How to solve the NHS funding crisis

kabayiri

Cakeguts wrote: »

I expect the benefit to him was about zero?

He wouldn't have even known. The toll on the immediate loved ones was obvious.

LHW99

Surely this decision should be left to the doctors not some potty relative? I don't think any of these decisions should be left to relatives with vested interests in the person surviving because they are not the ones who have to live with their decision.

I wish the doctors would a) speak plainly and the truth b) not try to treat just because they can c) take notice of what a relative is saying.
My mother was in severe pain, could not walk communicate or feed herself due to a stroke, and yet the hospitals continued to treat her agressively with surgery and medication for over 6 months, despite being asked multiple times whether it would really help or was even kind.
Losing a dearly loved relative is hard at any time, but to have to wath them endure a living death for so long is devastating

zagubov

We're an unusual species, in that we experience old age. We're also unusual in that we have the intellectual ability to make it more bearable than nature would demand.

We don't all seem to have the intellectual capacity to see we need to finance this and this makes our pursuit of bigger fatter vehicles and trainers and phones irrelevant to our future happiness.

We've turned into a youth-obsessed society with a pathetic capacity for preparing for the future, the only place we can live out our lives.

Enterprise_1701C

I have to agree that euthanasia is an idea that has to be addressed.

I have watch relatives in severe pain, fortunately both were allowed to die fairly rapidly, one many years ago in hospital with palliative treatment and one at home in comfort with family around.

When we have something like a dog that is in so much pain that it simply cannot move, even find it hard to breathe, then we consider it a kindness to take away it's life.

What should happen is in earlier life, probably around the age of 40 when we have seen a bit of what life has to offer on both sides of the fence, then we should be asked to make a living will. We should be asked about what we want to happen if we were in a lot of pain, with out health only deteriorating, and with as close to zero chance of recovery as you can get. If we want to die in that situation then we should be allowed to. What is the point of living if there is no quality in that life.

teddysmum

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Its about 3 weeks at my surgery at the moment. I've got an appointment for the 23rd, made it last week, that was the earliest with any GP.

I had the option to ring up at 8am each morning for an emergency appointment if it was an emergency, but its not.

This is new, it didn't used to be like this, a couple of years ago you could easily be seen within a few days. Its almost as though there's something causing it...:cool:

Our GPs used to be easy to access, at one time even having a Saturday morning clinic, which people were asked to avoid,except in emergency, so that people who worked could seek advice, but it was abused.


Next to go was the morning (7am-10am) walk in which allowed people in until the time slots to 10.30am were taken. After recruitment problems, people asked not to use the slots for repeat prescriptions (several easy other ways to do this ) and vaccinations, leaving them for those who are unwell. Several warnings, that the service would collapse, were ignored and now it's gone.


We are on the book by phone/ internet system, now, with the later taking 2 weeks or more, but I don't have any problems making B12 appointments within days of my date and was told by a nurse that, if you can't book same day, but explain your problem, you are likely to be seen. The system is not advertised because of the usual abusers.


(I don't know why the abusers weren't given an ultimatum, instead of punishing everyone)

teddysmum

LHW99 wrote: »

Possibly in the future surgeries could have a "smart system" which takes you through a basic triage when you book a GP appointment and assigns you to pharmacist, nurse, doctor, A&E based on the answers.
No access to any hospital unless you have been through the smart system and got a reference code, unless you're brought in flat on your back in an ambulance

There used to be posts from people who resented the fact that a GP receptionist asked about their problem.

teddysmum

caronoel wrote: »

NHS is run for the benefit of [STRIKE]the patients.[/STRIKE]NHS staff

Corrected that for you.

You're welcome

Should that not be highly paid ,but doing little NHS bosses ?

teddysmum

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

What an absolute pile of steaming BS.

Private healthcare exists to make money.

The NHS exists to provide care for everybody who needs care.

I'd like to see some of these private companies turn a profit or manage to see people on demand if they had to deal with even 5% of what the NHS does!

Who has to put right private companies' errors and who do the private hospitals turn to when they can't cope with a case ?

Pennywise

Personally, I think it's time to ditch the current GP system and remodel the GP surgeries. They've become too self-serving. We've come a long way from the days when the GP and district nurse did virtually everything, including delivery of babies, operations, attending accidents, etc. The rest of the NHS has moved on, with lots of different departments specialising in particular treatments/conditions, yet still have to be accessed via the GP surgery. Why?

We've been trying to solve my daughter's ingrown toe nail since last summer, with numerous appointments to the GP and practice nurse, none of which improved her condition. At some appointments we were told to use salt baths, other times told to by over-the-counter liquid, then another different time given some antibiotics. No one at the GP surgery seemed to really know what they were doing and each time contradicted an earlier appointment. After 9 months of pain, I finally persuaded the GP to refer her to the podiatry dept at our local hospital. GP was really unhelpful and told me their wait would be 2-3 months for an appointment. Anyway, within a week of the referral letter, I got a phone call from podiatry offering an appointment 2 days later. When I expressed surprise at the speed, she said they didn't have a waiting list or backlog and were literally waiting for referrals to fill their appointment slots each week. At the appointment, another appointment made for 2 days later to have the toe nail removed. So, basically, once I'd escaped the GP surgery, I finally got a proper referral and proper treatment.

Same happened with me a few years ago when I needed a hearing aid. Took over 6 months just to get the referral letter to the audiology dept who then made a series of appointments just a few days apart to do the tests and fit the hearing aids. They said the same, they had no waiting list and were just waiting for GP referrals.

I must have had a dozen "wasted" appointments at my GP surgery trying to get access to the relevant departments. If they'd referred me at first presentation, they'd have saved so many unnecessary appointments that could have been used by others.

I think we need a different route to access specialist departments. If I need a hearing aid, why not just let me make an initial appointment directly with the audiology dept? If my child has a toe problem, why not let me make a direct appt with podiatry? It's a nonsense to insist on going through GPs these days. It's all a throwback from decades ago when GP's did more treatments themselves.

LHW99

There used to be posts from people who resented the fact that a GP receptionist asked about their problem.

Agreed, although you could always say the problem was personal. However going by how many people seem happy to live their whole lives online, being triaged by an IT system could go down OK.