training and the basis for choosing topics, (b) which professionals participated in each PD topic, (c) training format and frequency of PD, (d) recommended attributes of PD, (e) methods of evaluating PD, and (f) adequacy of PD and how can it be improved. For each topic, PD was typically provided once per year and face to face, rather than online. PD participation rates were commonly in the 30% and 40% ranges for professionals other than clinical directors and counselors, with teachers, correctional officers, administrators, and teaching assistants receiving PD the least. Rarely did PD include recommended attributes of PD, and it was commonly viewed as ineffective. Implications for research and practice related to PD and its relationship to youth reentry from juvenile justice facilities are discussed.