NHS=Negligent Health Service

Werewolf said:
I would argue that for certain things like painkillers they can be essential for quality of life and ability to function, but not for something that is "life threatening".

I'm not sure under what circumstances you're seeing them prescribed as IIRC around my way they stopped prescribing a lot of lower end pain relief years ago, but my mum used to get paracetamol on prescription (along with IIRC 2 or 3 other different types of painkiller) as her condition required the mix and short of popping into the chemist every few days it was the only way to get enough, as it was we'd always pick more up if out because the GP prescribed them in boxes of 100 (so the combination of buying and prescription meant she didn't have to go shopping every few days specifically for them and the gp was only doing one prescription for them a month).

I would also suspect that if you started charging for meds that were prescription but not for "life threatening" conditions you're going to add a whole new layer of complexity and cost to the prescription system, adding more work for pharmacists and slowing things down at a time when most of the pharmacists I've seen are already struggling to manage with the workloads, and as a bonus going to end up with people not getting medication that is for "non life threatening" conditions and those conditions turning into "life threatening" ones.
For example IIRC Omeprazole is required if you're on high doses of ibuprofen to help prevent stomach ulcers/damage to the lining, but as until you've got that stomach ulcer/damage it's not a "major" issue (and once you've got the damage it's hrder to deal with).
Click to expand...
I appreciate your comments but medication that has to be taken for you to stay alive should be prioritised over those that just make you comfortable. My point was my sister had epilepsy so this entitled her to free prescriptions no matter what was prescribed. This is what happens all over the NHS, if you live in one area you get treatment but not in another.
The father-in-law died as a result of having high doses of ibuprofen, because of spondylitis of the spine, yet was only given gaviscon. He ended up with a large duodenal ulcer that burst. I also have to take Omeprazole because I was given Ibuprofen for shoulder pain which caused acid reflux.
 
Last edited:
Somebody in work today came up with a simple way to explain NHS problems to outsiders using a swimming pool analogy, it's really quite good (and sadly completely accurate).

  • The NHS is like a theoretical swimming pool, that's designed for 2000 people and requires 50 lifeguards.
  • The parent company wants to save money so they freeze wages and stop paying for proper maintenance, this means lifeguards start leaving for better jobs and it's becoming very difficult to replace them as not many want to work for below the industry average, the pool now only has 40 or the 50 needed life guards.
  • The parent company notices that lines outside the pool are getting bigger and bigger so decide the pool will now accommodate 2500 people at a time in order to cut waiting.
  • Staff explain to them that this isn't feasible, it would require more lifeguards and ideally an enlarged/extended pool, plus some of the waiting is due to the pool opening later some days as a result of the companies inadequate maintenance budget.
  • The parent company thinks it over and hires two additional pool managers in order to ensure the operation of their 2500 pool is managed better, the pool still has 40 lifeguards but now requires 60.
  • Children start dying at the pool as a result of there only being 1/3 of the required lifeguards, and safety issues from the poor maintenance, the parent company hires an additional manager.
  • Parents of the dead children start suing the pool over negligence.
  • The parent company condemns the running of the pool.
  • The pool still doesn't have the budget for adequate maintenance, or the hiring of the required level of staff.
  • The parents suing the pool win, the cost of the negligence claims means the pool can't afford to continue replacing lifeguards, now down to 35 of the required 60.
  • The parent company complains things aren't getting better at the pool, blames staff.
 
ubersonic said:
Somebody in work today came up with a simple way to explain NHS problems to outsiders using a swimming pool analogy, it's really quite good (and sadly completely accurate).

  • The NHS is like a theoretical swimming pool, that's designed for 2000 people and requires 50 lifeguards.
  • The parent company wants to save money so they freeze wages and stop paying for proper maintenance, this means lifeguards start leaving for better jobs and it's becoming very difficult to replace them as not many want to work for below the industry average, the pool now only has 40 or the 50 needed life guards.
  • The parent company notices that lines outside the pool are getting bigger and bigger so decide the pool will now accommodate 2500 people at a time in order to cut waiting.
  • Staff explain to them that this isn't feasible, it would require more lifeguards and ideally an enlarged/extended pool, plus some of the waiting is due to the pool opening later some days as a result of the companies inadequate maintenance budget.
  • The parent company thinks it over and hires two additional pool managers in order to ensure the operation of their 2500 pool is managed better, the pool still has 40 lifeguards but now requires 60.
  • Children start dying at the pool as a result of there only being 1/3 of the required lifeguards, and safety issues from the poor maintenance, the parent company hires an additional manager.
  • Parents of the dead children start suing the pool over negligence.
  • The parent company condemns the running of the pool.
  • The pool still doesn't have the budget for adequate maintenance, or the hiring of the required level of staff.
  • The parents suing the pool win, the cost of the negligence claims means the pool can't afford to continue replacing lifeguards, now down to 35 of the required 60.
  • The parent company complains things aren't getting better at the pool, blames staff.
Click to expand...
How utterly accurate is that analogy
 
Malevolence said:
Damn, I wish you'd have gone to my workplace and I had been tasked with taking you around. I'd have put you straight on a few things.
Click to expand...

and then I'm the one who gets the Solicitors letters on my desk to deal with.

