Daily Mail - betrayal of the wounded

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#2
UK- the ONLY Western military power WITHOUT a dedicated militay hospital.

Maybe there is a lesson here for the Government?

I cant see any Government approving a new CMH or QEMH-the main reasons being the block parties!
 
#3
Perhaps Mr Ross needs a visit to Helmand to have a better understanding of his patients' needs....


David Ross, an intensive care consultant, said: "There are some senior people in the MoD, perhaps three or four senior generals in the Army, who very strongly want a military hospital.

"One of the complaints we have had is that we tell these squaddies to stop swearing. That is because it's not acceptable to use foul and abusive language in a public place.

"It seems to me some of these generals believe that side of the camaraderie among soldiers is more important than our core business, which is to make sure patients don't lose their life or limbs."

Mr Ross, medical director of University Hospital Birmingham Trust, which includes Selly Oak, added: "Some of these generals want to be in control of how we do things in this hospital but the fact is, they do not understand what it is they are trying to control."
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#4
Richard_Hannay said:
David Ross, an intensive care consultant, said: "There are some senior people in the MoD, perhaps three or four senior generals in the Army, who very strongly want a military hospital.
Pity they dont have Dannats bollox to sound off at Blair and the MoD.
 
#5
Mr Ross is clearly an unreconstructed consultant who has no sense of treating the 'whole patient'. Thus, he perfectly illustrates why we need military clinicians and nurses treating soldiers. In doing so, it will save him from having to mix with the rude soldiery. What a tw#t. I'm glad he isn't a member of my profession!
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#6
I second the "TW@T" title for Ross. The fact he uses the word 'squaddie', sums up his opinions of the Armed forces.


Richard_Hannay said:
Perhaps Mr Ross needs a visit to Helmand to have a better understanding of his patients' needs....

"One of the complaints we have had is that we tell these squaddies to stop swearing. That is because it's not acceptable to use foul and abusive language in a public place.

But its not acceptable to go to a foreign country and get wounded and expect a certain level of care by people who know and understand what and where your coming from.
 
#9
Richard_Hannay said:
Perhaps Mr Ross needs a visit to Helmand to have a better understanding of his patients' needs....


David Ross, an intensive care consultant, said: "There are some senior people in the MoD, perhaps three or four senior generals in the Army, who very strongly want a military hospital.

"One of the complaints we have had is that we tell these squaddies to stop swearing. That is because it's not acceptable to use foul and abusive language in a public place.

"It seems to me some of these generals believe that side of the camaraderie among soldiers is more important than our core business, which is to make sure patients don't lose their life or limbs."

Mr Ross, medical director of University Hospital Birmingham Trust, which includes Selly Oak, added: "Some of these generals want to be in control of how we do things in this hospital but the fact is, they do not understand what it is they are trying to control."
Mr Ross has surely not done himself or the hospital any favours with these remarks. His reference to military patients as "squaddies" sounds both patronising and ignorant.
 
#10
nurse_ratched said:
Serving soldiers certainly do not have to wait 18 months for mental health support!

From a parallel thread:
With regard to the comments about the mental health needs of soldiers returning from Ops.

Quote::
The MoD's own figures reveal that more than 2,100 troops - about 2% - returning from Iraq between 2003 and September 2006 have suffered psychiatric problems.

'Returning troops' can get a referral from their RMO and can be seen within 1 working day in a Military DCMH (Department of Community Mental Health). There are 14 of these in the UK fully staffed by Consultants, Mental Health Nurses and also regional Social Workers. There is also provision for fast track Psychology referrals. This provision also exists in BFG and NI.

Even less urgent cases can be, and are, seen within 20 working days. It is very rare for us to miss these deadlines.

We have Military CPNs embedded with the Battlegroup in theatre, so on-line treatment is available on demand. The difficulty is getting those who require help to the right person at the right time and to overcome the stigma associated with doing so.

The RTMC based CPN can and will see all returning mobilised TA and Reservists on demand on return, and will, if necessary organise an immediate Consultant Psychiatrist opinion in the local DCMH.

For Reservists de-mobilised since 2003, there is an assessment centre in Chilwell. www.army.mod.uk/rtmc/rmhp.htm Contact no 0800 0326258

The areas we fall down on are mental health support for the wounded. This is currently being addressed in Birmingham, where dedicated staff will tie up the care pathway for mental health problems wherever they can.

Our biggest failing is the care of Veterans. We don't do this and have to rely upon the NHS. This is problematic as the waiting list for specialist MH services such as CBT is at least 6 months and usually 18 months. Also NHS workers simply do not understand the unique experiences and humour of soldiers. We are simply not mandated to care for Vets and do not have the resources to do so.

