Declining health of UK’s population also affecting performance of the country’s national health service, report notes
England’s National Health Service (NHS) is “in serious trouble” due to long waiting times, outdated technology, misallocated resources, and numerous other problems, with dire consequences for the country’s populace. That’s according to a new report by NHS surgeon and former Health Minister Lord Ara Darzi, OM KBE FRS FMedSci HonFREng, who was tasked by the United Kingdom’s new Labor government to investigate the ailing healthcare system. His report may contain lessons for US healthcare—including clinical laboratories—as well.
“Although I have worked in the NHS for more than 30 years, I have been shocked by what I have found during this investigation—not just in the health service but in the state of the nation’s health,” Darzi stated in a UK government press release. “We want to deliver high quality care for all but far too many people are waiting for too long and in too many clinical areas, quality of care has gone backwards.”
Many of the problems he identified relate to wait times.
“From access to GPs (general practitioners) and to community and mental health services, on to accident and emergency, and then to waits not just for more routine surgery and treatment but for cancer and cardiac services, waiting time targets are being missed,” he wrote in his report.
For example, “as of June 2024, more than one million people were waiting for community services, including more than 50,000 people who had been waiting for over a year, 80% of whom are children and young people,” he wrote.
Accident and emergency care (A/E) “is in an awful state,” the report noted, “with A/E queues more than doubling from an average of just under 40 people on a typical evening in April 2009 to over 100 in April 2024. One in 10 patients are now waiting for 12 hours or more.”
“In the last 15 years, the NHS was hit by three shocks—austerity and starvation of investment, confusion caused by top-down reorganization, and then the pandemic which came with resilience at an all-time low. Two out of three of those shocks were choices made in Westminster,” said NHS surgeon and former Health Minister Lord Ara Darzi in a government press release. “It took more than a decade for the NHS to fall into disrepair so it’s going to take time to fix it. But we in the NHS have turned things around before, and I’m confident we will do it again.” (Photo copyright: Health Data Research UK.)
Delays in Other Critical Tests
Genetic test results are lagging as well. “In 2024, more than 35,000 genomic tests are being completed each month but only around 60% on time,” Darzi wrote.
He also noted that “only around 5% of eligible patients with brain cancer are able to access whole genome sequencing (WGS), which is important for treatment selection.” Just two-thirds (65.8%) get their first treatment within 62 days, and more than 30% wait more than 31 days for radical radiotherapy, according to the report.
Overall, “the UK has appreciably higher cancer mortality rates than other countries, with no progress whatsoever made in diagnosing cancer at stage one and two between 2013 and 2021,” he wrote.
Patients have also experienced delays in access to cardiovascular treatment. For example, in 2013-2014, high-risk heart attack patients waited an average of 114 minutes for intervention to unblock an artery, Darzi noted in his report. However, in 2022-2023, the average time was 146 minutes, a 28% increase.
“For the most part, once people are in the system, they receive high quality care,” he wrote. “But there are some important areas of concerns, such as maternity care, where there have been a succession of scandals and inquiries.”
Key Factors Leading to Delays
Darzi pointed to four key factors that have led to the problems.
Lack of funding. “The 2010s was the most austere decade since the NHS was founded, with spending growing at around 1% in real terms,” Darzi wrote, compared with a long-term average of 3.4%.
One result was that administrators took funds from the capital budget to cover day-to-day needs, leading to “crumbling buildings that hit productivity,” he noted.
“The backlog maintenance bill now stands at more than £11.6 billion and a lack of capital means that there are too many outdated scanners, too little automation, and parts of the NHS are yet to enter the digital era,” he wrote.
The COVID-19 pandemic. Given the preceding “decade of austerity,” NHS had fewer resources to deal with the crisis than most other high-income health systems, he wrote. As a result, NHS “delayed, cancelled, or postponed far more routine care during the pandemic than any comparable health system.” This led to “a bigger backlog than other health systems.”
