Chief among the criticisms is the criteria for the tables is fundamentally flawed. Critics point out that financial sustainability, for example, has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare provided by a trust. 

While pledging support to underperformers the policy also raises the risk of promoting a two-tier system. By highlighting gaps in quality, the tables risk accentuating these as poor performers are further demoralised and the best and brightest staff and leaders coalesce at those excelling. 

Confronted with concerns the tables were ‘not meaningful and simplistic' at an event at The King's Fund, health and social care secretary, Wes Streeting, was defiant, however, commenting that analysts know the best and worst performing trusts, so why shouldn't the public? 

And here Streeting does have a point. The 10-Year Health Plan has pledged to empower patients with information and choice so why should they not know how trusts compare? 

Therefore, while the execution of the policy may be deeply flawed, there is no denying Streeting's point that increased transparency is in itself a good thing for patients. Imperfect as they are, league tables look here to stay for the foreseeable future. It can only be hoped the Government takes on board some of the arguments for a more nuanced picture that takes into account the context within each individual trust operates to give a truer picture of how they are performing.