Save the NHS!

[Freakbro]

I gave you an example of £25/hr which I note you've ignored.

Sorry I didn't mean to ignore it, but it was in your statement of that you had heard various figures, £25 / hr for a registrar being one. So I wasn't taking it that £25 was the going rate, just something heard on the grapevine.

Ok, lets work with that, so your starting salvo is that £25 a hour isn't enough, £300 for a 12 hr nightshift, say minimum 4 times a week = 1200 a week, £5,200 a month, ~£60k a year

Doesn't seem 'too low' to be bothered to do it to me....and I'm assuming the £25 / hr is the lowest of the examples you have heard.

What would be the minimum you would work a 12 hr nightshift for?

 

[Buddy]

Sorry I didn't mean to ignore it, but it was in your statement of that you had heard various figures, £25 / hr for a registrar being one. So I wasn't taking it that £25 was the going rate, just something heard on the grapevine.

Ok, lets work with that, so your starting salvo is that £25 a hour isn't enough, £300 for a 12 hr nightshift, say minimum 4 times a week = 1200 a week, £5,200 a month, ~£60k a year

Doesn't seem 'too low' to be bothered to do it to me....and I'm assuming the £25 / hr is the lowest of the examples you have heard.

As I said it's a locum. One that most do on top of their contracted hours (optional/voluntary) so you won't be able to do x4 12 hour shifts every week outside your usual 40-60 hours. Locums are also generally last minute though with Basildon they are probably offering long term ones.

Last minute ones carry a higher rate unsurprisingly and long term one's will be even lower.

And say for arguments sake you are unemployed (not contracted with a hospital) and you did these shifts you are getting paid for the honour of the absolute worst shifts as described all year round. Most sane long term locums tend to go for a rota'd pattern ie. Taking place of a slot that would otherwise be taken by a permanent position albeit without training and career progression.

With regards to "bothering" to take that shift:
If you just did 7 nights in a row and you had 2 days off before you restarted normal days and hospital said "Dr freakBro £25/hr for a night shift one off what dya say?"

Are you honestly telling me you would take that up?

 

[Minstadave]

Sorry I didn't mean to ignore it, but it was in your statement of that you had heard various figures, £25 / hr for a registrar being one. So I wasn't taking it that £25 was the going rate, just something heard on the grapevine.

Ok, lets work with that, so your starting salvo is that £25 a hour isn't enough, £300 for a 12 hr nightshift, say minimum 4 times a week = 1200 a week, £5,200 a month, ~£60k a year

Doesn't seem 'too low' to be bothered to do it to me....and I'm assuming the £25 / hr is the lowest of the examples you have heard.

What would be the minimum you would work a 12 hr nightshift for?

That kind of maths is utter nonsense.

48hrs of nights a week, all year round with no annual leave for a skilled professional in A&E for £60k a year? That's the same as a salaried registrar doctor in a standard post. I'm not sure you'll have people begging for that locum.

 

[Buddy]

That kind of maths is utter nonsense.

48hrs of nights a week, all year round with no annual leave for a skilled professional in A&E for £60k a year? That's the same as a salaried registrar doctor in a standard post. I'm not sure you'll have people begging for that locum.

I suspect that if I had said £15/hour, £10/hour hell £5/hour the answer would have been.the same "because footballers gain £££" and there is no other valid profession that we can reasonably compare to apparently.

 

[Freakbro]

As I said it's a locum. One that most do on top of their contracted hours (optional/voluntary) so you won't be able to do x4 12 hour shifts every week outside your usual 40-60 hours.

Yes, I know, the point was not that it is an annualised salary, but to give the relative equivalence.

Anyway, if it's about safety and not the money, why are people taking voluntary nightshifts after they have already worked 60 hrs in a week, no amount of pay is going to make that shift safe is it.

So again, what is the minimum you would work a 12 hr nightshift for after your normal working week that would make you feel it's high enough to be worth it and make it safe to do?

I suspect that if I had said £15/hour, £10/hour hell £5/hour the answer would have been.the same "because footballers gain £££" and there is no other valid profession that we can reasonably compare to apparently.

