NHS: here's the unpleasant truth

Kohoutek

Written by a consultant. Interesting perspective on the effect of the EU Time Directive and increased government spending:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7625503/NHS-heres-the-unpleasant-truth.html

Medical students of my generation knew that they were joining a profession where the time of day, or day of the week had no bearing on the level of service one was required to provide, whether in general practice or as a specialist. That concept is now to all intents and purposes dead, a casualty of the "new" contract for GPs in 2004 that allowed them to opt out of providing ''out of hours'' care, and of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD), which limits the number of hours hospital doctors can work in a week. The Government has given in to European demands and reduced post graduate-training hours for intending specialists from 30,000 to 6,000 because of the working time directive.

Furthermore, until 20 years ago the medical pillar at the gateway to our great hospitals was matched by a nursing pillar with a ward sister in charge of all aspects of a 24-bed ward, cleaning as well as the feeding and social management of the patients. These practical skills have been discarded thanks to the disastrous policy "Nursing 2000". For many Brits jobs in nursing and paramedical and technical components of the health service that require discipline, uniform, shift work at nights, weekends and during public holidays are beneath their dignity. Now our hospitals depend on the Philippines, Africa, the Far East and Eastern Europe, as well as a long resident West Indian population to nurse patients.

We have had 13 years of Labour policy designed to get more people on the public payroll and converted into Labour-voting slaves who have no interest in enhanced efficiency. We have assimilated a quarter of a million extras, literally supernumeraries, within the voluminous tent of the NHS.

Just outside the tent is the sand into which billions of taxpayers' money soaks without trace. Identification of these individuals is easy; look at the hospital telephone directory, and note how often the following descriptions occur: coordinator, commissioner, facilitator, compliance, liaison, outreach, project, regulator, controller. All of these staff require computers, salaries, paid holidays and final-year pensions. Look too at the Personnel, i.e. "Human Resources" Department. A five- page pro forma to apply for a parking permit? A senior female consultant asked by a 22-year-old clerk to produce her passport in order to identify herself before starting work at a new hospital? This is the reality of modern hospital bureaucracy.

Politicians cannot continue to be economical with the truth. We treat all-comers, from malnourished infants of economic migrants to octogenarians seeking care at the end of a long hard life. We do our best, and we need a rapid clear-out of the non-essential bureaucracy which is slowing patient care and diverting funds needed for the care and cure of sick citizens.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

Written by a consultant. Interesting perspective on the effect of the EU Time Directive and increased government spending:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7625503/NHS-heres-the-unpleasant-truth.html

if anyone criticises the NHS they should pop across to the US were you have to pay for every treatment if you are don't have health insurance.

for those that don't fancy the NHS obviously the better choice is to pay health insurance and have millions of people that can't afford insurance without medical care suffering... sounds wonderful...

you're very lucky to have the NHS Kokonut - i wouldn't knock it if i was you...

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

if anyone criticises the NHS they should pop across to the US were you have to pay for every treatment if you are don't have health insurance.

for thos that don't fancy the NHS obviously the better choice is to pay health insurance and have millions of people that can't afford insurance without medical care suffering...

you're very lucky to have the NHS Kokonut - i wouldn't knock it if i was you...

It's written by a consultant that works in the NHS you idiot, it's not me 'knocking the NHS'. Isn't he more qualified than you on the matter?

You obviously haven't read the article - he doesn't advocate US style private healthcare, he is just expressing an opinion on how the NHS should be restructured given its current problems meeting the needs of patients.

I didn't advocate privatisation or 'knock' the NHS either - can you tell me where I 'knock' the NHS plzzzz? Just a figment of your wild imagination...:eek:

michaels

Chucky I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree - I am all in favour of tax payer funded health care for all free at the point of delivery (or with a nominal fee to encourage appointments to be kept and so that there is an understanding that there is a cost) but stating that the sun shines out of the A**E of the NHS and that either you back it in its current form 100% of you are wanting to see sick babies left to die in the streets is just not credible.

Is there really nothing about the NHS that you think should change?

chucky

michaels wrote: »

Chucky I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree - I am all in favour of tax payer funded health care for all free at the point of delivery (or with a nominal fee to encourage appointments to be kept and so that there is an understanding that there is a cost) but stating that the sun shines out of the A**E of the NHS and that either you back it in its current form 100% of you are wanting to see sick babies left to die in the streets is just not credible.

Is there really nothing about the NHS that you think should change?

ahh there's a difference - the NHS does a good job not a bad job like the anti-Labour frother is trying to imply in his OP.

as you respectfully say - it can be improved just like everything in life.

it's the frothers like Kokonut would be the first ones in the queue if we didn't have the NHS in place.

lostinrates

Anyhow....with regard to the piece linked...............

how are who can/can't opt out decided? I find it odd my DH who is essentially a paper pusher (albeit a very dear, hardworking and suitable city pseudo mover/shaker paperpusher) is opted out and a surgeon, whose job directlymeans life or death is not opted out of EU work hours directives. Other people i wouldn't want to me in clude emergency services, armed forced, police, MPs, civil servants in times of crises....and...um....IT people. they are vital.

tomterm8

As an IT person, trust me, we are not essential, if it means I have to work more than 48 hours a week, without extra pay.

More seriously, yes, I understand a surgeon or IT worker is essential, but I for one wouldn't want someone to operate on me after working a 75 hour week. Which was fairly common in the past.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

As an IT person, trust me, we are not essential, if it means I have to work more than 48 hours a week.

More seriously, yes, I understand a surgeon or IT worker is essential, but I for one wouldn't want someone to operate on me after working a 75 hour week. Which was fairly common in the past.

even if there was no one who hadn't? If it were going to be twelve hours you lay their with an injury that you had a 4 hour probability pf survival in? of if the 75 hour guy had a 99% success rate but your fresh new doctor had a 12% survival rate....

btw iT thing was more to sort of lighten the mood....it was all getting a bit rowdy above.;) you guys are essential though. I did think you did something different though.

Blackpool_Saver

chucky wrote: »

if anyone criticises the NHS they should pop across to the US were you have to pay for every treatment if you are don't have health insurance.

The majority of Americans do have health insurance and those who don't can claim from Medicaid and the like. They grow up knowing they have to pay premiums to insurance companies like we pay national insurance.
The problem with this country is people expect to get everything free, pay your private health insurance premiums instead of drinking and smoking or other luxuries, in other words get your priorities straight, then you can have private treatment and leave the nhs for those who can't like they do in America.

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

even if there was no one who hadn't? If it were going to be twelve hours you lay their with an injury that you had a 4 hour probability pf survival in? of if the 75 hour guy had a 99% success rate but your fresh new doctor had a 12% survival rate....

btw iT thing was more to sort of lighten the mood....it was all getting a bit rowdy above.;) you guys are essential though. I did think you did something different though.

I don't work for the NHS, that's for sure:D

LizEstelle

And now shall I give you the 'unpleasant truth' about private medicine in this country?

You know, the little things like the way they hand their messes back to the NHS as soon as the client has the rank stupidity to develop a chronic illness..?