Lack of patient and staff engagement. Patient satisfaction “has declined and the number of complaints has increased, while patients are less empowered to make choices about their care,” he wrote. In addition, “too many staff have become disengaged, and there are distressingly high-levels of sickness absence—as much as one working month a year for each nurse and each midwife working in the NHS.”
Management structures and systems. Darzi laid considerable blame on the UK’s Health and Social Care Act of 2012, which led to what he described as “a costly and distracting process of almost constant reorganization of the ‘headquarters’ and ‘regulatory’ functions of the NHS.”
One consequence, he wrote, is that too many clinicians have been deployed in hospitals instead of community-based care, despite years of promises by successive governments to put more emphasis on the latter.
National Health in Decline
Along with issues within the NHS, “the health of the nation has deteriorated and that impacts its performance,” Darzi wrote. “There has been a surge in multiple long-term conditions, and, particularly among children and young people, in mental health needs. Fewer children are getting the immunizations they need to protect their health, and fewer adults are participating in some of the key screening programs, such as for breast cancer.”
Darzi’s investigation included frontline visits to NHS facilities as well as focus groups with NHS staff and patients, the press release states. He also consulted an expert reference group consisting of more than 70 organizations and examined analyses from NHS England, the UK’s Department of Health and Social Care, and external groups.
It is interesting that there is no mention of anatomic pathology and medical laboratory testing services in Lord Darzi’s report. As reported in recent years by new outlets in the United Kingdom, delays in cancer diagnoses—often as long as six months—were severe enough that, in 2018, the NHS announced funding for a program to create a national digital pathology network to improve productivity of pathologists and shorten wait times for the results of cancer tests.
Researchers note that many sources of errors associated with diagnostic testing involve how providers order tests and how specimens are handled
ECRI (Emergency Care Research Institute), a non-profit organization that focuses on healthcare quality and patient safety, has released results from a study which lays blame for most diagnostic errors on systemic issues that arise during clinical laboratory, radiology, and other diagnostic testing processes. These issues relate to “ordering, collecting, processing, obtaining results, or communicating results,” the organization stated in a news release.
“It’s a common misconception that if a patient has a missed or incorrect diagnosis, their doctor came up with the wrong hypothesis after having all the facts,” said ECRI President and CEO Marcus Schabacker MD, PhD, in the news release. “That does happen occasionally, but we found that was tied to less than 3% of diagnostic errors. What’s more likely to break the diagnostic process are technical, administrative, and communication-related issues. These represent system failures, where many small mistakes lead to one big mistake.”
The researchers based their analysis on reports of adverse patient safety events and “near-misses” submitted to ECRI and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) in 2023. Healthcare providers submitted the data from across the US, ECRI noted.
From a total of 3,014 patient safety events, ECRI determined that 1,011 were related to diagnostic errors. Then, it sorted the events based on “the appropriate step in the diagnostic process where the breakdown occurred,” according to the news release.
ECRI did not reveal how many errors were related to clinical laboratory testing as opposed to radiological or ultrasound imaging.
“The problem of diagnostic safety comes down to the lack of a systems-based approach,” said ECRI President and CEO Marcus Schabacker MD, PhD (above), in a news release. “Since there are multiple potential failure points, a single intervention is insufficient.” Diagnostic errors can also include imaging/radiology and other types of diagnostic procedures—not just clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECRI.)
Where Errors Occur
According to ECRI’s analysis, the largest number of errors by far (nearly 70%) happened during the clinical laboratory testing process. Among these, “more than 23% were a result of a technical or processing error, like the misuse of testing equipment, a poorly processed specimen, or a clinician lacking the proper skill to conduct the test,” ECRI stated. “Another 20% of testing errors were a result of mixed-up samples, mislabeled specimens, and tests performed on the wrong patient.”
Outside the testing process, other errors occurred during monitoring and follow-up (12%) and during referral and consultation (9%).
One major factor behind diagnostic errors, ECRI noted, was miscommunication among providers and between providers and patients.
The organization also cited “productivity pressures that prevent providers from exploring all investigative options or from consulting other providers” as leading to diagnostic errors.