Not at all, and don't get hung up on footballers, it was just an example of how people aren't always paid what people think is relative to their 'worth' (especially their own perception of their worth). I could have just as easily have pointed to a tax lawyer in the city who charges up to £20,000 a day defending corporations from the HMRC

 

[Buddy]

Anyway, if it's about safety and not the money, why are people taking voluntary nightshifts after they have already worked 60 hrs in a week, no amount of pay is going to make that shift safe is it.

So I assume your answer is no to that shift?

Who said they were? My initial post was about lack of doctors and unfilled posts.....

EDIT just saw your question at the end. I hardly did any locums when I was junior because my rota was already too busy. The figure depends on my availablity/shift in question/my grade etc etc...

With regards to "worth" I'm sure most people prioritise health over most things.

 

[Destination]

Follow correct procedure, use the correct equipment in the correct manner, wear appropriate PPE. The trouble arises when you get someone who is in a hurry, gets sloppy or gets lazy - they don't follow the correct procedure or use the correct equipment properly and that's when they stick themselves.

Utter twaddle.
Come back after you've taken blood from 100 drunk/aggressive/delirious patients.

You minimise it yet, we vaccinate against that which we can also, as we know sharp's injuries do occur. Some things one can't vaccinate against, than retroviral treatments exist now, which further mitigates the risk.
It doesn't eliminate it.
Sloppiness might play a role, it isn't the be all and end all.

 

[Minstadave]

The police frequently interact with drug users. Violent drug users. Violent drug users with infections who like to do anything to prevent themselves being arrested.

That is true however they don't stick hollow needles in them which is the highest risk interaction for BBI.

If you are working in accordance with the correct mitigation then risk is minimised or eliminated. Follow correct procedure, use the correct equipment in the correct manner, wear appropriate PPE. The trouble arises when you get someone who is in a hurry, gets sloppy or gets lazy - they don't follow the correct procedure or use the correct equipment properly and that's when they stick themselves.

Nonsense - no amount of procedure, equipment or PPE is going to "eliminate" risk and to think about it like that is irresponsible. It's also obnoxious to suggest those that get a needle-stick injury are rushing/sloppy/lazy - have you tried to take blood from someone who is intoxicated or doesn't want you to?

You can have some HSE numpty do multiple risk assessments but unfortunately none of that cuts it in the real world when you're dealing with unpredictable human beings.

 

[Minstadave]

Anyway, if it's about safety and not the money, why are people taking voluntary nightshifts after they have already worked 60 hrs in a week, no amount of pay is going to make that shift safe is it.

So again, what is the minimum you would work a 12 hr nightshift for after your normal working week that would make you feel it's high enough to be worth it and make it safe to do?

Whether you're safe to do a shift is personal and you have to make your own judgement call at the time. Some weeks I'll have worked 84 hours, others I'll be rota'd off all week so can fit a shift or two in.

The level of pay is important because it's what makes someone give up their free time and come in. It doesn't matter what Buddy would work for personally. The rate needs to be sufficient to get the vacancy filled. Which is why capping rates is ridiculous.

 

[Dubb3d]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, just reading through the numerous pages here it shows the lack of day to day knowledge for the large number of roles within the NHS. I used to work as a scientist within the NHS and now work for a healthcare IT company in the private sector, my main reasons for leaving included the substantial cut in our pay that has been happening across the country for years now, not to mention the privatization of laboratory services across the UK which have left (now ex-NHS) staff massively worse off with huge reductions in pay, holiday and pensions.

In light of these changes to other healthcare professionals, I find it difficult to sympathize with doctors in general as they have always been exempt from what has happened to the rest of the NHS and it is about time they took aboard some of the cost saving burden in this country.

 

[Minstadave]

Exempt? We've had the same pay freezes and pension cuts as all NHS staff

And we're first on the line for the erosion of antisocial pay.

 

[ritcH]

Dubb3d you're an idiot, but then the majority are so perhaps it's not your fault.

 

[Destination]

Exempt? We've had the same pay freezes and pension cuts as all NHS staff

And we're first on the line for the erosion of antisocial pay.

Actually, this is something I am not quite sure on yet, have other govt. worker been moved to a statutory retirement age pension yet, and average salary scheme, or is that the responsibility of other departments/councils etc?

