Chris Packham backs call for delayed report into autistic deaths to be published
He is among campaigners who have written to Health Secretary Wes Streeting to say the country is 'standing by year after year while vulnerable people die'.
The latest Learning from lives and deaths report (LeDeR) – expected to show data for 2023 – was due to be published around November last year but it is understood it has been held up over 'practical data issues'.
The LeDeR programme was established in 2015 in an effort to review the deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people in England.
Annual reports are aimed at summarising their lives and deaths with the aim of learning from what happened, improving care, reducing health inequalities and preventing people with a learning disability and autistic people from early deaths.
In the letter to Mr Streeting, signed by various groups including charities Autism Action and Mencap as well as bereaved families, the delay to the latest report was branded 'unacceptable'.
They said: 'It took at least 17 years for the Government to establish this vital initiative after the 1998 finding that people with learning disabilities were 58 times more likely to die before the age of 50 than the general population.
'Although it was established to 'get to the bottom of why people with learning disabilities typically die much earlier than average, and to inform a strategy to reduce this inequality,' 10 years later – too many people are still dying premature, preventable deaths.
'In response, the Government is showing a shocking lack of urgency and has let the only discernible tool to understand and act on these deaths be caught up in delay and bureaucracy.'
The most recent report, which showed data for 2022, confirmed care and outcomes for people with learning disabilities are still often below acceptable standards compared with the general population.
Of the 2,054 adults with a learning disability who died that year and had a completed recorded underlying cause of death, 853 (42%) had deaths classified as avoidable.
This was down on the 2021 figure of 50% of avoidable deaths among adults with a learning disability, but was 'significantly higher' than the percentage for the general population across Great Britain, which was 22.8% in 2020 – the latest data available at that time.
Last month, the parents of an autistic teenager who died after being prescribed medication against his and his parents' wishes hailed the publication of guidance they hope will safeguard others as a 'significant milestone'.
A report in 2020 found 18-year-old Oliver McGowan's death four years earlier at Southmead Hospital in Bristol was 'potentially avoidable'.
He died in 2016 after being given the antipsychotic Olanzapine and contracting neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) – a rare side-effect of the drug.
An independent review later found that the fit and healthy teenager's death was 'potentially avoidable' and his parents, Paula and Tom McGowan, said their son died 'as a result of the combined ignorance and arrogance of doctors' who treated him.
In June, his parents – who have campaigned since his death for improvements in the system – welcomed the publication of new guidance aimed at ensuring safer, more personalised care for people with a learning disability and autistic people.
Learning disability charity Mencap described the delay to the latest LeDeR report as 'disappointing and worrying', and said the Government must 'not shy away from the uncomfortable truth that for many years the healthcare system has failed people who are already marginalised in so many ways'.
Autism Action chief executive Tom Purser accused the Government of 'systemically devaluing the lives of autistic people and those with learning disabilities' by delaying the long-awaited annual report and giving campaigners and families 'empty reassurances'.
He added: 'There must be systemic changes in the way this information is collected, recorded, shared and acted upon – and it needs to be accountable and written into law. We are calling on this data to be published annually and independently of the Government and the NHS.
'Without these changes the Government has nothing to learn from and more vulnerable lives are at stake.'
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'We inherited a situation where the care of people with a learning disability and autistic people was not good enough and we recently published a code of practice on training to make sure staff have the right knowledge and skills to provide safe and informed care.
'We are committed to improving care for people with a learning disability and autistic people. The Learning from Lives and Deaths report will help identify key improvements needed to tackle health disparities and prevent avoidable deaths.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer told to delay DWP Universal Credit cuts for new claimants
The Work and Pensions Committee led by Labour MP Debbie Abrahams warns in a new report disabled people could still be pushed into poverty as a result of the watered-down reforms Keir Starmer must delay a cut to Universal Credit for new claimants, a new report by MPs warns today. The Work and Pensions Committee says disabled people could still be pushed into poverty as a result of the watered-down reforms. Earlier this month the PM U-turned on plans to restrict eligibility for a key disability benefit — Personal Independence Payments (PIP). But there will be changes to the health element of Universal Credit for new claimants. From April 2026 all existing and new claimants with severe or terminal conditions will be protected, the MPs said. But they added other claimants assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity will see their awards halved — from £423.27 to £217.26 a month. While welcoming the major U-turn on PIP last month, the MPs' report said: "We remain critical, however, of the Government's failure to properly assess the impact of the cut to UC health on poverty, health and labour force participation. "For this reason, we urge it to delay the measure until it has had time to make such an assessment." Committee Chair Debbie Abrahams said: 'We welcome the concessions that the Government made to the UC and PIP Bill (now the UC Bill). But there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.' She added: "The Government's own analysis published in March indicates that from next April approximately 50,000 people who develop a health condition or become disabled – and those who live with them - will enter poverty by 2030 as a result of the reduction in support of the UC health premium.' 'We recommend delaying the cuts to the UC-health premium, especially given that other policies such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise.' 'We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants.' Responding to the report, Nil Guzelgun from charity Mind, said: 'We cannot build a fair and compassionate system by stripping away support from those who need it most. Real reform must start with listening, both to the evidence and to disabled people themselves. "We urge the Government to pause these damaging plans and commit instead to a benefits system that protects people's health, dignity and independence.'
