1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Nhs and negligence claims.

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Dolph, Feb 2, 2018.

  1. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 21,166

    Location: Northern England

    The NHS isn't exactly a beacon right now nor has it ever been. It's a den of corruption, inefficiency and stupidity.
     
  2. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,286

    maybe, as shown by the current mess in outsourcing, we do not want the corrupt healthcare market to destroy the NHS. You see it from the US, which is the current right wing Tory model, over prescribing on health people to get profit. You may want your health to be decided by someone in insurance whose job it is to avoid paying out but I and I suspect lots of others would not.
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    I have never advocated a US like system,this is just another false dichotomy.
     
  4. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,286

    I never said that you did so your bluster is just bluster.
     
  5. FishFluff

    Soldato

    Joined: Nov 7, 2003

    Posts: 5,121

    Location: Deepest, darkest Leeds

    That's an awful lot of opinion masquerading as fact there. You got some evidence to back any of that nonsense up?
     
  6. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    Shall we look at your post again? We can go sentence by sentence of you want.

    First line here presents an assumption that underpins the rest of the post, but isn't matched by reality, with all the more successful by outcome systems in Europe having private sector and market involvement.

    Here's your example, one that creates the illusion that this is the alternative to the nhs, as well as claiming that the current party of government supports this, despite them going on record multiple times to make it clear that they do not.

    And with this line, you imply that all insurance based systems behave this way, but again, this isn't matched by the European systems i advocate, and finishes the setup of the false dichotomy that it is either the Nhs or the USA system with nothing else possible due to your dishonest presentation on multiple points.

    So no, my post is not bluster, it out highlights the flaws in your post.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    And to turn that around, failing to follow protocols means ignoring why they were out into place in the first place. In some cases that isn't likely to be an issue, in others the consequences can be massive. The catch with being able to make that judgment call is that you are also responsible for it.

    Systems do fail, it's pretty much inevitable. The problem comes when the system either tries to ignore or deny the failure occurs, and refused to learn from it. One of the biggest things that perpetuates the oncoming failures of the Nhs is the constant kneejerk reaction to blame someone else for the issue, usually the government of the day, or lawyers daring to point out that what happened was not ok. You can see it in this thread from some posters.

    The problem with the funding argument is that it was refuted by new labour, who poured huge quantities of money into the Nhs (tripled spending in cash terms, doubled in real terms), and these problems didn't go away. No real trend changes in negligence litigation or clinical outcomes came during the funding increases, and no real trend change since the funding increases slowed significantly. The problems with the Nhs are not just about funding, but structure and corporate behaviour and attitude internally, and problems of overuse and overexpectation from external sources like the patients and government.
     
  8. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 21,166

    Location: Northern England

    .
    Yup. First hand witnessing of some genius decisions. For example the new hospital in Cramlington which was built with insufficient car parking spaces for the staff - never mind patients and visitors! The maternity ward waiting rooms had no chairs. At all. So a bunch of pregnant women were left standing or sat in wheelchairs only. The IT systems were Windows 98 based when installed - in 2016. They were all immediately upgraded by contractors as a result.

    NCCT has just scrapped 100's of unused PCs because they've sat in storage for 4 years. They were bought using surplus budget in order to guarantee future departmental budgets. Their replacements have been bought for the same reason. The replacements were immediately placed in storage. That money could have been deployed elsewhere in the NHS to good function but instead because of the way its run it has been ****** up the wall.

    When that massive malware scare took place late last year - primary care trusts were charging other trusts for their IT staff that had solutions. That's right - in the face of a potentially fatal issue they were profiteering.
     
  9. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,286


    So the US House Committee that looked at the US health market and came to that conclusion is not reality? This has been in this forum a while back.



    There was an article about the NHS and the new crop of Tory MPs who were predominately in favour of a US style health System. It was mentioned already in one of the threads in this forum some months back. As far as politicians go what they say and what they do are often not the same. May before the last election saying there would be no election as it was a distraction springs to mind but there will be numerous examples of politician speak.


    One of the things you forget is the cultural difference between the US/UK and European peoples. On the subject of insurance scams there was one this week where an insurance company refused to pay out because the person had consumed alcohol. This was from someone who had been on holiday. Luckily they challenged it and the judge sided with them. These types of small print exclusions regularly crop up and with something like your health and at stake it is not something I would trust to insurance companies.

    So there is a lot of bluster in your post.[/QUOTE]
     
  10. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,286

    Surely that is the market driven mentality that the Tories have introduced into the NHS.
     
  11. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,839

    If you look on any forum (e.g. TripAdvisor / Car / Camera / HiFi) you will inevitably see a disproportionate number of negative posts from people who have had an experience with which they are not 100% satisfied.

    People who use the NHS and have encountered some sort of problem are all too ready to abuse it. Where they also happen to have a right-wing mindset based on the idea that the strong and rich should prosper, the weak or poor should suffer and the devil take the hindmost, this is even more marked.

    I mix socially with a number of current and retired GPs; most of them are dedicated and see (or saw) their jobs as a vocation. It is depressing to hear how unhappy those still working are and happy those who have retired are. Without exception, they would not encourage their children to go in to medicine; banking and finance seems to be the most popular suggested alternative.

