I don't think anything could make them "pleased", what imo is important is that ensuring that no-one else suffers the same fate.
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
I don't think anything could make them "pleased", what imo is important is that ensuring that no-one else suffers the same fate.
No. But allows more eyes to spot mistakes, removes reluctance to sack substandard staff and less agency staff required.
Indeed it is, which is why a full, non political review of healthcare provision in the UK,and how we can bring it up to the standards of other European countries is key. We have increased spending massively over the last 15 or so years without the expected closing of the gap, so that clearly isn't the answer. That leaves structure of the service itself as the next big change.
A couple, but to be fair, asking people inside the system how a broken system can be fixed is often counter productive.
To be even more fair, I'm not being paid to consult for the NHS and have no access to the information that would be needed to flesh out an improvement plan, which is what the next step would need to be, as it requires detailed analysis of both current issues and future proposals.
But the first step is that the NHS needs to abandon sacred cow status and be honest about the performance of the service. See the current responses to 7 day services for a simple look at the problems and resistance to change in the system.
This is a good one:
NHS Contract Awarded To Private Firm Despite Rival Bid Being “£7 Million Cheaper”
Remember Malcolm Rifkind, the MP who stepped down a few weeks ago after being secretly filmed? The company he works for, Alliance Medical, won an £80 million contract to run diagnostic clinics in Staffordshire, but that winning bid was actually over £7 million more than a bid from the local NHS. The government announced that this contract was going to a private company and hid the fact that Alliance was underbid by the local NHS! Very fishy.
NHS Contract Awarded To Private Firm Despite Rival Bid Being “£7 Million Cheaper”
Remember Malcolm Rifkind, the MP who stepped down a few weeks ago after being secretly filmed? The company he works for, Alliance Medical, won an £80 million contract to run diagnostic clinics in Staffordshire, but that winning bid was actually over £7 million more than a bid from the local NHS. The government announced that this contract was going to a private company and hid the fact that Alliance was underbid by the local NHS! Very fishy.
Were the bids otherwise equal though? Don't confuse cheapest with best value. There is not enough info in the buzzfeed article to make a good judgement. In fact, the article relies on the opinion of the loosing bidder for the claim.
I agree it's a bit light on details. In the fourth paragraph there's a link to another article in the Stoke Sentinel.
There isn't much more detail in the stoke sentinel article either, at least not enough to accurately assess the bids. We don't know, for example, whether the NHS bid involves the same opening hours, or fully accounts for the cost of the NHS pensions offered to the staff. A £7m difference could be achieved, for example, by only opening Monday to Friday 9-5 instead of including evening and weekend opening. A cheaper service, but not necessarily a better one for the end user.
Likewise I am not discounting either corruption or incompetence in the bid assessment process. The public sector has a very poor reputation for handling tendering processes and outsourcing well at the end of the day
Nice speech by the actor Michael Sheen to remind us what this is all for:
Michael Sheen - the NHS "is about as powerful a symbol of goodness as we have"
(Transcript in link)
Michael Sheen - the NHS "is about as powerful a symbol of goodness as we have"
(Transcript in link)
Last edited:
prison sentences for taking part in covering up the causes of deaths which led to other deaths?
I am not convinced it would stop it happening.
Well you need adequate staffing to do the job for a start expecting nurses to cope with the current staff to patient ratio is going to lead to such problems and it would be unfair to be punitive on the staff for a situation that is out of their control.
To all those that are damning the staff let's break it down on a 1 nurse to 5 patient staffing ratio (this is generous for a lot places.)
1 Nurse to 5 Patients means that if that nurse is to see the patient every hour then they will get 12 minutes per patient, however, they need to wash their hands before and after they leave the patient. So just for that one intervention we are now down to 50 minutes left in an hour. Now let's presume that 1 those patients needs intravenous medication of fluids - they now need to wash their hands before and after (48 mins) and draw the drugs up and get them checked (45 mins). Now someone needs a dressing change (wash hands before and after again (46 mins) setup equipment (44 mins) change dressings (34 mins). There will some oral drugs to do (let's say they can do it quick 30 mins). All of that needs documentation (down to 20 minutes out of our hours now). And yet they need to attend to washing, cleaning, handing over information to the next shift, gaining information from the previous shift, taking people for scans, taking people to and bringing them back from theatre, they need to make sure patients eat ... so now we are most likely down to minus 30 minutes and the poor lass hasn't had her break and anything to eat. And then they wonder why people get depressed and have nervous breakdowns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,480
You can't expect successive governments to cut budgets and provide the same level of care, particularly not when an establishment is haemorrhaging money through a top heavy heirachy. Additionally, the management culture seems to be a big part of the problem. The Stafford hospital crisis came as no surprise to me as I saw the shocking levels of care in their ICU when my father had the misfortune to spend some time there. He was lucky he spent the first 6 weeks after his accident in the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary ICU and was (relatively) a lot stronger when he finally got sent to Stafford, or he would likely not have survived.
I could go into detail but suffice to say the that I dread to think what standard wards were like if the ICU was as bad as we saw.
The NHS is very much like everything else in this country - sold down the river for short term political goals and vote winning. The investment should have been there decades ago, just like it should have been for our road and rail networks and for our schools.
