Remove the dross though and things would be in much better shape. Was watching something t'other day and the NE region saw something like 50,000 A and E cases over the festive period. Only 16,000 of them actually needed A and E. The rest were either complete time wasters (a woman with a broken nail), drunks or people who couldn't get an appointment at their GP or dentists.
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Remove the dross though and things would be in much better shape. Was watching something t'other day and the NE region saw something like 50,000 A and E cases over the festive period. Only 16,000 of them actually needed A and E. The rest were either complete time wasters (a woman with a broken nail), drunks or people who couldn't get an appointment at their GP or dentists.
Are you suggesting the Red Cross are not required?
Are you suggesting I suggested that? I can't see where I did?
Sorry dis you are quite right, you appear to be suggesting the only reason the Red Cross are needed is time wasters. I don't suppose you have a link/source for the claim?
Again no I'm not. Learn to read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38516876
How do you like them apples?
So you aren't disputing the need for the Red Cross to Intervene nor are you suggesting the need for the Red Cross is related to time wasters?
I haven't mentioned the red cross at all. That's you. Just you. Infact, if you bother to use your peepers and read you'll notice that the post I was replying to was actually posted before you even mentioned them.
I'm asking a fairly straightforward question which you are evading.
As the red cross are currently being called in are you suggesting figures from the NE over Christmas suggest they are only needed due to mis use of the services?
The question is fairly topical and I'm not personally vested in which way you answer.
I'm suggesting that at 29% of their current workload A and E departments would be in a much better position than they are now. That is all I have said. Perhaps you can draw your own conclusions of whether or not you think the red cross would be needed then.
I'll say a reasonable suggestion would be, that it might be the case, in the NE AE departments, During the 2016 Christmas period that some AE time could be saved if we reduced unnecessary visits.
I do not know, which departments/regions have required Red Cross support.
Nor do I put that much stock in a headline that some idiot(s) went to AE with a broken nail, the article doesn't say how many of each unnecessary category there are, or how much load they placed on AE staff, as opposed to legitimate AE visits.
From personal experience and observation you can sit in AE with a trivial issue, but you do not necessarily expend the same proportion of NHS resources of someone with legitimate need. Whilst the headline is about obviously idiotic behaviour, impact studies of such behaviour would need to be carried out before I'd attribute what the Red Cross (and front line NHS staff) are calling a humanitarian Crisis to simple foolish behaviour!
I am absolutely in favour of discouraging unnecessary A&E visits through things such as improved timely access to GPs and education on the alternative methods for getting assistance. I am unsure that the NHS would be ticking along without problem if a few less people were being admitted.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
People in Ireland get charged about £40 per gp visit. Perhaps we should have a more European approach to healthcare rather than being Little Englanders?
Hmm - I'm a bit uneasy about a charge that could be a figure high enough that somebody needs to save towards, because of the potential to delay the diagnosis of something that ends up costing hundreds of times more than the potential GP revenue to put right.
Also people tend to expect to get something when they spend money - if it leads to prescriptions being written because the patient has been turned into a customer and somehow good customer service involves prescribing drugs then our antibiotics binge is hardly going to improve.
Also people tend to expect to get something when they spend money - if it leads to prescriptions being written because the patient has been turned into a customer and somehow good customer service involves prescribing drugs then our antibiotics binge is hardly going to improve.
Last edited:
Do france and Germany do the same?
A&E copes surprisingly well with unnecessary visits, those patients just wait longer. The real problem is the lack of flow through the hospital and the lack of beds meaning those who need admission i.e. the actual unwell, are waiting on A&E trolleys for dangerously long periods of time. The Red Cross are facilitating discharge from hospital by taking patients home and therefore freeing up beds. This is a small part of a larger, more complex problem involving a lack of non-emergency ambulance capacity to take patients home. A much larger problem is the lack of social care placements which mean that patients cannot be discharged safely from hospital.
A pay for GP service is totally the wrong approach. People would go in their droves to A&E instead. The NHS deals with some of the most vulnerable people in society, and a charge, no matter how small it is perceived to be, would discourage attendance by these groups. This would create a knock on effect whereby they present at a much later stage with potentially more complex issues and much more unwell. The worst case scenario is that they don't present at all.
A pay for GP service is totally the wrong approach. People would go in their droves to A&E instead. The NHS deals with some of the most vulnerable people in society, and a charge, no matter how small it is perceived to be, would discourage attendance by these groups. This would create a knock on effect whereby they present at a much later stage with potentially more complex issues and much more unwell. The worst case scenario is that they don't present at all.
The stories of people on trolleys and bed blocking aren't a result of a sore thumb or a cracked toenail either, so I think making the assumption that there's a direct relationship between the numbers of people showing up at A&E, and total workload is a mistake at best. As in even if only 29% of people showing up at A&E actually needed to be there, it wouldn't reduce the workload to 29% of the current amount.
I appreciate a post from someone with apparent knowledge of the situation as it plays out. In a service as complex as Health Care I am always a little sceptical of simplistic headlines / figures and KPIs. Whilst I'm not against the practice of measuring performance per se, It is often the case that organisations measure only that which is easy to measure and fail to link those measures to long term effects/costs.
The NHS, GPs especially, rely on reaching performance targets to maintain their level of funding. The problem with healthcare as a business model is that it's not always clear what your outcome measure should be, as they're not always clear cut. I absolutely agree that the NHS should be making efficiency savings, but this should not coincide with a cut in funding.