    The reason for their unhappiness:
    • Constant, unreasonable, often entirely irrational demands from patients who read lies in the Daily Mail to the effect that there is now a cure for cancer, MS, MND, migraines and everything else and that it is being withheld from them by greedy GPs who work five hours a day and earn £¼million per year.
    • Regular complaints by patients that the GP doesn't spend enough time with them or that the GP refuses to prescribe antibiotics.
    • Regular changes imposed on them by spotty faced youths in central Government who have never worked anywhere near healthcare.
    • Paperwork - paperwork - paperwork - paperwork - paperwork.
    I am saddened by the relentless attacks on the NHS by people who have had a less than perfect experience and frequently wrongly believe that "something else would have been different", by selfish people who see opportunities to increase their wealth at the expense of others' ill-health and by an almost entirely right-wing press who always want sensational headlines and to support their advertisers.


    The NHS is definitely not in safe hands with the Tories.
     
  12. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 21,166

    Location: Northern England

    What, badly run departments are a result of market economics?
     
  13. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,839

    What in your experience is the explanation for "badly run departments"?

    I am certain that it can't have anything to do with under-staffing or an unwillingness by Health Trusts who are now in competition with one another to share examples of best practice.
     
  14. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 21,166

    Location: Northern England

    Read the post you quoted - it gives a pretty good clue as to what is being badly run.
     
  15. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,210

    Location: Plymouth

    The Nhs can be considered efficent, depending on how you measure it.

    The problem is that it's healthcare outcomes are very poor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey

    The commonwealth fund report, for Example, places the Uk 10th out of 11 for healthcare outcomes, although it places the Nhs first overall due to poor report design.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society...-14th-in-europe-wide-survey-on-health-systems

    This one places more emphasis on outcomes and places the Nhs 14th in europe.

    This aspect is the reason the Nhs needs to change, and it clearly outlined what we need to do to improve it.
     
  16. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,839

    The post I quoted read:
    So, no. I know WHAT you claim is being badly run; I asked WHY they were being badly run.

    JEEZUS!
     
  17. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 21,166

    Location: Northern England


    The previous post rather. Is it hard to read 2 posts up or whatever?

    The cause? Stupidity. Incompetence. The wrong people for the job.

    Nepotism is rife and it actually becomes fairly obvious when you read some of the job ads. They'll often throw in a completely irrelevant qualification because it is clearly targetted a specific individual already chosen.

    Also the sharing of best practice is a key point. They don't. That's a decision they choose to make. Not one forced upon them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  18. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,097

    I'm the person who has to request comments from Clinicians and absolutely nobody is intentionally negligent, surprisingly Clinicians do admit Breach of Duty when it has accidentally happened.

    Also it's important to know that there is no such thing as 'No Win No Fee' in Clinical Negligence, it got changed a couple of years ago.
    We often get a Notice Of Funding letter which I think is a workaround for 'No Win No Fee' but is a type of insurance.
    You never see 'No Win No Fee' wording on a Pre Action Disclosure or Letter of Claim nowadays.

    Also only about 1 out of 10 Pre Action Disclosures go to the next level of Letter of Claim where the NHSR get involved.
    That means 9 out of 10 Claimants Solicitors put a stop to the claim because they have no proof.
     
  19. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,522

    This of course isnt just an NHS problem.

    It is an issue everywhere were compensation for personal injuries are awarded and paid out.

    The whole system needs to be completely overhauled. Personally I would favour going more for the NZ model. (Government funded NFC scheme for all physical personal injuries)

    The main reason for the recent upsurge in the size of payouts is not so much to do with an increase in claims. It is because the government has changed the way the size of the payouts are assessed.

    As I recall (I am sure there is somebody here who knows thew exact details) The lump sums are calculated to provide an income assuming "Safe" investments.

    This means a heavy reliance on Bonds.

    Bond yields are very low at the moment. As they tend to Zero, the sum of money that needs to be invested to provide an income tends to infinity.

    Of course, this sounds absurd, But I believe it is one of the reasons why payouts have become so enormous in recent years.

    And it isn't just the NHS that this is a problem for. It is also affecting Motor insurance and indeed anywhere else where personal injuries are an issue.

    And of course the larger the sums of money involved get, the larger the legal costs associated with claiming and defending the claims become.

    And we all pay for it in the end. Much better to cut out all the middle men and have an NFC scheme instead making year on year revenue payments if necesarry based on actual need rather than unrealistic lump sum payments.
     
  20. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    That is the problem, level of damages paid. A large part of the problem is not due to a failure of our health system but its successes. Victims of clinical negligence have increased life expectancy due to advances in treatment and lifetime bills for the N.H.S. are higher.

    Introducing fixed fees for Lawyers is calculated as saving £90m, the increase on spending on clinical negligence is predicted to rise from £1.6 bn. to £3.2 bn. in the next four years.

    Introduction of fixed fees is a tiny saving.

    Childbirth results in 10% of claims and 49% of cost.

    What price do we pay to care for seriously sick children who's injuries were the result of negligence?

    Its not fraud or greed lawyers. A brain damaged or seriously injured baby lives far longer due to modern clinical advances.

    The issue of judgement and the value we place upon such lives is not an easy one to make.