It's quite sad that the TV broadcasts the amazing Critical Condition from our A&E of Clinicians working miracles but I see the same miracle workers in my department because people are always moaning about them :(

Mind you if Arknor is telling the truth about them not ringing back to see what was on the X-Rays then that's pretty bad.
It could be that nobody has checked them yet, all A&E X-Rays aren't reported on there and then.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
It's quite sad that the TV broadcasts the amazing Critical Condition from our A&E of Clinicians working miracles but I see the same miracle workers in my department because people are always moaning about them :(
Click to expand...
I was in one of those episodes lol
They didn't even try take a good angle though :(
 
When I needed health care for the first time and I am appalled at the state of the NHS. It took almost Two years for an MRI which then lead to a referral to another team a year ago and I haven’t heard a thing.

Not sure what to do, I have paid good money into this government and service for 26 years and now I need help I am high and dry.

We should have the option to opt out and choose to contribute to private health care.
 
ubersonic said:
Somebody in work today came up with a simple way to explain NHS problems to outsiders using a swimming pool analogy, it's really quite good (and sadly completely accurate).

  • The NHS is like a theoretical swimming pool, that's designed for 2000 people and requires 50 lifeguards.
  • The parent company wants to save money so they freeze wages and stop paying for proper maintenance, this means lifeguards start leaving for better jobs and it's becoming very difficult to replace them as not many want to work for below the industry average, the pool now only has 40 or the 50 needed life guards.
  • The parent company notices that lines outside the pool are getting bigger and bigger so decide the pool will now accommodate 2500 people at a time in order to cut waiting.
  • Staff explain to them that this isn't feasible, it would require more lifeguards and ideally an enlarged/extended pool, plus some of the waiting is due to the pool opening later some days as a result of the companies inadequate maintenance budget.
  • The parent company thinks it over and hires two additional pool managers in order to ensure the operation of their 2500 pool is managed better, the pool still has 40 lifeguards but now requires 60.
  • Children start dying at the pool as a result of there only being 1/3 of the required lifeguards, and safety issues from the poor maintenance, the parent company hires an additional manager.
  • Parents of the dead children start suing the pool over negligence.
  • The parent company condemns the running of the pool.
  • The pool still doesn't have the budget for adequate maintenance, or the hiring of the required level of staff.
  • The parents suing the pool win, the cost of the negligence claims means the pool can't afford to continue replacing lifeguards, now down to 35 of the required 60.
  • The parent company complains things aren't getting better at the pool, blames staff.
Click to expand...
This wouldn’t be an issue if we could just go to another pool which was ran buy a more competent “management company”. I genuinely think private health should be leaned on much more heavily. It’s my opinion that the NHS is a poorly run monopoly. I know privatisation has its pitfalls but there’s a reason private companies are running rings around NASA in the space industry. I know this is a controversial opinion but something needs to happen and it needs to be affordable to the tax payer.
 
tonys said:
My point is medication for on going life threatening conditions should be free, medication for everything else you pay for.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there are lots of things that are not immediately life threatening but improve their day to day lives. Even in some circumstances cheap items may be difficult for some to get after 14 years of Tory destructive economic policy.
 
Werewolf said:
I would argue that for certain things like painkillers they can be essential for quality of life and ability to function, but not for something that is "life threatening".

I'm not sure under what circumstances you're seeing them prescribed as IIRC around my way they stopped prescribing a lot of lower end pain relief years ago, but my mum used to get paracetamol on prescription (along with IIRC 2 or 3 other different types of painkiller) as her condition required the mix and short of popping into the chemist every few days it was the only way to get enough, as it was we'd always pick more up if out because the GP prescribed them in boxes of 100 (so the combination of buying and prescription meant she didn't have to go shopping every few days specifically for them and the gp was only doing one prescription for them a month).

