NHS Fail

[DrToffnar]

I've worked for the NHS for 6 years now as what is basically and admin and clerical worker and honestly, it's depressing.

I would never say that it's a failing system JUST because of cuts and increased lack of funding, though that is definitely the defining reason. It's also partly a management issue.

More then anything, it's just sad. I'm so proud of what the service stands for and COULD be, but I doubt it'll ever see any significant reform any time soon. It's definitely one of the most physically and mentally demanding jobs I've ever had and that's just to get the most basic of things done for a decent turnaround.

Anyway, probably off topic but that's just by two cents xD

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Ok great.



What happens to all the sick people while youre starting things back up?


"Sorry folks youre the ones we've deemed acceltable losses during this 10+ year rebuild of the nhs"

"Great progress needs great sacrifice."

Me. Just now.

 

[Xordium]

Even the most extreme failures simply result in the individuals involved being shunted off to another department.

And that doesn't happen in the private sector of course ...

A failed CEO of a global bank never gets a job elsewhere.
A failed politician never gets to be a politician again let alone a job in the cabinet again.
A failed football manager never gets a job again.

etc etc

All these jobs require people with a certain skillset and only so many people have that skillset. Unfortunately, any mistakes they make will have profound effects but one hopes they have learned from them.

 

[mid_gen]

And that doesn't happen in the private sector of course ...

A failed CEO of a global bank never gets a job elsewhere.
A failed politician never gets to be a politician again let alone a job in the cabinet again.
A failed football manager never gets a job again.

etc etc

Politicians are public sector....

Failing private sector CEOs get sacked. Failing football managers get sacked. About the only time the public sector can get rid of crap employees is during redundancy rounds.

 

[Sliver]

A failed CEO of a global bank never gets a job elsewhere.
A failed politician never gets to be a politician again let alone a job in the cabinet again.
A failed football manager never gets a job again.

All false statements. CEO's often gain jobs in other companies after being forced to resign. Politicians often enjoy a recrudescence in their career and football managers who get sacked invariably find employment with other clubs. Not sure what you were thinking Xordium when you made that post but well done on being completely wrong.

 

[Xordium]

Politicians are public sector....

Failing private sector CEOs get sacked. Failing football managers get sacked. About the only time the public sector can get rid of crap employees is during redundancy rounds.

I never said they weren't my point was that it's not just in this environment we are discussing that people move on to similar posts (I could have made that clearer going from private in one sentence to switching to the next - I can see how I haven't put that so well).

Yes, the people do get sacked and they get jobs elsewhere. The NHS can and does get rid of bad employees quite frequently as I've quite clearly stated in that post and yet you've chosen to ignore it. And you completely neglected my point about needing skilsets for jobs and how those skillsets aren't always available in all too many people.

CEO's often gain jobs in other companies after being forced to resign. Politicians often enjoy a recrudescence in their career and football managers who get sacked invariably find employment with other clubs.

Thanks for confirming what I was saying! However, I accept I should have made it clearly I was being sarcastic because that I was obviously escaped you. I will add those little faces after my posts like that in future for the sake of clarity.

 

[Sliver]

This forum is crying out for a sarcasm smiley.

 

[Xordium]

In fairness, I think if you actually read a thread and place the actual posts in context the intention is always clear. The problem comes when you are targeting a specific post or poster and therefore losing that context. Anyway that's well off-topic so feel free to ignore.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

This looks sustainable.

That graph is the same shape as GDP though (bar the recession dip), so on the face of it, it is sustainable.

 

[Freakbro]

That looks a pretty crappy correlation line drawn over the top of that GDP graph Amigafan

 

[KingOfTheDaves]

Any entity as large as the NHS has inefficiencies, but I do think the NHS at least tries to combat this.

Some people in this thread have advocated for the NHS to change, for me the major problem in the NHS is actually too much change, specifically in organisational structure.

In 2013 the government got rid of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and replaced them with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Cue reorganisation and rebranding, all costing an absolute fortune along with some nice fat redundancy cheques. Most of whom waited 6 months then rejoined the NHS.

Since then, in the North West the CCGs in Cheshire and Merseyside merged, resulting in more expensive reorganisation. The CCGs in Manchester and Lancashire also merged, more money splashed around like candy.

Then the Government announces that Manchester is getting 'more control' over its Health budget. So now the Manchester-Lancashire CCG is de-merging, thus ****ing more money away.

This constant cycle of reorganisation is crazy and it is expensive and it's all back office rubbish. Since 2013 when PCT were gotten rid of the NHS has spent billions for what? Nothing has changed in regards to Doctors/Nurses or the ability to provide healthcare.

All the while the Government jabbers on about ring fenced NHS funding whilst lying about the fact that the NHS now has in its remit a large portion of Social Care which use to be provided and paid for by local councils.

If you look at the graph Mr Jack posted in the Labour leader thread, is it surprise that the exact moment the NHS started losing money is 2013?