I post this for balance as the impression is often given that the Military Mental Health Services sit back and do nothing. This is simply not true. Of course we could do better and we all strive to improve our services. It is a bit soul destroying to see our efforts roundly and regularly trashed by the media.
Also, I was involved in the selection process for the Private Provider for Mental Health Services to the Armed Forces. The Government told us to shut DKPH and select a private provider. I can assure you that, whatever you may think of it, the Priory was the best bidder by far and was assessed against objective criteria by two separate panels.

Please stick to comments that you can substantiate before skewing the argument!
I thought that was the point of an intelligent debate on a public forum! Not least of which giving you the opportunity to present your case.

The problem in health care is that even 99.9% perfection is not good enough. That still means 1 patient in 1,000 is failed by the system. How good is the current system? It is entirely possible that a few have fallen through the net and are waiting 18 months for an appointment within the NHS. In my experience the issue is more often one of active case management, particularly of soldiers at home on long term sick leave.

With regard to the selection of the Priory, they may well have been the best of the bidders, but as you say, the appreciation was situated from the start with the decision to privatise. A fundamental in business is that your never outsource a core capability. I would said that the provision of psychiatric care is a core AMS capability.

I have seen the work of military CPNs - its excellent - but I wish it would better resourced and was available to veterans.
 
#11
I agree - we should have a Veterans health programme. The problem is that our current establishment is designed for Serving Soldiers, any expansion would have to be properly resourced and funded. At present, there does not seem to be any political will for this.

With regard to soldiers waiting 18 months for mentral health treatment, I repeat, this is not the case and I don't know where the statistic has come from. It is easy to pull out soundbites as if they are fact. This one isn't.
 
#12
Treatment of military patients at Selly Oak Hospital – the facts

from their website - as venty linked to.


There has been a lot of local and national press coverage surrounding the alleged treatment of military patients at Selly Oak Hospital, run by University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in the last few days.

In the main, the articles are inaccurate, unbalanced, ill-informed and unsubstantiated. They do not, in any way, represent the views of the RCDM, the Ministry of Defence or the military patients who have received what can only be described as excellent medical and nursing care from military and UHB staff. The same can of course be said of the treatment UHB staff give to all our patients, whatever their clinical need or background.

In a letter from the Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne MP, published in the Daily Telegraph today referring to the recent coverage in the newspaper, he says: “More widely your (Daily Telegraph) relentless attack on the work of the outstanding medical staff, military and civilian, at Selly Oak Hospital is not only demotivating for them, but also unfair. I have been there twice in recent months. It is one of the most successful hospital trusts and provides a major specialist centre for trauma, burns, plastic surgery and neuroscience.”

On no occasion has the Trust been approached to comment on any of the allegations. There have been reports of an alleged Muslim visitor verbally abusing a paratrooper at Selly Oak Hospital. Neither the Trust, nor the Ministry of Defence, has any formal or anecdotal reports or evidence that this alleged incident took place.

As far as military patients are concerned it is more important that they receive the appropriate specialist care for their specific injuries from specialist medical and nursing staff than what ward they are treated on. If a patient has a burns injury they will go to our burns unit, for a brain injury they will be treated by our neurological experts, for plastic surgery our top-class plastics team will be involved, and our specialist trauma team will care for the severely wounded.

These patients could not get the standard or breadth of specialist care they receive at Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals in any military hospital, or on any military ward.


'there is no smoke without fire - just because a soldier didnt report the incident formally, doesnt mean that it didnt happen - he just chose not to fill in a reply slip'
 
#13
And the Yanks are having similar problems, but at least they have military hospitals

Lessons to learn from Walter Reed disgrace
Daily Kent Stater
Issue date: 3/12/07

If you've seen the news recently, you've seen images from the Walter Reed Medical Center. Images of crumbling drywall. Images of cockroach and rat infestation. Images of mold-covered walls and ceilings. Images you certainly would not expect to find at the most premier rehabilitation and medical facility for America's veterans. Along with the disturbing images of the living conditions in the hospital are reports of patients' requests and medical care being ignored.

These reports came after the Washington Post ran a series of articles about being embedded in the hospital. They detailed the conditions and lack of care these veterans have been subjected to.

In this sad story of neglect and bureaucratic irresponsibility, we can only think of one positive outcome.

That is, thank God some news organization is digging into actual news and making a change rather than doggedly reporting on what Britney Spears did to her brown locks. The positive changes these articles can make in the lives of future residents of Walter Reed, and veterans in general, are results of the type of journalism that inspires us to continue in this field.

Those 64 words you just read are the only positive ones you will find in this editorial, because, put simply, what was happening at Walter Reed Hospital is a disgrace. It's appalling to think that the government seemed to be sweeping this under the rug until it was faced with the problem in the headlines.

