The NHS

treliac

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

It will be medical secretary/pa at best £18.5k ish

Medical secretary is a trained and skilled occupation. The member of staff in question would be a clerk.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

treliac wrote: »

Medical secretary is a trained and skilled occupation. The member of staff in question would be a clerk.

I disagree with your conclusion.

Sorry.

Edit: I have realised why you have said what you have said.

It will be medical secretary/pa at best £18.5k ish

It will be medical secretary/pa at best, £18.5k ish

I missed a comma.

perplexed.com

aelitaman wrote: »

Not Bad 50K.

Nonsense! I think either your friend doesn't exist or is telling porkies! You're referring to a band 8 or thereabouts. A highly skilled and experienced physiotherapist, for example, might be a band 7. A clerical job is about band 2 or 3 MUCH less than you suggest.

treliac

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I disagree with your conclusion.

Sorry.

In what respect?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

treliac wrote: »

In what respect?

The person who wrote it has no idea what the job is.

From the info given it could be a clerk OR anything between that & a medical Sec/PA role.

The maximum pay rate for this is about £18.5k.

I amended the post above because I know where the misunderstanding of what I was saying came from.

treliac

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The person who wrote it has no idea what the job is.

From the info given it could be a clerk OR anything between that & a medical Sec/PA role.

The maximum pay rate for this is about £18.5k.

I amended the post above because I know where the misunderstanding of what I was saying came from.

Right, to clarify my point... a bookings clerk is an unqualified role. A 'proper' medical secretary is qualified as a secretary and additionally in medical terminology etc. It's a far more responsible role.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

treliac wrote: »

Right, to clarify my point... a bookings clerk is an unqualified role. A 'proper' medical secretary is qualified as a secretary and additionally in medical terminology etc. It's a far more responsible role.

To clarify my point.

I wasn't aware the poster who mentioned his friend gave any information on the education, previous experience or skills of their friend. In fact they gave an extremely brief outline of duties and a salary we know to be incorrect. It would be reasonable to presume they could be wrong about the scope of duties their friend is involved in.

However they did mention the fact they were receiving emails directly from doctors, which I find a touch bizarre.

But, you could be right, they could be a straight forward clerk.

As for the skills/experience of a medical secretary I think you will find these are built up over time & within the correct working environment.

treliac

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

As for the skills/experience of a medical secretary I think you will find these are built up over time & within the correct working environment.

I guess there are those... as in many occupations. But that's not a true professionally qualified med sec.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

treliac wrote: »

I guess there are those... as in many occupations. But that's not a true professionally qualified med sec.

There aren't many qualified med secs anymore. They are now mostly secs that have by accident fallen into the role.

From what I have seen anyway.



Edit: But to be honest I haven't been really paying attention to recruitment in the last 18 months.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

It must be good if the Government is spending more on health, right? There's nothing more important than health, apart from the kiddies perhaps. Well, as ever, it's not quite as simple as that:

Well its a little more complicated than trying to suggest 'more money in less output out'

For unbiased reports on the NHS I would always use the OECD data.

http://www.oecd.org/document/1/0,3343,en_2649_33733_43133249_1_1_1_1,00.html

For balance, it is not output that has fallen but productivity.
Unless they meant output per doctor / nurses (ie productivity) which has fallen.

In addition the post implies that most of the money has been spent on increased on "wages", which could lead you to think that the same amount of people are getting vastly more money.

What has actually happened is that there are significantly more doctors & nurses employed in 2007 compared with 1997 and unit wage costs have also increase.

(approx 90k Doctors in 1997 and approx 127k in 2007, a similar increase in nurses (300k to 400k I think).

Arguably the biggest beneficiaries have been Doctors (particularly GP's). I am not aware of what their donations are to the Labour party but I suspect none.

Plenty of thing wrong with the NHS, but articles like this hardly shed any light on the matter.