The 2015 pension scheme now suggests everyone should be working to stat retirement age, as in the age as which you gain your old age pension. This is 68 years old for doctors qualifying now, and the majority of junior doctors. It is also an average salary scheme now, rather than a final salary scheme. It is and always has been a contributory scheme, unlike some other departments which got fee final salary pension.
(Personally I feel average salary is fair, and thought it was insane such a thing didn't always exist, people taking an increased role for 2/3 years before)
Have other departments, teaching, councils, been moved to such schemes yet?

 

[Destination]

In light of these changes to other healthcare professionals, I find it difficult to sympathize with doctors in general as they have always been exempt from what has happened to the rest of the NHS and it is about time they took aboard some of the cost saving burden in this country.

So you left because of cuts, but have no sympathy for others who now may do the same?
I don't understand your point?

My pension contributions (from a system that was covering itself) have went from 6% to approx. 16.5% in the past ten years, and the scheme has changed, and the retirement age been moved (for me) from 60 to 67.

 

[Minstadave]

So you left because of cuts, but have no sympathy for others who now may do the same?
I don't understand your point?

My pension contributions (from a system that was covering itself) have went from 6% to approx. 16.5% in the past ten years, and the scheme has changed, and the retirement age been moved (for me) from 60 to 67.

It's strange this race to the bottom mentality that people have. Rather than fight for your own rights we hope those around us get hit with the poor stick too.

 

[Dubb3d]

So you left because of cuts, but have no sympathy for others who now may do the same?
I don't understand your point?

My pension contributions (from a system that was covering itself) have went from 6% to approx. 16.5% in the past ten years, and the scheme has changed, and the retirement age been moved (for me) from 60 to 67.

Yes, I do find it hard to be sympathetic towards them as many other HCP's have had substantial reductions in recent years and I would argue it has destroyed various careers. I would also argue the proposed changes to doctors are not in this league and yet they walk out on strike. If only the media knew the extent of the changes to background staff, it would make this look much less groundbreaking.

 

[Minstadave]

Do you understand the changes? They're significant both in terms of effect individually and also what they'll mean to the entire NHS staff base.

We're not able to find work in the private sector like you chose to, not easily anyway if you want to remain in the UK. So we're only really left with striking or rolling over.

We already don't have enough doctors, rolling over and taking imposition on the chin is only going to make it worse. You can't run the NHS for long with dwindling numbers, which may well be the stories plan.

 

[joeyjojo]

VOX article doing the rounds:

These images show how quickly Jeremy Hunt has bankrupted healthcare in England

They include a BBC figure which I've tracked down:

Is enough being spent on the NHS?

Triggle absurdly suggests that "[the health service] is grappling with issues like the ageing population, obesity and the cost of new drugs".

Did these pressures just happen to appear suddenly at the same time as the Health and Social Care Act 2012?

Edit: would be useful to see the rate of budget increase over the same period. From what I can find:

Budget, Health Spending
2009, £119 bn
2010, £122 bn
2011, £126 bn
2012, £130 bn
2013, £137 bn
2014, £140 bn
2015, £141 bn

So it looks like average spending increases since 2012 have been about the same as 2009-11 (£3.5 bn/year). Suggests to me that the structural changes are to blame for the deficit, not spending or long-term trends (obesity, ageing, etc.).

 

[Freakbro]

Genuine question, but if the budget increase has been the same year on year, but since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 the financial performance has tanked, that would seem to me to be the fault of the people implementing the budget (CCG's - partly made up of GPs) rather than the ones setting it (Dept of Health), no?

Especially if when it was run under the PCTs and SHAs it didn't tank this quickly or badly.

 

[covenantuk]

A graphic demonstration of the lie that is "austerity" regarding the NHS. NHS spending has not only been ringfenced all the way but also given real-terms increases to help with the additional demands of net immigration and ageing population.

Throwing more cash at the NHS as has happened over the last 15 years to almost zero good effect can no longer be an option. The NHS has been mismanaged at all levels from local management to government in many ways and it's the front line staff (generally doing a fantastic job) who suffer. Administrative/Managerial functions are in my personal experience often bloated, inefficient and wasteful