So how could something like this go so overlooked? William Winkenwerder, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said in a news conference that he was a regular visitor to the hospital and continually asked if they needed anything. He said everyone was surprised by the Post reports.

The Post revealed just how monumentally our system can fail and how those failings caused unnecessary suffering to individuals who quite rightly deserve the best medical treatment in the whole United States.

Our generation has heard stories about the negative reaction to Vietnam veterans after they came home. We've heard about how they were demeaned and criticized simply for their service in the armed forces.

This lack of attention to veterans' medical needs and care is just as sad.

The one thing we've heard throughout the Iraq War (other than "Stay the course") has been "Support our troops." That phrase means more than plastering a magnetic ribbon to the back of your car and hanging a poster in your window. It means actually looking out for them.

Obviously, the medical center wasn't.

The public needs to not let this go easily. We need to continue to question those in charge and make sure the money is being properly allocated to veteran's hospitals. There also needs to be a continuing check on the hospitals' performance —?not just someone calling over and saying "Hey, you all OK over there?"

There needs to be investigations and financial support from the government, and there needs to be more commitment from the public to assure that the finest care is being provided to wounded troops —?that's the least we can do to match the commitment they gave all of us by serving.

The above editorial is the consensus opinion of the Daily Kent Stater editorial board.
 
#14
nurse_ratched said:
I agree - we should have a Veterans health programme. The problem is that our current establishment is designed for Serving Soldiers, any expansion would have to be properly resourced and funded. At present, there does not seem to be any political will for this.

With regard to soldiers waiting 18 months for mentral health treatment, I repeat, this is not the case and I don't know where the statistic has come from. It is easy to pull out soundbites as if they are fact. This one isn't.[/quote]

Sorry Nurse, I know that you're in the picture and have posted some top information on this board, but I have to take you to task over your eighteen month claim.

In my own case, it has taken over two years to get treatment - this timing hasn't been due to my inaction, there exists a full audit trail of how this comes about. This was hence my post a few months ago relating to speed diagnosing and treating PTSD. Far from being a soundbite, this has been my experience.

I agree that the numbers game means nothing though - I find the 2% figure interesting. The MOD cannot quantify this number, as they just do not collect and use the data effectively.

Sadly, as good as Mental Health care provision is for the military, I observe that we have a lot of very damaged veterans who the government appears to be holding two fingers to.
 
#15
Treatment of military patients at Selly Oak Hospital – the facts

from their website - as venty linked to.

""""There has been a lot of local and national press coverage surrounding the alleged treatment of military patients at Selly Oak Hospital, run by University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in the last few days.

In the main, the articles are inaccurate, unbalanced, ill-informed and unsubstantiated. They do not, in any way, represent the views of the RCDM, the Ministry of Defence or the military patients who have received what can only be described as excellent medical and nursing care from military and UHB staff. The same can of course be said of the treatment UHB staff give to all our patients, whatever their clinical need or background.

In a letter from the Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne MP, published in the Daily Telegraph today referring to the recent coverage in the newspaper, he says: “More widely your (Daily Telegraph) relentless attack on the work of the outstanding medical staff, military and civilian, at Selly Oak Hospital is not only demotivating for them, but also unfair. I have been there twice in recent months. It is one of the most successful hospital trusts and provides a major specialist centre for trauma, burns, plastic surgery and neuroscience.”

On no occasion has the Trust been approached to comment on any of the allegations. There have been reports of an alleged Muslim visitor verbally abusing a paratrooper at Selly Oak Hospital. Neither the Trust, nor the Ministry of Defence, has any formal or anecdotal reports or evidence that this alleged incident took place.

As far as military patients are concerned it is more important that they receive the appropriate specialist care for their specific injuries from specialist medical and nursing staff than what ward they are treated on. If a patient has a burns injury they will go to our burns unit, for a brain injury they will be treated by our neurological experts, for plastic surgery our top-class plastics team will be involved, and our specialist trauma team will care for the severely wounded.

These patients could not get the standard or breadth of specialist care they receive at Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals in any military hospital, or on any military ward.""""

Re comments made as above in the last paragraph;

How dare they say that military patients

"" could not get standard or breadth of specialist care they receive at Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals in any military hospital, or on any military ward.""

This is complete garbage; ask all those treated at QEMH, Woolwich and CMH, Aldershot especially the civilian patients taken off NHS waiting lists. Most would say they preferred the Military system as it was "cleaner, more staff, better treatment and treated as adults".

Also there were specialist units in these hospitals i.e. QEMH was a regional burns and plastics unit and also had an ITU and a Psychiatric unit.
CMH had A and E, children's ward, ITU, SCBU and maternity services.
(all closed now due to the government).