I would also suspect that if you started charging for meds that were prescription but not for "life threatening" conditions you're going to add a whole new layer of complexity and cost to the prescription system, adding more work for pharmacists and slowing things down at a time when most of the pharmacists I've seen are already struggling to manage with the workloads, and as a bonus going to end up with people not getting medication that is for "non life threatening" conditions and those conditions turning into "life threatening" ones.
For example IIRC Omeprazole is required if you're on high doses of ibuprofen to help prevent stomach ulcers/damage to the lining, but as until you've got that stomach ulcer/damage it's not a "major" issue (and once you've got the damage it's hrder to deal with).
Click to expand...
I would also suggest that if you need something like iboprofen then having to wait up to three weeks for an appointment would mean people would get it from a shop. It sounds like an Excess/Fail story.
 
eggbert said:
This wouldn’t be an issue if we could just go to another pool which was ran buy a more competent “management company”. I genuinely think private health should be leaned on much more heavily. It’s my opinion that the NHS is a poorly run monopoly. I know privatisation has its pitfalls but there’s a reason private companies are running rings around NASA in the space industry. I know this is a controversial opinion but something needs to happen and it needs to be affordable to the tax payer.
Click to expand...
Who do you think does the operations in private hospitals? NHS surgeons. Lets have private BUT they have to hire their own staff and when the make a mess they egt billed by the NHS for correcting their errors. At present the NHS picks up the tab.
 
do_ron_ron said:
Who do you think does the operations in private hospitals? NHS surgeons. Lets have private BUT they have to hire their own staff and when the make a mess they egt billed by the NHS for correcting their errors. At present the NHS picks up the tab.
Click to expand...

About 25% of cases that land on my desk go back to the patients Solicitors to tell them they were done privately, then about 50% of those come back saying "But that Clinician is from your Trust" and then it ping pongs until they get the message.
If you want records from our Trust then put a SARS Request in which is health records.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
About 25% of cases that land on my desk go back to the patients Solicitors to tell them they were done privately, then about 50% of those come back saying "But that Clinician is from your Trust" and then it ping pongs until they get the message.
If you want records from our Trust then put a SARS Request in which is health records.
Click to expand...
At the time of the operation the surgeon was working for the private client. They have no legal hit on the NHS. If it is a mess then it is between the private hospital and the surgeon who carried it out, not the Trust. Some solicitors just trying it on.
 
do_ron_ron said:
At the time of the operation the surgeon was working for the private client. They have no legal hit on the NHS. If it is a mess then it is between the private hospital and the surgeon who carried it out, not the Trust. Some solicitors just trying it on.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah we get it all the time but to be honest I put it down to the patients not revealing everything to the Solicitor.
They also tell them lies so for example the Solicitor wants an update, the patient has told them they came 6 months ago but they haven't.

The funniest one I had was a Solicitor who rang angrily requesting records immediately.
I searched for the patient but they didn't exist on our system.
I asked if there was anything the patient had told him about the case that wasn't on the claim I had in my hand.
He said they attended Queens in Birmingham :)
I said you do realise we are Stoke hospital 40 miles away?
To cut a long story short he got more angry demanding that we get the records from Birmingham to send to him but I said we're not allowed to do that, we would be breaking GDPR.
He then demanded to talk to my boss who put him right and then he sent a letter to our Chief Exec who had to put him right :)
 
Last edited:
do_ron_ron said:
Who do you think does the operations in private hospitals? NHS surgeons. Lets have private BUT they have to hire their own staff and when the make a mess they egt billed by the NHS for correcting their errors. At present the NHS picks up the tab.
Click to expand...
I whole heartedly agree, and why we are at it allow me/us to opt out of the NHS and use my/our contributions to source my/our own cover. My employer even offered to look into private health cover for the staff but we would have to declare it as a benefit in kind and pay tax on it. So I pay the government for healthcare which is mandatory, the service is so poor my employer considers stumping up for private cover (which arguably reduces the NHS’s burden) and I have to pay more tax for this. Does anyone else think this is completely nuts?
 
Last edited:
SexyGreyFox said:
Oh yeah we get it all the time but to be honest I put it down to the patients not revealing everything to the Solicitor.
They also tell them lies so for example the Solicitor wants an update, the patient has told them they came 6 months ago but they haven't.

The funniest one I had was a Solicitor who rang angrily requesting records immediately.
I searched for the patient but they didn't exist on our system.
I asked if there was anything the patient had told him about the case that wasn't on the claim I had in my hand.
He said they attended Queens in Birmingham :)
I said you do realise we are Stoke hospital 40 miles away?
To cut a long story short he got more angry demanding that we get the records from Birmingham to send to him but I said we're not allowed to do that, we would be breaking GDPR.
He then demanded to talk to my boss who put him right and then he sent a letter to our Chief Exec who had to put him right :)
Click to expand...
You should has sent him a bill for staff time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom