The longest strike in NHS history, during which junior doctors walked out for six days, led to more than 113,000 patient operations, appointments and procedures being postponed, new figures show.
The industrial action started last Wednesday and continued until yesterday, with 25,446 staff absent from work at the peak, which was the day the strike started, 3 January.
According to NHS data, 113,779 inpatient and outpatient appointments had to be rescheduled, taking the total number since the health service strikes started in December 2022 to 1,333,221.
It means patients are “bearing the brunt” of the action, according to Louise Ansari, chief executive of Healthwatch England.
She said: “The cumulative effect of various strikes now hitting the NHS for more than a year also means people are experiencing multiple cancellations, affecting their confidence in health services, often leaving them in pain, feeling stressed and anxious.”
NHS leaders have warned the impact caused by the strike could last for “months”.
Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director for NHS England, said frontline staff were “very concerned” about the next few weeks as the “cold weather bites” and more people may need to be treated in hospital.
More on Nhs
Related Topics:
“This puts an incredible strain on staff who have been covering striking colleagues as we continue to navigate one of the most difficult times of year,” he said.
Image: Professor Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director for NHS England
The number of cancellations could be double those reported as hospitals pre-emptively did not book in pre-planned operations during strikes, according to experts.
Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said: “The national figure for the cancelled appointments over the last year of industrial action, in our view, significantly underestimates it because actually a lot of trusts pre-emptively didn’t make appointments in the first place.
“So you have to more or less double that figure in order to get the actual number of appointments and procedures that were cancelled.”
What do junior doctors want?
The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents junior doctors, has called for a 35% pay rise for them but the government has stated the demand is “not affordable, even over several years”.
The union claims junior doctors in England were subjected to a 26.1% real terms pay cut between 2008 and 2022.
The government gave junior doctors an 8.8% pay rise last summer, with an extra 3% offered during the last round of negotiations towards the end of the year.
The BMA said it rejected the 3% offer because it does not make up for a real-term pay cut of nearly a quarter of their salary for junior doctors since 2008.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
This will be voted on by members of their union this month.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Despite the significant pressure, the healthcare system has coped well thanks to the hard work of consultants, nurses and other healthcare staff who worked during industrial action.
“The strikes may have ended but their repercussions will be felt for weeks and months to come.
“We want to put an end to damaging strikes once and for all, and if the BMA junior doctors’ committee can demonstrate they have reasonable expectations, we will still sit down with them.”
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
More on Peter Kyle
Related Topics:
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Image: Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:02
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.