Black Swans, Pink Flamingos and Southern Health NHSFT

Sometimes a concept serendipitously appears that helps shape my thoughts and today I came across Dr Frank Hoffman's Black Swans and Pink Flamingos article which does exactly that. Hoffman uses the concepts in relation to defence planning but they have wider utility. Since the inquest verdict into the death of Connor Sparrowhawk on Friday, I've been reflecting on its meaning.

The Black Swan concept has been popularised by the writings of Nassim Nicholas Taleb who used it in relation to financial events. As Hoffman describes “[a] black swan is an event or situation which is unpredictable and for which the consequences could not be measured”. You cannot plan for black swans but only cope with their aftermath.

A Black Swan event is exactly what two of my closest friends experienced when their youngest child contracted and died of neuroblastoma. The thing about neuroblastoma is that it is a childhood cancer which has no known genetic or environmental markers. It is a random cruelty that visit children under the age of ten.

It still pains me to remember their hurt, grief, dignity and bravery when their child died. The funeral is still fresh in the memory. That no-one witnessing that cruelty would be anything but heart-broken by it. It was a profound event for me and has been one of my motivations for my involvement with #JusticeforLB and #LBBill. The unconscionable behaviour that Southern Health NHSFT display towards Connor's family has been untempered by any empathy or sense of responsibility.

That sense of outrage remains after the considered, comprehensive and damning jury verdict. A verdict which fits Hoffman's Pink Flamingo concept. To quote Hoffman:

Thinking historically about the future means dealing openly with those things we want to avoid or are in denial about. These are what I call our pink flamingoes. A pink flamingo is a predictable event that is ignored due to cognitive biases of a senior leader or a group of leaders trapped by powerful institutional forces. These are the cases which are “known knowns,” often brightly lit, but remaining studiously ignored by policymakers.

Having read the timeline for @LBInquest (as tweeted over the fortnight by the phenomenal George Julian) and then the written verdict of the jury, I find Hoffman's concept resonates powerfully. The jury found that Connor's epilepsy was a known known, brightly lit by his family, and was studiously ignored.

Here 'policymakers' refers to both the clinical practice team at STATT and the corporate structures within Southern Health. Many of the criticisms of the jury should have been picked up by due diligence in Southern Health's takeover of Ridgeway which previously operated STATT. I thoroughly recommend Chris Hatton's blog Diligence My Arse for those wanting a more detailed analysis.

The take home point for the corporates in Southern Health NHSFT is that the jury has pointed accountability at you. Mouthing platitudes to the media and sacking a low level grunt doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities. However there is some useful advice in Frank Hoffman's article which you might reflect upon especially this: “[a] crash in the real world is not subject to “no fault” rules; there truly are consequences to complacency and to faulty strategy”.

In this case, the devastation inflicted on a family.

The jury agreed that multiple 'very serious failings' occurred under the watch of Southern Health NHSFT leading to a preventable death. Fault occur at all levels. It wasn't an unpredictable event.

To be honest, I'm still struggling with that. I can't imagine how Sara, Rich and their family can reconcile those facts. Life can be randomly cruel, it really doesn't need so-called caring organisations to inflict further cruelties. Yet Southern Health actions, especially post July 4^th 2013, have done exactly that.

As the media reports have given Katrina Percy the last word, I shall direct my final comments to her: kindly shut up, take some responsibility and resign.

A clash of ambitions

Today (Tuesday 3rd March) has been an interesting day for the contrast between my morning spent in London discussing the 2nd draft of the Laughing Boy Bill (LBBill), a movement to see enacted in law changes that will improve the lives of people with learning difficulties and/or autism, and this afternoon/evening spent following the debate to set the 2015-16 budget for Birmingham City Council (BCC) where the Labour administration is having to enact £85m of cuts for the next financial year alone.

Now I have considerable sympathy for the position that Sir Albert Bore et al find themselves in. This is unprecedented in terms of scale. Yet some of this has been self-inflicted by successive administrations to favour the city centre development over citywide responsibilities. So in my area of interest, adult social care, Birmingham City Council is underspending comparatively with other metropolitan areas by 2.5% of budget or £39million in cash terms. That is an outlier that is significant by any stretch of the imagination.

It cannot be said with confidence that the budget that will be set today will meet the statutory requirements on the city as the 2014 Care Act comes into effect from April. Its an difficult juxaposition where Whitehall expectations are increased while the grants for BCC are decreased. If the consultation, budget or any service provision were tested legally, BCC would probably have more difficulties than the contingency fund would allow.

Against this, the 2nd draft of the LBBill sits as a statement of intent. In particular, clause 4.4 of the 2nd draft which asserts duties above financial resources. As a principle, this is absolutely right. In practise, if this culture of austerity for local authorities continues, it will inflict more pain on the functioning of any authority. It makes me uncomfortable because I know that 2015-16 isn't the worst point for Birmingham City Council. 2016-17 and 2017-18 will be harder still as the cuts drive deeper. Its against this background that I and others hope that Sir Albert, John Cotton etc will start working with us and others interested parties from May 8th to help the city mitigate the worse aspects of 2016-17 onwards and close that gap with comparable cities. Its a hard road ahead.

Against that, the 2014 Care Act does reduce the ability of local authorities to use financial considerations as a basis for setting who qualifies as having statutory needs. The imposition of national standards does challenge the 1997 Gloucestershire Judgement that local authorities have used to tighten qualification of substantial or critical needs. So clause 4.4 can be said to work with the 2014 Care Act. This will be tested in court soon I suspect.

So the optimism I felt this morning at Monckton Chambers with the diverse and knowledgeable individuals and organisations around the table, both in person and the disembodied voices on speakerphone, has been tempered by the ugly reality that is occurring in Birmingham's Council House.

Yet the ambitions of LBBill has to happen. We cannot compromise on the principle that underpins LBBill that is everyone has the right to live their lives however messy that may be. That it may make local government's life more messy is something we'll have to live with.

Simon Stevens Failure is not an Option

Another in a very occasional series of blogs.

Yesterday (Monday 9th February 2015) in the Boothroyd Room of Portcullis House, the House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee chaired by Margaret Hodge met to receive evidence for their inquiry into Care for people with learning disabilities.

As noted on Twitter by Chris Hatton, there was a real disconnect between the mood of the Select Committee and those witnesses appearing in the second half of the hearing. 

Those witnesses were: Una O'Brien, Permanent Secretary, and Jon Rouse, Director General, Social Care, Local Government and Care Partnerships, Department of Health, and Simon Stevens, Chief Executive, and Jane Cummings, Chief Nursing Officer, NHS England.

There was a feisty attitude to the committee members questioning as to why the stated target to move approximately 3,000 Learning Disabled (LD) and/or Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) people out of units following the outrage of Winterbourne View by June 2014 failed.

This was a target that had little bearing on the reality of how commissioning and supply works for LD/ASD people and although traction for the target wasn't helped by the 2012 health reforms, the cultural issues surrounding responsibility and accountability extend further back. It is therefore with a raised quizical eyebrow and copious amounts of salt that I took Simon Stevens commitment to "substantial transition" in the next eighteen months.

This isn't to disbelieve the sincerity of Simon when he states that they "cannot defend the indefensible" but rather that the siren voices of caveats and funding will lure his attempts onto the rocks.

The most significant exchange for me starts at 16:37:30 when Austin Mitchell, whose questioning style is generally languid, starts discussing the failure of the money to follow the LD/ASD individual and that there are disincentives in local authority funding to facilitate the transfer into the community.

This point re local authority funding is vitally important to grasp. To explain, lets use another NHS and local authority cooperation - the transfer of elderly people with care needs out of hospital and into community facilities. This is a constant dialogue between the NHS and LAs with peak demand for flow happening in the winter. To meet the peak demand requires a market response to provide the community spaces and support required and markets respond to funding signals. Yet the funding flow from NHS to LAs operates as if the market capacity responds to a 'just in time' signal. Such an approach is fine if you have automated assembly lines but less so when the largest resource is people. If you are not prepared to pay for excess capacity then time lags will occur and any additional monies thrown at the problem as Jeremy Hunt has done is asking people to retrofit capacity.

So funding flow is important and consistency of funding is important to developing the market capacity required to enable the stated ambitions of Simon Stevens here. Austin Mitchell touches on this when finishing his question by suggesting that the process of transfer could be speeded up by a "fairer" funding settlement.

Simon Stevens response to this is to separate those trapped in the system for a long time (more than five years) and suggests using the dowry model that facilitated the closing of mental institutions in the 1980s with those who been in the system for three to six months where the CCGs or LAs will have to pick up the tab. Note that those who been in the system for 1-4 years aren't being considered in this response.

Austin Mitchell then asks the killer question at 16:39:40: "so you think the funding is fair?"

To use cricketing metaphors, this was the equivalent of a medium paced mid-70s mph trundler bowling a 90+ mph throat-high bouncer that Mitchell Johnson would have been proud of. Watching Simon Stevens body language disintegrate faster than an English batsman facing Mitchell Johnson was quite amusing.

Simon then pulls himself together with the cop-out phrase "its an accident of history". Ladies and gentlemen - welcome to the bullshit zone.

I have to thank Austin Mitchell for asking the right question here as it exposed the thinking here as being limited to "Houston, we have a problem". I don't knock the acknowledgement as the journey has to start with this step but its clear that the stated aspirations as reported by David Brindle haven't remotely been thought through.

This is why two and a half years down the line, work around pooled budgets remains at the starting gate when discussed at the PAC yesterday. A fair settlement starts with what it means to live as a LD/ASD person in their community and to live life to the full. Not as Jane Cummings suggests "as normal as possible" but to live a messy life of their choosing. Any funding settlement needs to follow and facilitate those principles. Its why campaigns such as the LBBill are so important - these need to be legal rights. Those committee members agreeing with a rights-based approach should take note.

My lasting impression of yesterday was that any thinking around this was couched in terms of the conflict of funding streams between health and social care rather than cooperation. The contested space that is the Better Care Fund which is being used more to retain existing LA services than developing new cooperative working as the NHS resents the top-slicing occurring as they experience real terms cuts to their budget. Against this background, it felt as though costs were expected to be pushed from one part of the system to another. Any idea of "fairness" in funding was therefore a shocking concept.

The top-down instruction to get people out of ATUs isn't a bad thing but we need to pool our intelligence to design the mechanisms properly else we'll Heath Robinson the process and create problems down the line. So thinking of Apollo 13 again, this scene resonates somewhat...