July's UK borrowing figures

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

Some would say at what cost though? Are the right savings being made? I mean, NHS waiting list times have doubled in the last 12 months.

Write to your local NHS hospital under the Freedom of Information Act. Ask for details of the the number of staff that are absent on long term sick pay. Also short term staff absentisim.

You may be shocked by the disclosure and the cost to the trust.

Also the lack of powers available to the management to take remedial action.

Loughton_Monkey

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Write to your local NHS hospital under the Freedom of Information Act. Ask for details of the the number of staff that are absent on long term sick pay. Also short term staff absentisim.

You may be shocked by the disclosure and the cost to the trust.

Also the lack of powers available to the management to take remedial action.

These figures will be horrendous but equally high figures apply in education and most Local Government functions.

One of the things that infuriates me is well 'documented' over the years by good journalism at 'Private Eye'. [OK, they have had their moments but generally they get things right these days]. This is the most astronomic figures these people [NHS, HMRC, LA's etc.] spend on computer systems and associated 'consultancy'.

I have had much experience with Computer Systems, and with consultants, and have often 'chewed the fat' with them. As most of us know, the design of a good (and cheaper) system only comes when the users specify it properly. They must work out carefully what it needs to do and articulate this to the analysts and programmers.

Consultants apparently 'hate' working for them [or at least would if it wasn't for the money!] because these people tend not to have a clue what their systems need to do. No-one knows any process 'all the way through' and they have no concept of a 'customer'.

Hence a £50 million job will actually cost £150 million and be a year late while the users keep 'changing their minds' every time a consultant clarifies something. Then, when it is implemented, it simply doesn't do the job. After that, another £100 million has to be spent ironing out all the 'bugs' - but only to stabilise it so that they can 'work around' it. So the 'icing on the cake' is they need more staff rather than fewer.

Thrugelmir

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Consultants apparently 'hate' working for them [or at least would if it wasn't for the money!] because these people tend not to have a clue what their systems need to do. No-one knows any process 'all the way through' and they have no concept of a 'customer'.

Taking a nurse as an example. They have one primary objective. Patient care.

In many instances its the consultants that need a reality check. As technology may process paper but it doesn't deliver a service.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Write to your local NHS hospital under the Freedom of Information Act. Ask for details of the the number of staff that are absent on long term sick pay. Also short term staff absentisim.

You may be shocked by the disclosure and the cost to the trust.

Also the lack of powers available to the management to take remedial action.

12 days off sick a year in 2005 on average apparently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5052160.stm

A mate worked with a girl in a council library. She had over 100 days off sick in a year. She was given a warning. The next year she halved her sickness rate and was sacked. She sued for racial discrimination and lost.

Just a thought though. If you work with sick people, getting sick might be a risk especially if the organization you work for isn't competent enough to keep the place clean.

MacMickster

Generali wrote: »

12 days off sick a year in 2005 on average apparently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5052160.stm


Just a thought though. If you work with sick people, getting sick might be a risk especially if the organization you work for isn't competent enough to keep the place clean.

I also wouldn't be too keen on a nurse taking the attitude "Its just a cold. I''ll work through it". I would hope that any NHS staff with patient contact would be required to stay away from work if they have any illness which could be passed on.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

Just a thought though. If you work with sick people, getting sick might be a risk especially if the organization you work for isn't competent enough to keep the place clean.

Stress following breakdown of a personal relationship. Up to 12 months sick pay at full rate.

Name me a commercial organisation which would allow this......

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Stress following breakdown of a personal relationship. Up to 12 months sick pay at full rate.

Name me a commercial organisation which would allow this......

I believe plenty used to but they all went bust..........ah I see what you mean.

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

Some would say at what cost though? Are the right savings being made? I mean, NHS waiting list times have doubled in the last 12 months.

Seeing as there is a pre-occupation with quotes today: "you can trust us with the NHS!" David cameron.

Not quite true. SOME waiting list times have double in the last 12 months.

However, there are a few key factors to look at here, that are out of the realm of the party leading the government.

The european ruling, which makes working longer than 48 hours had an impact on the amount of doctor hours put into the NHS. This obviously has an impact on waiting times, as not as many patients can be seen in reduced hours.

The headline "waiting lists doubled" focuses on some areas only. Such as hip replacements, in which 3% wait 12 months or longer, due to many factors. 97% however, are seen in under 12 months. So the headline figure is rather vague.

There has also been a crackdown on cancelling appointments and re-booking to make sure patients do not fall out of the alloted guideance time window, aswell as a relaxation of the rules and lower thresholds. These patients were not seen, but for all intents and purposes, the figures looked good. This was massive under the labour government (whether it was to do with labour I don't know). This has been cracked down on.

For instance, diagnostic tests have seen a 300% plus increase in waiting times. Which is really bizarre and doesn't add up. That is, until you look at the governance laid down. Labour tasked trusts to ensure 100% would be seen within an 18 week timeframe. Coalition have reversed that, and stated that no longer exists (as it wasn't working, just numbers fudged), and there is now no formal target. Just guidance that 18 weeks is suitable.

Smoke and mirrors. But waiting lists don't just go up 300% overnight just because the coalition are in charge. It's how those figures are compiled that makes the difference.

Pimperne1

What the heck has happened to this thread? If these figures are correct then this is quite amazing isn't it? Has someone provided an explanation why there is such a large fall in borrowing or is that we have avoided Armageddon?

Frankly that hospital waiting lists go up is a minor consideration if we are putting the country on the straight and narrow. Quite frankly a lot of what goes on in hospitals is a complete waste of our money anyway - tummy tucks, fertility treatment, cosmetic surgery for people who feel bad because they have a big nose, braces for children because they don't like sticky out teeth, free anti smoking treatment etc etc. We also ought to make those doctors we trained to work in the NHS to continue to work in the NHS rather in consultancies.

kabayiri

I think we all hope that this reduced borrowing trend continues. It's not like we couldn't do with some good news.

We can't put a lot of faith in one month figures though. Better to wait for a clearer pattern to emerge.