Scotland’s Emergency services still more than 12% better than NHS England

Alone across UK MSM, Scotland’s reporters platform ‘grim figures’ like Sandesh Ghoulhane and Jackie Baillie, to drool over Scotland’s A&E departments, in mid-Winter, ‘only’ treating 69.7% in 4 hours.

Only in the 19th and last paragraph of the above do we read:

“Scotland’s core A&E departments continue to outperform those in the rest of the UK, and have done so for more than six years.”

Had BBC England and Sir Keir any interest, they’d still be unable to tell you what the comparable figures for NHS England are because they don’t come out weekly.

We know that in November they only managed 61.9% while Scotland hit 74%, 18% better for that month.

When NHS England publish their December data, be prepared for them to fall below 60%.

Scotland’s ‘second worst ever‘ of 69.7%, I wager, will be again around 18% better.


The real gap with England is probably even greater as NHS England cheats. NHS England starts the clock again after patients are admitted while NHS Scotland counts from arrival in A&E. 


6 thoughts on “Scotland’s Emergency services still more than 12% better than NHS England

  1. Well done, Scotland’s NHS and accident and emergency departments, staff and personnel.
    You are performing admirably in the middle of a serious health crisis.

    The ghoulish and politically motivated comments from Tory + Labour are simply beneath contempt.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I could not resist a wry smile when reading this latest piece on A&E from BBC Scotland. I sincerely hope the hard working staff in NHS Tayside are aware of and fully ‘appreciative’ of the reference to their performance.

    We learn: ‘In the previous week, NHS Tayside became the first mainland health board to exceed the 95% target since the end of June 2021 – seeing 97.6% of its 1,400 A&E patients within four hours.’ And comes the BUT! ‘But in the latest figures this number dropped to 90.3%.’

    Now as I’ve mention here on TuS several times, the waiting times performance of A&E in NHS Tayside has been remarkably, exceptionally high for ages! Despite exemplary performance this has rarely – perhaps never – received coverage from BBC Scotland.

    So I suggest it should be noted and remembered that when finally NHS Tayside’s A&E departments get a mention it is associated with the almost inevitable BBC Scotland ‘but’. Do they only merit a mention on the occasion of a drop in performance?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. A few short years ago Tayside’s performance did rate a mention on the BBC’s News at Six. Hugh Pym came north to highlight how good their performance was and to report on how they did it. At that time it did seem to be a system unique to Tayside but seems to have been adopted now to a greater or lesser degree by other A&E departments.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Having spotted the article but not read it, returned to read it, only to find it demoted all the way down the page at only 4 hours old, BBC are obviously clearing the decks for the next propaganda wave over restrictions…

    Being an unattributed piece, the author could be the SO or indeed Gulhane himself, setting the stage for his and Bailey’s usual amateur dramatics.

    Yet it was the 4th paragraph which had me in stitches, “The Scottish government’s target of 95% of patients being seen within four hours has not been met since July 2020”, as if nothing of importance happened in the last 2 years.

    Propaganda to be binned…


  4. The same A&E article has Jackie Baillie stating: “Despite the heroic work of frontline staff, our underfunded and overstretched A&E departments are in crisis.”

    Now Ms Baillie chooses not to tell us the cause of the ‘underfunding’ or apportion any other political blame at least in the quotes used in this BBC article. Might the latter at least be because A&E in Wales under a Labour government is performing worse on waiting time measures?

    But on the specific matter of underfunding, the BBC News website’s Health page from 16 November 2021 has this headline: ‘Why the NHS is struggling like never before’.

    Here we learn: ‘The NHS was being run “at its limit”, Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents (England’s) hospital trusts, says. Feedback from his members now shows unprecedented levels of concern about the coming months. The health service, he believes, is heading for the “most difficult winter in its history”.’

    The BBC article tells readers: ‘This is not just about the past couple of years though – the situation has been a decade in the making.’ And it informs us that: ‘Between 2010 and 2019 the annual rises in spending on health were well below those traditionally given since the birth of the NHS.’

    It features a graph using data sourced from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This shows that between 1949 and 2019 the average annual rise in UK government spending ABOVE inflation on health has been c. 3.75%. Since 2010 the annual increase under the Tory/Lib Dem coalition was just c.1% and during subsequent Tory government just c.1.6% annually.

    The graph can be found here

    The BBC article also adds this: ‘Although it is worth noting, in its 2010 and 2015 election manifestos, Labour was not proposing any tangibly higher increases in spending either.’!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. There’s another thing about the NHS England results that puzzle me. In their spreadsheet for November, which has the 61.9% result, the figures don’t seem to add up.

    Type 1 A&E attendances less than 4 hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge = 723,880
    Type 1 A&E attendances greater than 4 hours from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge = 445,794

    Hence Total Type 1 A&E attendances = 723,880+445,794 = 1,169,674

    Hence Percentage in 4 hours or less (type 1) = 100*445,794/1,169,674
    which gives their stated result of 61.9%.

    However, the spreadsheet also says –
    Type1 A&E Attendances = 1,336,551

    and I can’t see any explanation of why this is bigger (by 166,877) than the total that’s used to get the 61.9%.

    What happened to the other 166,877 folk?
    What am I missing?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.