2026年1月13日 星期二

為何 NHS 必須放棄錯誤成本思維,把醫生與手術室視為最重要資源

 為何 NHS 必須放棄錯誤成本思維,把醫生與手術室視為最重要資源


NHS 的床位危機並不只是流感或冬季需求上升的問題,而是源自一套錯誤的成本與價值觀念。這個體系習慣用「佔用床位」和「削減明顯開支」去衡量效益,卻沒有把真正的瓶頸——醫生和手術室——視為最需要保護與優先運用的核心資源。

被「卡住」的病床,其實在浪費醫生

每逢冬季,急症室外救護車大排長龍、病人滯留走廊、非緊急手術被一再延後的景象,幾乎成了英國人熟悉的日常畫面。原因之一,是有大批在醫療上已屬穩定的病人,因為缺乏安全出院或轉介安排,長期佔用急症醫院病床。帳面上,這些人只是「床日」和「入住率」的數字;但實際上,每一張被佔用的病床,都意味著一名需要急性治療或手術的病人無法及時入院,意味著醫生與手術室被迫空等,意味著候診名單愈拉愈長。真正的成本不只是金錢,而是延誤診治帶來的病情惡化與生命風險。

傳統成本會計如何誤導 NHS

傳統成本會計把每個部門視為「成本中心」,把每一個床位、每一天住院都當成需要嚴格管控的成本單位。在這種邏輯下,只要病床「高入住率」、短期開支控制在預算內,醫院在報表上就顯得「有效率」。但這種思維會鼓勵管理層防守自己的科室預算,不願投資在出院後的社區照顧、復康設施或中途護理,因為那些支出看起來是「額外成本」。它掩蓋了真正的損失:當後端照顧薄弱導致床位被卡住,醫院其實是在白白浪費最昂貴、最稀缺的資源——專科醫生、手術團隊以及手術室。當手術因為沒有可用病床而一再取消,帳面節省了部分出院支援開支,但換來的是醫生時間被閒置、病人等待被延長,社會與經濟成本反而更高。

吞吐量會計:看的是「流量」,不是「床數」

吞吐量會計(Throughput Accounting)源自約束理論,它問的不是「哪裡花最多錢」,而是「是什麼瓶頸在限制整個系統創造價值的速度」。在急症醫院環境中,真正的瓶頸往往不是床,而是醫生與手術室:可安排的手術時段有限,專科醫生每天能處理的個案有限。如果因為下游床位被佔滿,導致可做的手術做不了,可看的病人看不到,整體吞吐量就被嚴重削弱。從吞吐量會計的角度,真正的目標是:以有限的醫生與手術室資源,完成最多、品質最好的治療。病床、病房和行政流程都是「支援資源」,其使命是確保這個瓶頸永遠不會因為可預防的堵塞(例如出院延誤)而閒置。

官僚思維如何壓死臨床流動

現行的官僚邏輯,往往把出院決定和社福安排拉進繁瑣、保守且文件導向的流程中。每多一重簽署、會議和表格,看似是為了「安全」與「問責」,實際上卻製造延遲,令已穩定的病人長時間佔用急症床位。與此同時,醫生與手術室的可用時段被一再浪費,手術排期形同兒戲,病人被迫無限期等待。整個系統彷彿相信「多留一天在醫院比較安全」,卻忽略了整體堵塞的風險:急症室擠迫、救護車滯留、手術取消、醫護倦怠,以及民眾信任下滑。如果以吞吐量為本,過度官僚本身就應被視為一種臨床風險,因為任何令瓶頸資源停擺的因素,都直接損害病人利益。

把醫生和手術室放在系統設計的中心

一旦 NHS 承認真正的約束在於醫生與手術室,整個策略重點就必須調整:

  • 病床優先留給需要急性治療與手術的病人,而不是已穩定但因社區照顧斷層而被困的個案。

  • 投資具彈性的中途與社區容量,如社區醫院、復康病房、在家康復和短期護理方案,讓急症床位能快速騰空。

  • 大幅簡化出院流程,讓符合醫療標準的病人可以在數小時內完成轉介與安排,而不是多等數日。

  • 排程設計以「最大化完成的手術與治療」為核心,把每一次手術取消視為系統失敗,而不是日常現象。

在這種架構下,社區照顧與護老服務不再只是「社福支出」,而是保護醫療系統吞吐量的關鍵投資。

NHS 需要的,是新一套「經濟語言」

NHS 真正被浪費的,並非只是金錢,而是能力。當醫生、護士和手術室被迫等待床位或文件時,體系表面上看起來「節約」,本質上卻在燃燒自己最稀缺、最昂貴的資源。對社區照顧和中途護理「省下」來的支出,只是帳面上的幻象;真正的代價,是更長的候診時間、更嚴重的病情、更高的急症需求,以及更沉重的社會成本。如果 NHS 願意改用吞吐量會計,承認並揭露這種虛假的成本觀,就能把管理焦點重新放在關鍵問題上:找出真正的瓶頸,充分運用它,讓所有資源圍繞它運作,最後再考慮是否擴張容量。在那之前,只要仍被舊式成本會計與官僚文化綁住,病床不足與冬季危機就只會一再重演,因為整個系統始終在親手扼殺自己的生命線。

Why the NHS Must Rethink Cost Accounting and Free Its Most Vital Constraint: Doctors and Operating Rooms

 Why the NHS Must Rethink Cost Accounting and Free Its Most Vital Constraint: Doctors and Operating Rooms


The persistent bed shortage in the NHS is not just a seasonal flu problem; it is a structural failure driven by the wrong way of looking at costs and value. The system focuses on counting occupied beds and shaving visible expenses, instead of maximizing the flow of patients through its true bottlenecks: doctors and operating rooms.

The hidden cost of blocked beds

Every winter, the same scenes reappear: ambulances queuing outside A&E, patients lying on trolleys in corridors, and “non‑urgent” surgeries postponed indefinitely. Behind these symptoms lies a large group of patients who are medically stable yet still occupying hospital beds because safe discharge or step‑down care is not in place. On paper, these patients are “bed days” and “occupancy rates.” In reality, each occupied bed blocks a new patient from receiving timely treatment, pushes operations further back, and extends waiting lists. The cost of this is not just financial; it is measured in delayed diagnoses, worsening conditions, and human lives.

Why traditional cost accounting misleads the NHS

Traditional cost accounting treats each department as a cost centre and each bed day as a unit of activity to be budgeted and controlled. Under this logic, the hospital appears “efficient” if bed occupancy is high and immediate spending on extra community care, step‑down units, or rehab capacity seems “expensive.” This mindset encourages managers to protect short‑term budgets instead of improving patient flow. It hides the fact that the real economic loss comes from under‑utilising the most scarce and valuable resources: specialist doctors, surgical teams, and operating theatres. When surgeries are cancelled because no post‑operative beds are available, the system saves a bit on short‑term discharge support but wastes the far more valuable time of surgeons and theatre staff, and prolongs the suffering and productivity loss of patients.

Throughput accounting: focusing on flow, not beds

Throughput accounting, rooted in the Theory of Constraints, asks a different question: what is the true constraint limiting the system’s ability to deliver value, and how can everything else be aligned to exploit and protect that constraint? In the NHS acute hospital, the key constraints are not beds as such; they are the time and capacity of doctors and operating rooms. If a consultant surgeon can only perform a limited number of operations per week, every cancelled case caused by unavailable beds destroys throughput. Under throughput accounting, the goal is to maximise the rate at which the system converts scarce clinical capacity into completed, successful treatments. Beds, wards, and administrative units become supporting resources whose job is to ensure the constraint (doctors and theatres) never sits idle due to avoidable blockages, such as delayed discharges.

Bureaucracy versus clinical flow

The current bureaucratic logic often forces discharge decisions and social‑care arrangements into slow, risk‑averse, paperwork‑heavy processes. Every extra meeting, form, or sign‑off may feel “safe” from a governance perspective, but it steals time, delays decisions, and leaves medically fit patients occupying acute beds. Meanwhile, doctors and theatre slots go under‑used or are repeatedly rescheduled. The system behaves as if the safest option is to “keep the patient in hospital a bit longer,” while ignoring the systemic risk of gridlock: A&E overcrowding, ambulance delays, cancelled operations, staff burnout, and rising public frustration. A throughput‑oriented NHS would treat excessive bureaucracy itself as a clinical risk, because anything that keeps the constraint idle directly harms patients.

Redesigning around the true constraint

If the NHS accepts that its vital constraints are doctors and operating rooms, several strategic shifts follow:

  • Prioritise bed availability for patients who need acute interventions, not those who are clinically stable but trapped by social‑care gaps.

  • Invest in flexible step‑down capacity: community hospitals, rehab units, home‑care packages, and temporary “recovery at home” schemes that can be activated quickly to free acute beds.

  • Streamline discharge pathways so that medically stable patients move out of acute care within hours, not days, once fit for discharge, with clear accountability and minimal bureaucratic friction.

  • Schedule operating theatres and consultant time around maximising completed procedures and timely treatments, treating cancellations as system failures, not routine events.

In this design, community care and social services are not “extra costs”; they are essential supports that protect the throughput of the system’s most precious resource: clinical expertise.

A call for a new economic mindset in the NHS

The NHS is not mainly wasting money; it is wasting capacity. When doctors, nurses, and operating rooms are forced to wait for beds to clear, or for discharge paperwork to be processed, the system is burning its scarcest and most expensive assets while appearing “frugal” on paper. The apparent savings from under‑funded social care and minimal step‑down capacity are illusions. The real bill appears later as longer waiting lists, more complex illnesses, higher emergency demand, and deeper public distrust. A shift to throughput accounting would expose this false economy and redirect management attention where it matters: identify the true constraints, exploit them fully, subordinate everything else to support them, and only then consider expanding capacity. Until the NHS abandons narrow cost accounting and bureaucratic self‑protection, the annual crisis of bed shortages will keep repeating—because the system will continue to suffocate its own vital flow.

美國最新「真食物」金字塔對四口之家的額外花費有多少?

 美國最新「真食物」金字塔對四口之家的額外花費有多少?


美國最新的「真食物」飲食金字塔更強調蛋白質、全脂乳製品、健康脂肪,以及大量蔬果與全穀類,同時大幅減少高度加工與含糖食品。 從成本角度看,一個美國四口之家若從舊的「以穀物為主」金字塔轉向這種高蛋白、少加工的飲食模式,平均每月的食物支出大約可能增加約 10–25%,視採買方式與食材選擇而定。

新金字塔的重點

  • 新金字塔要求每餐都有「高品質、高營養密度的蛋白質食物」,如雞蛋、家禽、海鮮、紅肉、豆類、堅果與種子,並搭配水果、蔬菜、健康脂肪與全穀類。

  • 指南也鼓勵以「真食物」取代高度加工食品與精製澱粉,並將每日蛋白質建議量從每公斤體重 0.8 公克提高到約 1.2–1.6 公克。

與舊金字塔的差異

  • 1990 年代的 USDA 舊金字塔以穀物為最大基礎層,每日建議 6–11 份,脂肪與油被標示為「少量使用」,蛋白質份量相對保守。

  • 新的「真食物」金字塔則幾乎顛倒:底層是蔬菜、水果、蛋白質、乳製品與健康脂肪,而精製穀物與含糖食品只佔最上層的一小部分。

成本上升的主要原因

  • 蛋白質食物(肉類、魚、蛋、堅果)與全脂乳製品,一般每卡路里的價格都高於精製穀物、添加糖與許多高度加工食品,因此提高蛋白質比例並用它們取代引人便宜的加工主食,往往會推高食物支出。

  • 不過,如果同時從外食與高度加工零食改為以家常烹調、基本食材為主,某些情況下可抵銷部分成本,因為許多加工即食品本身含有便利性的加價。

四口之家的粗略額外花費

  • 對一個原本較接近舊金字塔、以穀物與加工食品為主的四口之家而言,若轉向新指南所提倡的高蛋白、全食物飲食模式,合理的粗略估計是每月額外增加約 80–250 美元,年支出多出約 1,000–3,000 美元。

  • 這個範圍的較低端假設多選擇豆類、扁豆、雞蛋與冷凍蔬菜等平價食材;較高端則代表常選購鮮肉、海鮮、堅果及標榜「潔淨標籤」的高價產品。

在新金字塔下控制支出的做法

  • 若想把增加的花費壓在較低範圍,可多利用豆類、扁豆、雞蛋、罐頭魚與帶骨雞腿等高 CP 值蛋白質,並大量採買全食物與冷凍蔬果。

  • 提前規劃簡單家常菜單、減少零食和含糖飲料,把紅肉與較昂貴食材留在較少數的餐次中,可以兼顧新金字塔的健康目標與整體家庭預算。

Related