Nothing like a random blog to refute a piece of research...
The blog author also fails to note why admission rates are lower at weekends
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Nothing like a random blog to refute a piece of research...
The blog author also fails to note why admission rates are lower at weekends
Nothing like a random blog to refute a piece of research...
The blog author also fails to note why admission rates are lower at weekends
This guy wrote the blog Dolph.
https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=DCURT26
Do you refute the arguments Dolph or simply that they come from a blog?
We don't know why presentation is different at weekend, but the fact that presentation is different would lead credence to an argument that other research about weekend figures are very difficult to interpret and don't necessarily show the weekend effect in management that Hunt is so keen to spout about
We don't know why presentation is different at weekend, but the fact that presentation is different would lead credence to an argument that other research about weekend figures are very difficult to interpret and don't necessarily show the weekend effect in management that Hunt is so keen to spout about
Appeal to authority
I haven't read the full methodology of the original report yet, so that was a quick counter to unreferenced claims in the blog. Let me drop my daughter off at school and I will spend some time to do a full analysis if you wish.
Starting to read the original article, differences in presentation rates are addressed early on (page 3), and probably factors used are discussed on page 11 (contrary to the blog claim that they are missing.)
Full analysis may yet prove the blog author right, but it isn't that hopeful based on initial reading.
The original study is here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487251/
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,661
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm the bloke who takes the patients records to the Clinicians for a report and the look on their faces sometimes can upset me. Nobody sets out to harm a patient and some of the claims/complaints are for nothing.
For example only 1 out of 10 claims will get to the next level where the NHSLA get involved so that means the Claimants Solicitor has thrown out the case because there isn't one.
Out of the ones that end up with the NHSLA I have no idea how many are then thrown out by the Claimants Solicitor when they realise there is no evidence.
However this isn't nice for those who have been named and also costs the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
I can empathize with that to a large degree however, with regards to when the NHSLA become involved they too have more red tape than is expected. I am helping someone with a claim at present and its been a case of once you do that we can then consider it > done that so now will you consider it > no now you need to do that then we will consider it > done that now will you consider > no you just have one more thing to do then we will > right done that now when can I expect a reply > oh no you just need to do... I'm having that from them and have 8 different requests each after saying they need to consider something else. In the meantime I'm nearly £1,000 out of pocket and the victim is tens of thousands out of pocket.
This is despite concrete evidence proving liability, an expert report, an external report, despite all statements submitted, evidence and confirmation from other sources, a raft of letters they requested and a more detailed breakdown of confirmed costs. They are now insistent on something else being done, I informed once this was complete if there were any further delays I would just instantly file to court as its a joke. I was told by the guy handling the case that you cannot sue the NHS unless they say so... After some digging it appears any case will be thrown out unless you adhere to the 2yrs+ of messing around despite liability being admitted by way of an offer that is quite frankly a joke!
Appeal to authority
I haven't read the full methodology of the original report yet, so that was a quick counter to unreferenced claims in the blog. Let me drop my daughter off at school and I will spend some time to do a full analysis if you wish.
Starting to read the original article, differences in presentation rates are addressed early on (page 3), and probably factors used are discussed on page 11 (contrary to the blog claim that they are missing.)
Full analysis may yet prove the blog author right, but it isn't that hopeful based on initial reading.
The original study is here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487251/
So I have now reviewed the blog and the original document and stand by the above. The study both notes and controls for the variations the blog highlights. The blog is essentially a gish gallop article relying on people either not checking or not understanding what he is suggesting, or relying on people using the blog as an appeal to authority based on the author's position in lieu of analysis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
To be fair, when the conclusion of the report opens like this...
You can see why it is being used. Plus if Hunt is using that as his evidence, I don't really think he is lying, but is just stating what a reports findings are. Its not like he is going out there making it up, he is using a headline statement from a report. Mind you though, not sure if the report is independent or not.
Last edited:
This being the same Jeremy Hunt who came under heavy fire for deeply surreptitious behaviour in the handling of bsb bids when culture secretary. The man is an odious worm and is a feeble and wretched individual... Probably why he appears to be appointed to such positions.
In my opinion a prerequisite to being Health Secretary should be a mandatory title and xx years in service to the NHS, the same as with the army. The only position not to trust would be DWP and Justice.
In my opinion a prerequisite to being Health Secretary should be a mandatory title and xx years in service to the NHS, the same as with the army. The only position not to trust would be DWP and Justice.
I've yet to see a politician who isn't. They are all the same.
Where does the original paper control for the variation that is questioned in the blog? They even state themselves that the difference in presentation numbers is marked and may represent a more severe stroke presentation at the weekend which is the point he makes. They don't make comment about the statistical significance of the differences in incidence at weekend compared to weekdays which is the comment he makes when he states about the incredibly small p value if you did work it out.
If you take his point of no reason for incidence to be different at a weekend from a weekday then his figures stating how likely you are to die from a stroke being actually less than for a weekday look valid. If you disagree with that premise in that the incidence is different at a weekend then you need to obviously question the suggestion that deaths are related to differences in care at a weekend as the presentations are clearly different also
All this takes us back to the argument that a weekend effect can be seen in mortality figures, but that this does not show causation that the level of care provided at a weekend is the cause. This is the argument that has been put forward against Hunt's claims in that they are scaremongering to try and "prove" a point when in fact they do nothing of the sort.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-health-patient-deaths-nhs-struggling-to-cope
20% increase in deaths of mental health patients in last three years. Andrew (now Lord) Lansley was a useful idiot but the people who really have blood on their hands are Cameron and Osborne - they told us the NHS was safe in their hands
20% increase in deaths of mental health patients in last three years. Andrew (now Lord) Lansley was a useful idiot but the people who really have blood on their hands are Cameron and Osborne - they told us the NHS was safe in their hands
Mental health, and those who suffer from it are treated with contempt in the UK (not saying exclusively). I'm not surprised at those figures, if true.
I think I am right in saying that you don't mean medical professionals treat people who have mental health issues with contempt?
I suppose that depends on how you define medical professional, because most of the people I encountered were far from professional. My experience of how the NHS treats mental health was that most people treat you as an inconvenience, wasting their time, and that there's nothing really wrong with you, and overall yes with contempt. The same from those who set policies.
Not my GP though. He was a life saver.
I have my first therapy session on Thursday after a wait of nearly 2 months, I'm not in the high risk of self harm category so I'm told to wait which I find shocking.
I'm giving it a go, not sure what to expect.
I genuinely hope you find it works for you. My experience was it made things worse, and was an utter joke.
