Yet again, the government has responded to an issue by announcing new guidelines, rules and 'legally binding' contracts. Yet again, this is piffle, balderdash and eyewash and will do nothing to resolve the underlying problem.
Hospital food, as served to patients, has been pretty poor, and sometimes downright disgusting, for as long as the NHS has existed. When served up from heated trolleys by disinterested staff it is almost always unappetising, often not what the patient asked for and frequently going cold. While some patients manage to swallow it, those who are the sickest and most in need of nourishment often don't; they are either too ill to be bothered or are unable to make the effort due to their frail condition. The worst served in this respect are the elderly who, in my own experience, see the food arrive and, an hour or so later, see it taken away with no sign of any concern that the plates remain untouched. Ward staff dutifully fill in record sheets that purport to show that Mrs X or Mr Y have had their fill of food and drink, and move on the next patient.
Now the Health secretary, I forget who it is just now, has said that there will be "new standards" which will focus on quality, choice and promoting a healthy diet for patients and staff. These standards will, apparently, be enforced through "legally binding NHS contracts", though how the government can have a legally binding contract with an arm of itself, which the NHS remains, is anyone's guess.
How many times have we heard this type of drivel from politicians ? In my experience, the meals available to NHS staff have been vastly superior to those provided to patients for several decades; there is no need to worry about this side of the coin. Also, it is neither choice nor healthy eating which patients need, it is simple edible and appealing food. The issues of choice and health are, actually, wholly incompatible when it comes to the diktats of government; if I, the patient, WANT loads of salt, sugar, carbohydrates, red meat and fat, I will be firmly put in my place and told that I CAN'T have them. The argument will be that these things aren't healthy and so I will be forced to eat piles of fish, vegetables and fruit. Where is the choice in that ?
Rather than concentrating on treating the patient's medical condition, hospitals are now acting as quasi-social workers, doing what nanny thinks is best for her charges while ignoring the simple fact that most of the charges are more than old enough to make up their own minds about what they do. Instead of co-operating with the patients in the treatment of their illnesses, hospital staff often exacerbate problems, and the failure to ensure that patients have enough food to eat, regardless of its supposed healthy properties, is a major area of concern.
To my mind, a happy patient will do much better than an unhappy one. A well fed patient, even if they have eaten burger and chips every day, will recover far more quickly than one fed on a couple of ounces of cold fish and a few bits of cabbage. Why, in heaven's name, can no one in authority see this ?