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
Resident doctors' focus on pay is doing untold damage to the NHS
As a retired doctor, now 80, I feel sad as I watch our resident doctors struggle to exert pressure on the government to increase their pay packet (Wes Streeting 'thought he had struck deal to halt strike by doctors', 27 July). This behaviour will have far-reaching consequences, which are unlikely to be beneficial either to the doctors or the country. Clearly, the action will cause delays in treatment and probably unnecessary morbidity and mortality. This will make the NHS vulnerable to pressure from those who favour its abolition. Already, it has alienated large sections of the population whose support the doctors have always been able to count on previously. But the British Medical Association has assured resident doctors that it is necessary for them to put their livelihood ahead of the wellbeing of the public, to ensure that the NHS survives into the future. This is a false promise. The commitment of resident doctors and nurses has always been integral to the success of the NHS, and there is no doubt that this has been central to the incredible efficiency it has demonstrated since its inception. It was conceived as a non-commercial organisation. There have always been areas of the globe where doctors could earn more than at home. But for most, the attractions of the NHS outweighed pecuniary advantages available elsewhere. I fear that in setting their sights purely on increased remuneration, today's resident doctors are leading the NHS towards a change in its entire ethos, the ethos that made it a success. The BMA should concentrate on improving doctors' working conditions, as Wes Streeting has offered BehrmanCookham Dean, Berkshire On Sunday I cancelled my subscription to the British Medical Association after being a member for 39 years, in disgust at its insistence on going ahead with the strike of resident doctors in pursuit of a 29% pay rise, despite having had a 22% rise over the previous two years. It is hard to know what is the correct rate of pay for resident doctors, but no other group in the health service is seeking such a rise in pay, and the decision to strike seems to ignore patients, as well as all the other staff alongside whom they work. I believe that improvement in the working conditions of doctors and all other groups should be sought through discussions, as the government has offered, not strikes. Whatever the appropriate pay should be for resident doctors, they should be glad that they don't get the equivalent of the £2 per hour we were paid in the 1980s for each of the 60 hours a week we had to be in the hospital over and above our basic 40-hour David CameronBelhaven, East Lothian I do have a lot of sympathy for our resident doctors, even though I was on call on Sunday as a consultant. It is not just that pay has been eroded, but also that the cost of becoming a doctor has gone up, as has the cost of living in general. Unlike in most other higher-paid professions, half of doctors are women. The cost of childcare has gone up significantly since my day. There is no more cheap hospital accommodation. And the student loan system is misogynistic in principle, the interest accumulating during maternity leave. Women earn less during their careers but end up paying back a lot more for their student loans as a group. And because of the forced itinerant lifestyle, most doctors get their foot on the housing ladder quite late, having to pay increasingly unaffordable GemmekeEastleigh, Hampshire Wes Streeting rightly points out that 90% of resident doctors voted for strike action, with a 55% turnout (Resident doctors' strike undermines union movement, says Wes Streeting, 25 July). That means just under 50% of all resident doctors voted in favour. He fails to point out that Labour is in power on the votes of 34% of the 60% who turned out – about 20% of the electorate. The doctors' result looks more convincing as a test of opinion, whatever you think of the pay WestLondon Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Daily Record
11 hours ago
- Daily Record
Stark warning issued by Renfrewshire hospices facing staffing catastrophe
Accord and St Vincent's hospices have confirmed they face a retention crisis if Scottish Government ministers fail to fund staff wage increases in line with the NHS. Renfrewshire hospices have warned they face a staffing catastrophe unless the Scottish Government meets an earlier commitment around wages. Accord and St Vincent's hospices have confirmed they face a retention crisis if ministers fail to fund staff wage increases in line with the NHS. The government had, in its 2025 budget, committed £5 million for hospices and alignment of pay uplifts to NHS pay awards. But the 4.25 per cent awarded to NHS staff means the hospices will need a collective £8.6m to offer their nurses, doctors and other health professionals the same pay. The hospices say they fear they will lose their staff if they cannot afford to meet the salaries provided in the public sector. For most of the lifeline services – who provide palliative care for people in inpatient units and at their homes – the wage bill accounts for 70 per cent of their overall costs. For Accord alone, it is due to receive £175,000 of the pledged £5m but, crucially, needs an additional £150,000 to meet the required wage increases in the 2025/26 financial year. Jacki Smart, CEO of Accord and chair of the Scottish Hospice Leadership Group – which represents hospices across the country – reiterated calls for a more sustainable funding model. She said: 'The Scottish Government must urgently release both the monies earmarked and commit the funds needed to help hospices keep pace with the latest NHS pay award. 'Our staff are talented and dedicated professionals and it isn't right that they are priced out of working in hospices because of NHS pay awards decided by the Scottish Government. 'Hospices are the backbone of specialist palliative care in Scotland with around 2,000 staff caring for over 23,000 patients and family members each year. No hospice leader wants to face the choice between cutting staff or curtailing pay but that is the stark reality now. 'Without being able to keep pace with NHS pay, the practical impact is that the crisis in Scottish hospices continues, while patients and staff lose out.' She added: 'The public are generous in their support but the Scottish Government needs to ensure hospices are on a level playing field with the NHS, to retain staff and continue to deliver high quality care and support.' A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: 'We recognise the pressures hospices are facing and we greatly value the essential palliative care services delivered by hard-working staff. 'That is why we have already committed this year to supporting hospices to provide pay parity with NHS levels. 'We will continue to engage closely with the Scottish Hospice Leadership Group to understand what more can be done to support palliative care services in Scotland. 'It remains the responsibility of integration joint boards (IJBs) to commission palliative care services, including independent hospices, to meet the needs of their local communities. 'As such, we expect Scottish hospices and IJBs to continue to engage on any matters that may impact on the delivery of local palliative care services.' On average, two thirds of hospice income is raised through fundraising. The remaining statutory funding is from government that is primarily allocated and distributed through local health and social care partnerships. For St Vincent's Hospice in Howwood, it means the team needs to raise £1.5m a year to keep it up and running, while it costs Paisley-based Accord £7,700 a day.