In some cases, providers who ordered lab tests delayed reviewing the results or the patients were not notified of the results.
“Referrals to specialists or requests for additional consultations can complicate the process, presenting more potential failure points,” ECRI noted.
Troubling Imaging Anecdotes, Previous Studies
The ECRI news release cites two de-identified patient stories, both related to imaging. One case involved a woman who “experienced abdominal pain and abnormal vaginal bleeding,” but a diagnosis of uterine cancer was delayed nearly a year. “MRIs were ordered, but not all the results were reviewed, as her symptoms worsened. Despite masses being detected on an ultrasound, a missed appointment and communication barriers delayed her diagnosis. She was finally diagnosed after severe pain led to hospitalization.”
In one “near-miss” incident, a patient did not receive an essential carotid ultrasound procedure prior to being scheduled for open-heart surgery. Staff caught the omission and canceled the surgery. A later ultrasound “revealed he would have had a catastrophic surgical outcome if the surgery had proceeded as scheduled,” ECRI stated.
Two earlier studies noted in the news release highlight the impact of diagnostic errors.
A 2017 study, published in the journal BMJ Quality Safety, estimated that diagnostic errors affect approximately 5% of US adults—a total of 12 million—each year. In that paper, the authors combined estimates from three observational studies that defined diagnostic error in similar ways.
“Based upon previous work, we estimate that about half of these errors could potentially be harmful,” the authors wrote.
And a 2024 study published in the same journal estimated that 795,000 Americans die or become permanently disabled each year due to misdiagnosis of dangerous diseases. “Just 15 diseases account for about half of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined,” the authors wrote.
Recommendations for Providers, Labs
ECRI advised that healthcare providers should adopt a “total systems safety approach and human-factors engineering” to reduce diagnostic errors. This is good advice for clinical laboratories as well.
Specific steps should include “integrating EHR workflows, optimizing testing processes, tracking results, and establishing multidisciplinary diagnostic management teams to analyze safety events,” the news release states.
Schabacker also advised patients to “ask questions to understand why their doctor is ordering tests, and are those tests urgent,” he said. “Schedule your appointments and tests quickly and follow up with your provider if you’re awaiting results. If possible, ask a family member or friend to join you in important appointments, to help ask questions and take notes.”
Clinical laboratory managers have been alerted to the involvement of lab testing in incidents of medical errors. This report by ECRI is more evidence of the gaps in care delivery that often contribute to medical error. Medical lab professionals may want to review the ECRI report to learn more about what the authors identify as the specific breakdowns in care processes that contribute to medical errors.
Discovery could lead to new treatments for cancer and tumors, but probably not to any new diagnostic assays for clinical laboratories
Researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center have reported discovery of “acid walls” that appear to protect various types of cancer tumors from attack by the body’s immune system cells. Though the discovery is not directly related to a biomarker for a clinical laboratory diagnostic test, the basic research will help scientists develop ways to address the tumor’s acid wall strategy for defeating the immune system.
The UT scientists made their discovery using an internally developed imaging technique that employs nanoparticle probes to detect levels of acidity in cells. The research, they suggest, “could pave the way for new cancer treatment approaches that alter the acidic environment around tumors,” according to a UTSW press release.
“This study revealed a previously unrecognized polarized extracellular acidity that is prevalent around cancer cells,” said lead study author Jinming Gao, PhD (above), Professor in the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and head of the Gao Lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center, in a press release. Gao believes the study “will lead to several new lines of research, such as studies to better understand how cancer cells polarize their acid excretion, how those cells can withstand the acidity level that kills CD8+ T cells, and how to inhibit acid excretion to allow T cells to better kill cancer cells,” the press release notes. (Photo copyright: University of Texas.)
Developing Acid Walls
As explained in the press release, scientists have long known that cancer cells are slightly more acidic than most healthy tissue. Gao and his team designed a nanoparticle known as pegsitacianine—a pH-sensitive fluorescent nanoprobe for image-guided cancer surgery—that disassembles and lights up when exposed to the acidic conditions in tumors.
However, “it was unclear why these nanoparticles fluoresced since a tumor’s acidity was thought to be too mild to trigger their activation,” the press release note.
To learn more, they used nanoparticle probes to illuminate a variety of individual cancer cells sampled from humans and mice, including lung, breast, melanoma, and glioblastoma, as well as tumor tissue. They discovered that the cancer cells secreted lactic acid—a waste product of digested glucose—at higher levels than previously known. The cells “pumped” the acid away from their malignant neighbors to form a protective “acid wall” around the tumor, the researchers noted in Nature Biomedical Engineering.
“Samples from human tumors showed that this acid wall was practically devoid of CD8+ T cells within the tumors, an immune cell type known to fight cancer,” the press release states. “When the researchers grew cancer cells and CD8+ T cells together in petri dishes that had been acidified to a 5.3 pH, the cancer cells were spared while the CD8+ T cells perished within three hours, suggesting that this severe acidity might thwart immune cell attack without harming the cancer cells.”
Gao’s team previously discovered that sodium lactate, the “conjugate base of lactic acid” as they describe it, increases the longevity of T cells and thus enhances their cancer-fighting capabilities. The researchers described the two molecules—lactate and lactic acid—as “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” and suggested that future therapies could seek to convert lactic acid to lactate.
“Gao noted that this discovery will lead to several new lines of research, such as studies to better understand how cancer cells polarize their acid excretion, how those cells can withstand the acidity level that kills CD8+ T cells, and how to inhibit acid excretion to allow T cells to better kill cancer cells,” the press release states.
Commercializing the Technology
Pegsitacianine was designed to aid cancer surgeons by illuminating the edges of solid metastatic tumors in real time during surgery, a 2023 UTSW Medical Center press release explains. About 24 hours prior to surgery, nanoprobes are delivered via IV. Then, the surgeon uses a near-infrared camera to visualize the cells.
UTSW has licensed pegsitacianine to OncoNano Medicine, a Dallas-area biotech startup launched to commercialize technologies from Gao Lab. Gao and his colleague Baran Sumer, MD, Professor and Chief of the Division of Head and Neck Oncology in UT Southwestern Medical Center’s Department of Otolaryngology and co-author on the study, both sit on OncoNano’s advisory board.
In January 2023, OncoNano announced that pegsitacianine had received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for Real-Time Surgical Imaging from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which will fast-track the technology for development and regulatory review.
In a Phase II clinical trial published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, the researchers tested the technology as part of cytoreductive surgery in patients with peritoneal metastases. However, a November 2023 UTSW press release noted that the technology is “tumor-agnostic and could potentially be used in other forms of cancer.” It is currently ready for Phase 3 trials, according to the OncoNano website.
More research and studies are needed to better understand this dynamic of cancer cells. Collectively, this research into cancer by different scientific teams is adding new insights into the way tumors originate and spread. At this time, these insights are not expected to lead to any new diagnostics tests that pathologists and clinical laboratories could use to detect cancer.
Program is open to providers that exclusively offer telehealth services, and those providers that offer the telehealth services to other hospitals
In another sign that telehealth is now an established presence in the healthcare marketplace, The Joint Commission recently implemented a new Telehealth Accreditation Program. The initiative, which took effect on July 1, 2024, aims to provide “updated, streamlined standards” enabling “safe, high-quality” delivery of telehealth services to patients, according to a press release. The organization announced the program in April.
Dark Daily has regularly commented on the importance for clinical laboratories to recognize this trend and add the necessary services to meet the expectations and needs of telehealth/virtual doctor visits where the physician orders medical laboratory tests for the patient.
“The use of telehealth in the United States increased 154% during early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and stabilized at levels 38 times higher than levels in 2019,” said Joint Commission President and CEO Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, in the press release.
“As telehealth continues to evolve, it was imperative to create a new accreditation program to provide a framework to support the integrity of patient safety regardless of the care setting,” he added.
The accrediting organization is reacting to market demand. Patient and doctor acceptance of virtual doctor visits and telehealth consults is now an established fact.
