What does 'social care' mean?
- Thread starter Pawnless Endgame
- Start date
Not strictly true. Social care covers domicilary care only as stated in the health and social care act. They are responsible for straight forward care packages for those that require help with personal care, feeding, toiletting etc.
Health services such G.P. district and community nurses etc (qualified medical staff) come under the primary care umbrella not social care.
Hospitals come under the acute care umbrella
It is incredibly frustrating. As a qualified healthcare professional in the role im in. I meet with social care bosses every month to discuss DTOC. Thats where intergration goes out the window.
In our area health are on board and wr have very good involvement with the CCG however in our case adult social care cant seem to get over the usual "its your problem" than to work together to move forward
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
I have a big problem with the way the NHS is debated politically / in the media. It's a convenient political football, and the interests of the opposition parties align with the interests of big pharma, so I think they're working together.
The usual argument is "We want more money in the NHS", and the response is "That's what we've been doing".
I don't think people really mean literally "just give them more money", there's an implied deal, the people want something for that money... but the phase "more money for the NHS" hides that. Phrases "more hospitals" or "more hospital staff" would be more in line with that people are really asking for. IMO this is not accidental.
Well, if there's more money going into NHS, where is it going?
- Staff: not really
- Facilities: not really
- Legal: probably
- Drugs: yes!
- Social case: yes (ageing pop)
So generally I think we need to reduce our drug and legal spending. This might even mean the NHS needs less money, but I'd probably redirect any gains towards staff and facilities instead.
The main category of drugs I take issue with are those which don't cure anything, particularly when people are taking them in old age. I just don't believe that a drug which provides small benefit to someone who is going to die soon anyway, and perhaps would prefer to die, can be considered a good use of resources.
The second category of drugs I take issue with are those that straight up don't work. The methodology for gaining approval is drastically flawed, because the drug company doesn't have to disclose all trials. So they can cherry-pick the trials they like and submit those. It's like when you're at school and you make up results that fit your hypothesis, literally cheating.
So my point is that "more money for the NHS" really means "more money for big pharma", which doesn't even get us drugs that work properly, doesn't help NHS staff or facilities, and we can probably improve all that without any more money. So WTF?.
The usual argument is "We want more money in the NHS", and the response is "That's what we've been doing".
I don't think people really mean literally "just give them more money", there's an implied deal, the people want something for that money... but the phase "more money for the NHS" hides that. Phrases "more hospitals" or "more hospital staff" would be more in line with that people are really asking for. IMO this is not accidental.
Well, if there's more money going into NHS, where is it going?
- Staff: not really
- Facilities: not really
- Legal: probably
- Drugs: yes!
- Social case: yes (ageing pop)
So generally I think we need to reduce our drug and legal spending. This might even mean the NHS needs less money, but I'd probably redirect any gains towards staff and facilities instead.
The main category of drugs I take issue with are those which don't cure anything, particularly when people are taking them in old age. I just don't believe that a drug which provides small benefit to someone who is going to die soon anyway, and perhaps would prefer to die, can be considered a good use of resources.
The second category of drugs I take issue with are those that straight up don't work. The methodology for gaining approval is drastically flawed, because the drug company doesn't have to disclose all trials. So they can cherry-pick the trials they like and submit those. It's like when you're at school and you make up results that fit your hypothesis, literally cheating.
So my point is that "more money for the NHS" really means "more money for big pharma", which doesn't even get us drugs that work properly, doesn't help NHS staff or facilities, and we can probably improve all that without any more money. So WTF?.
My wife worked over in Northumberland as a social worker and they have integrated with the NHS. Same budget same staff leaner operation. She is now in Carlisle where it is NHS v Adult Social care, without any plans plans to integrate. To give an example between the NHS and ASC they have three large teams with their own budget doing the same job which is a step down service for people leaving the hospital into their own homes.