But if I could be assured of effective management and proper care levels I would absolutely pay more tax to make sure the NHS gets what it needs to cater for the healthcare of the nation. But having seen how things are currently managed by both the government and NHS managers, I have no confidence that paying extra tax would be a benefit.
I have the upmost sympathy for healthcare staff in general, most of them do a great job. But I can also understand why some get despondent because it isn't any fun giving your all every day then being told you need to give more, and more, and more with no recourse or any way to challenge it without being shown the door.
I could go into detail but suffice to say the that I dread to think what standard wards were like if the ICU was as bad as we saw.
The NHS is very much like everything else in this country - sold down the river for short term political goals and vote winning. The investment should have been there decades ago, just like it should have been for our road and rail networks and for our schools.
But if I could be assured of effective management and proper care levels I would absolutely pay more tax to make sure the NHS gets what it needs to cater for the healthcare of the nation. But having seen how things are currently managed by both the government and NHS managers, I have no confidence that paying extra tax would be a benefit.
I have the upmost sympathy for healthcare staff in general, most of them do a great job. But I can also understand why some get despondent because it isn't any fun giving your all every day then being told you need to give more, and more, and more with no recourse or any way to challenge it without being shown the door.
BuffetSlayer - why is it always down to management? Just curious as they aren't on wards providing care but we seem to be quite happy blaming the faceless person doing the admin work so health care professionals can get on with providing care.
Many NHS managers (I'm not one btw) are in post because clinicians have bitched about needing to do paperwork etc so they hire people to do it for them, they bitch about no oversight - so they get managers in to provide it, but in many cases the power stays with clinical groups within the NHS bodies who are almost entirely made up from clinical staff.
Many NHS managers (I'm not one btw) are in post because clinicians have bitched about needing to do paperwork etc so they hire people to do it for them, they bitch about no oversight - so they get managers in to provide it, but in many cases the power stays with clinical groups within the NHS bodies who are almost entirely made up from clinical staff.
NHS spending has never (substantially) decreased
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk
The news has been giving this impression for a few years in order to make repeated restructuring more palatable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,480
Management as a whole, not necessarily individual managers. The point is that the NHS needs to be managed effectively, and quite clearly in many instances it isn't.
It isn't about blaming the faceless admin workers, it is about identifying the NHS is being mis-managed and it needs reform to try and evolve with the needs being placed upon it. That can take the form of restructuring, becoming more efficient, budgets being increased in line with increased demand and so on and so forth.
When I speak of management I speak of it in broad terms across the board, although to be fair there are some examples of individuals being involved in poor management. Additionally it is the culture of the way the NHS appears to be managed that is a large part of the problem, not the fact that managers exist per se. If the NHS is being managed in such a way that people bringing failings of a particular hospital or trust to the fore are penalised it isn't being managed properly. I accept that everyone has a part to play, not just those in senior roles but it is the responsibility of any leaders/managers to get the best out of their workforce and often a good relationship revolves around respect and understanding. That is part and parcel of effective management. Knowing what is going on, having your finger on the pulse, knowing how to motivate your workforce, knowing how to maximise the benefits of your resources and so on and so forth. It is the foundation of heirachy - the people on the front line do as they are told by people further up the ladder (that includes managers too by the way). If they are explicitly told to do X but need to be doing Y where does the fault lie if the culture within the NHS makes it near impossible for them to challenge those instructions?
It is about changing mindsets and that is from the top to the bottom. But overall if an organisation is managed properly the benefits filter down and the people on the front line tend to respond positively. There will always be bad eggs but you cannot legislate for those, only try to weed them out. The NHS has been like a closed shop and that is fundamentally wrong. We need transparency, we need impartial, accurate and fair assessments of care quality across the board. We need to be able to highlight failings where they are found and amend practices accordingly without fear of reprisals. Only by making the NHS totally transparent and those people in charge of it totally accountable will we see real change.
I accept the examples you have given are a problem, and part of the evolution of the NHS should be to address that kind of dynamic and manage it more effectively.
There is no easy answer, and I fear change is going to be painful and slow (as well as expensive) but I believe in the NHS and I believe it can be done if the will and foresight is there from government and local authorities / trusts.
@joeyjojo - being expected to cope with higher demand without additional funding to facilitate it is the same as a budget cut. Same dog more hair, no?
It's good to see the usual suspects living up to their expected double standards by not yet mentioning the damning verdict of the cqc on an NHS trust.
Largest NHS trust put into special measures after damning CQC report
http://gu.com/p/46y79
Largest NHS trust put into special measures after damning CQC report
http://gu.com/p/46y79
I don't see the usual suspects defending the trust - I fail to see a single post. If you mean me as one of those then that's lame because I merely highlighted that the staffing ratios dictate care will fail if the tasks are performed properly.
However, you strangely didn't approve of the CQC the other week did you when they criticised the Circle run trust.
Can't have it both ways Dolph.
I don't see the usual suspects defending the trust - I fail to see a single post. If you mean me as one of those then that's lame because I merely highlighted that the staffing ratios dictate care will fail if the tasks are performed properly.
However, you strangely didn't approve of the CQC the other week did you when they criticised the Circle run trust.
Can't have it both ways Dolph.
Unless you have claims of bias against the NHS team and confirmation of errors in the report, I can
It wasn't you I was thinking of though, just contemplating the speed with which the circle report was gleefully reported on here by some with the complete indifference for this one.