[PHOTO OF PERLIN HERE]
“Our new Telehealth Accreditation Program helps organizations standardize care and reduce risk so that all patients, including those obtaining services remotely, receive the safest, highest-quality care with outcomes consistent with traditional settings,” said Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD (above), President/CEO, The Joint Commission, in a press release. Clinical laboratory accreditation nationwide is also handled by the not-for-profit organization. (Photo copyright: International Hospital Federation.)
Eligibility
The Joint Commission describes itself as “the nation’s oldest and largest standards-setting and accrediting body in healthcare.” The not-for-profit organization certifies more than 22,000 healthcare providers in the US, according to its website, including hospitals and medical laboratories. Its evaluations are based on surveys in which qualified experts conduct inspections of the facilities to ensure compliance with patient safety and quality standards.
Accreditation is not mandatory, however many states have licensing, certification, or contracting requirements that mandate accreditation by The Joint Commission or other accrediting bodies.
The program is open to providers that exclusively offer healthcare services “via telehealth or remote patient monitoring, with no in-person visits or encounters,” according to The Joint Commission website. This can include organizations that provide:
Primary care, specialty care, or urgent care,
Medical or behavioral consultation,
Remote patient monitoring, and
TeleICU, telestroke, telepsychiatry, or teleimaging services to hospitals.
Hospitals or other healthcare providers can also apply if they have contracts to offer “care, treatment, and services via telehealth to another organization’s patients,” The Joint Commission states. Examples include acute care or psychiatric hospitals that provide telehealth services to other facilities. In this case, the hospitals can obtain telehealth accreditation for the contracted services while maintaining their current accreditation for services provided onsite.
Requirements for Certification
The requirements for accreditation are similar to those in other Joint Commission programs, the organization says. This includes “requirements for information management, leadership, medication management, patient identification, documentation, and credentialing and privileging.”
In addition, it includes requirements specific to telehealth. For example, emergency management requirements have been streamlined to account for services provided remotely. It also contains standards related to telehealth equipment as well as provider and patient education about use of the technology.
“Additionally, the program’s standards may be filtered based on the telehealth modality or service provided,” the organization’s website notes.
Other Accrediting Organizations
The Joint Commission is not the only organization that offers telehealth accreditation or certification. The Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) provides accreditation programs for telehealth and remote patient monitoring, as well as a certification program for telehealth support services.
The telehealth accreditation program consists of three modules accounting for different forms of delivery:
Provider-to-provider (one provider offers services such as consultation to another provider).
The accreditation process takes up to four months, URAC says.
The Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC) offers what it describes as a telehealth “Distinction” for certain kinds of healthcare providers that it has accredited, including:
Additionally, in April 2022, ACHC announced a telehealth certification program open to “any healthcare provider or organization that delivers health-related services via electronic information and telecommunication technologies,” regardless of whether they are accredited, according to a press release.
“The pandemic really pushed healthcare providers to adopt and grow telehealth services to maintain access for patients and, as a result, many of our clients were seeking ways to optimize this offering in the context of providing quality services,” said program director Teresa Hoosier, RN, in the press release. “ACHC Telehealth Certification establishes national standards. It promotes best practices for digital healthcare services. Certification confirms quality, safety, and consistency—strengthening trust in an organization and assuring patients that they are receiving the best care possible.”
This development is a reminder that clinical laboratory managers need a consumer/patient focused strategy and operational capability to collect specimens and provide medical laboratory tests for telehealth visits when the doctors order tests. It confirms that the trend of consumers/patients using remote healthcare is real, robust, and has legs.
Scientists suspect that the plastics can be linked to a host of medical conditions, but clear evidence is elusive without appropriate biomarkers for clinical laboratory testing
Recent research indicates that microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are accumulating in human organs at an increasing rate. The health impact is not entirely clear, but the research suggests that clinical laboratories could someday find themselves testing for levels of MNPs in patients.
In one study, scientists at the University of New Mexico and Oklahoma State University analyzed autopsy samples of liver, kidney, and frontal cortex brain tissue collected in 2016 and 2024. “Brains exhibited higher concentrations of MNPs than liver or kidney samples,” they wrote. However, “all organs exhibited significant increases from 2016 to 2024.”
“The concentrations we saw in the brain tissue of normal individuals, who had an average age of around 45 or 50 years old, were 4,800 micrograms per gram, or 0.5% by weight,” lead author Matthew Campen, PhD, Regents’ Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of New Mexico, and Director of the New Mexico Center for Metals in Biology and Medicine (CMBM), told CNN. “Compared to autopsy brain samples from 2016, that’s about 50% higher.”
Researchers have not yet uncovered clear evidence of specific health risks, but “what scientists worry about is several trends in disease prevalence that have been unexplained—Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, colorectal cancer in people under 50, inflammatory bowel disease, and global reductions in sperm count,” Campen told Everyday Health.
In another recent study, a different team of researchers at the University of New Mexico found high levels of microplastics in human and canine testicular tissue.
“At the beginning, I doubted whether microplastics could penetrate the reproductive system,” said lead author Xiaozhong Yu, MD, PhD, Professor, University of New Mexico College of Nursing in a university news story. “When I first received the results for dogs I was surprised. I was even more surprised when I received the results for humans.”
“The rate of increase in microplastics in the environment is exponential and we have every reason to believe that the concentrations in our bodies will continue to increase in the coming years and decades,” Matthew Campen, PhD (above), of the University of New Mexico told Everyday Health. As studies continue to produce evidence that nanoplastics affect human health, testing companies may develop biomarkers for clinical laboratory tests that measure the amount of microplastics in different organ locations. (Photo copyright: University of New Mexico.)
Landrigan told CNN that most people are exposed to MNPs through their diet, “but inhalation is also an important route.”
However, he added, “it’s important not to scare the hell out of people, because the science in this space is still evolving, and nobody in the year 2024 is going to live without plastic.”
CNN noted that experts consider nanoplastics to be the biggest concern [as opposed to microplastics] because they can infiltrate human cells.
“Somehow these nanoplastics hijack their way through the body and get to the brain, crossing the blood-brain barrier,” Campen told CNN. “Plastics love fats, or lipids, so one theory is that plastics are hijacking their way with the fats we eat which are then delivered to the organs that really like lipids—the brain is top among those.”
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that microplastics typically measure less than 5mm, whereas nanoplastics are less than a micron (micrometer). However, the agency notes that “there are currently no standard definitions for the size of microplastics or nanoplastics.”
What Are the Health Risks?
Scientists suspect that MNPs could be associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and infertility, The Washington Post reported, but that they “still don’t have a clear sense of what these materials are doing to the human body.”
“In a 2021 study, researchers in Switzerland identified more than 10,000 chemicals used in the manufacture of plastic—of which over 2,400 were potentially ‘of concern’ for human health,” The Post noted.
“To be able to say we have a health impact, we need to have a direct correlation between a product and a health outcome,” Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, Associate Professor at the Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy (EMSOP), told The Post. “It’s very narrow, that straight line. And there’s so many different health outcomes there could be, and we’re finding these particles in so many different tissues.”
One study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) suggested that MNPs in arteries could be risk factors for heart attacks or strokes. But even here, the authors wrote, “direct evidence that this risk extends to humans is lacking.”
Yu suspects that MNPs could be a factor in a global decline in sperm count, along with other environmental contaminants such as heavy metals and pesticides. His study found that polyethylene was the most prevalent plastic in dogs, followed by polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Higher levels of PVC correlated with lower sperm count, but there was no correlation with polyethylene.
“PVC can release a lot of chemicals that interfere with spermatogenesis, and it contains chemicals that cause endocrine disruption,” he said in the UNM news story.
Clinical laboratory managers should recognize that interest in identifying micro- and nanoplastics in every organ of the human body will increase. At some point, physicians may want labs to test their patients for microplastic levels in certain organ sites. This will likely be when enough published studies show a correlation between high levels of microplastics in certain locations of the body and specific disease states.