And, if anyone doubts why we need a Labour government, just look what the Tories are doing to our NHS:

(source)

 

[Woden]

That graph is the same shape as GDP though (bar the recession dip), so on the face of it, it is sustainable.

Well someone failed maths

 

[muon]

That graph is the same shape as GDP though (bar the recession dip), so on the face of it, it is sustainable.

It isn't the same shape.

Only social protection sees growth anything like GDP. Thats because of the pensions triple lock.

Otherwise there wouldn't be any fiscal austerity going on if they matched.

 

[No1newts]

I would make it a mandatory vote for everyone who was in highschool upwards. Children of that age can be deemed Gillick competent to consent to medical treatment so they should be able to decide too. TBH from what I've seen from the recent referendum highschool children were able to articulate the main points for both sides better than an awful lot of adults including the politicians ...

You should look at how Germany fund their health it is not too far away from what you envision.

I'll have a read up.

Ta

 

[Deleted member 66701]

It isn't the same shape.

Only social protection sees growth anything like GDP. Thats because of the pensions triple lock.

Otherwise there wouldn't be any fiscal austerity going on if they matched.

I think you've missed the point - i.e. GDP is increasing at a greater rate than spending while still displaying roughly the same shape, which refutes the statement puppetworx made that the spending illustrated in his graph is not sustainable. If GDP increases at a greater rate than spending, then that suggests spending IS sustainable.

That looks a pretty crappy correlation line drawn over the top of that GDP graph Amigafan

It's not a correlation line - it's two sets of data plotted on the same graph using a common x axis (year) but two separate y axis values (% GDP growth on the left, GDP total on the right).

 

[dowie]

THIS IS WORTH READING

Anyway here's a few little facts about our hospital.
Our A&E is capable of dealing with 250 patients a day but for some reason we get 400+ a day.
We opened up a walking wounded A&E called Ambulatory Emergency Care to deal with the A&E overspill to look at 30 patients a day - there are now over 100 a day.
I personally know two people who turned up at A&E this week - one with stress and the other with a runny eye.
Every day we need to admit 150 patients into wards however we have 200 patients a day who are Ready For Discharge, in other words they can go home.
Why can't/don't they go home? - because families won't collect them until the weekend and we can't take them home because the families won't let us.

this is where we ought to start introducing charges... people who are to be discharged can be collected(by families, carers) or billed for the unnecessary additional stay

people who go to A&E for trivial things really really ought to be charged... I don't mean things that blur the lines, someone having chest pains but really it is just panic/stress etc.. but the real **** takers - people wanting a prescription because their GP is closed or your runny eye example etc..

not so much as a revenue initiative but simply a deterrent to stop people from abusing the service

 

[Xordium]

but simply a deterrent to stop people from abusing the service

I don't have the time to find this but I distinctly remembered this happening in another country and it led to the wrong people not going in. The results were people who didn't want to cause a fuss ended up turning acute solvable problems into long term chronic problems. Eg stress - better to go on the off chance it's not stress and cardiac in origin or has a chance of developing into other mental health conditions. TBH if mental health wasn't so poorly provisioned the chances are that person wouldn't be attending A+E.

The long and short parents kept kids at home with diarrhoea and they ended up still pitching up collapsed and old blokes and lasses made themselves far worse because they didn't want to cause a fuss.

 

[jonneymendoza]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36854557?client=safari#

So as a "punishment" for completely ******* up their budgets and not being able to do the basics of a management role, they are now to also fail at their patient targets as well. Wow, I wish my employer was so forgiving, you **** it up? Ah don't worry we'll make it easier so you don't next time

This may be a watershed moment and it really feels although the government are now allowing the NHS to fail so it gets so bad they can just remove it.

A better solution would be managing the thing properly, God forbid though

Dont worry, Us being out in the EU will improve the NHS dramatically....

 

[jonneymendoza]

this is where we ought to start introducing charges... people who are to be discharged can be collected(by families, carers) or billed for the unnecessary additional stay

people who go to A&E for trivial things really really ought to be charged... I don't mean things that blur the lines, someone having chest pains but really it is just panic/stress etc.. but the real **** takers - people wanting a prescription because their GP is closed or your runny eye example etc..

not so much as a revenue initiative but simply a deterrent to stop people from abusing the service

Well what you supposed to do when your GP is closed/fully booked?

i cant just role up on my GP any time i want, i literelly have to book a month in advance . if i have a crystal ball that can determin when next i will be sick, i will most likely book a month in advance accordingly....

 

[Minstadave]

Well what you supposed to do when your GP is closed/fully booked?

i cant just role up on my GP any time i want, i literelly have to book a month in advance . if i have a crystal ball that can determin when next i will be sick, i will most likely book a month in advance accordingly....

Every GP has on the day appointments for urgent matters. There is also a walk in centre and/or urgent care in most areas.