All medical military staff were well trained and up to date on most if not all procedures required by the soldiers and their local civilian communities.

This shows the person from this health trust obviously does not know the military system or the people they are treating from it.

BRING BACK UK MILITARY HOSPITALS NOW
 
#16
ABrighter2006 said:
Sorry Nurse, I know that you're in the picture and have posted some top information on this board, but I have to take you to task over your eighteen month claim.
At the risk of leaving myself open to some severe (and informed) criticism, hasn't the new mental health facility at RTMC gone some of the way to solving this problem - I was lead to believe that veterans with mental health issues have now got quite speedy access to non-NHS (ie military) assessment and treatment. Or am I being naive?

Edited to add - sorry, I thought the facility was for regular and reserves. Just found out it's for reservists only. However, it doesn't seem to be that busy - do any of you mental health guys/girls know if there are any plans to use the slack in the system to treat regs as well?
 
#17
I posted this in another thread but it bears repeating. I think that there is some confusion with regard to access to mental health treatment. There is a problem for mobilised reservists that is being partially addressed by the RMHAP at Chilwell, there is no problem for regular soldiers. All other veterans have to throw their lot in with the NHS.

'Returning troops' can get a referral from their RMO and can be seen within 1 working day in a Military DCMH (Department of Community Mental Health). There are 14 of these in the UK fully staffed by Consultants, Mental Health Nurses and also regional Social Workers. There is also provision for fast track Psychology referrals. This provision also exists in BFG and NI.

Even less urgent cases can be, and are, seen within 20 working days. It is very rare for us to miss these deadlines.

We have Military CPNs embedded with the Battlegroup in theatre, so on-line treatment is available on demand. The difficulty is getting those who require help to the right person at the right time and to overcome the stigma associated with doing so.

The RTMC based CPN can and will see all returning mobilised TA and Reservists on demand on return, and will, if necessary organise an immediate Consultant Psychiatrist opinion in the local DCMH.

For Reservists de-mobilised since 2003, there is an assessment centre in Chilwell. www.army.mod.uk/rtmc/rmhp.htm Contact no 0800 0326258

The areas we fall down on are mental health support for the wounded. This is currently being addressed in Birmingham, where dedicated staff will tie up the care pathway for mental health problems wherever they can.

Our biggest failing is the care of Veterans. We don't do this and have to rely upon the NHS. This is problematic as the waiting list for specialist MH services such as CBT is at least 6 months and usually 18 months. Also NHS workers simply do not understand the unique experiences and humour of soldiers. We are simply not mandated to care for Vets and do not have the resources to do so.

I post this for balance as the impression is often given that the Military Mental Health Services sit back and do nothing. This is simply not true. Of course we could do better and we all strive to improve our services. It is a bit soul destroying to see our efforts roundly and regularly trashed by the media.
 
#18
At the heart of this (Nursey - thanks for reposting the above), I feel there is a large degree of debate on what constitutes appropriate care for those suffering symptons of mental illness after serving on Ops. My own experience is that "community mental health teams" up and down the country are woefully under trained and lack the necessary skills to properly treat those from the military who are no longer in the system.
 
#19
Phyco_Lab_Tech wrote

How dare they say that military patients

"" could not get standard or breadth of specialist care they receive at Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals in any military hospital, or on any military ward.""

This is complete garbage; ask all those treated at QEMH, Woolwich and CMH, Aldershot especially the civilian patients taken off NHS waiting lists. Most would say they preferred the Military system as it was "cleaner, more staff, better treatment and treated as adults".

Also there were specialist units in these hospitals i.e. QEMH was a regional burns and plastics unit and also had an ITU and a Psychiatric unit.
CMH had A and E, children's ward, ITU, SCBU and maternity services.
(all closed now due to the government).

All medical military staff were well trained and up to date on most if not all procedures required by the soldiers and their local civilian communities.

This shows the person from this health trust obviously does not know the military system or the people they are treating from it.


My experience doesn't quite tally with that. When working at military hospitals, including Haslar and QEMH, in the late 70s and early to mid 80s I very frequently found myself acting as an escort for patients going to and coming from Oddstock, Stoke Mandeville, Guys, St Thomas, the London Neuro and Orthopaedic hospitals, etc, etc. I seem to remember it being quite common to farm out military patients from NI, the Falklands, Zimbabwe, Oman, etc to NHS specialist units that the MOD didn't provide.
 
#20
This has become a very polarised issue, with the media paying lots of interest, more than a smattering of bad planning and neither the NHS or MOD coming out of this very well.

If the sheet of paper was blank, and the monetry systems not so restrictive; What do ARRSEr's think would represent the best solution in terms of:

Medical Care for injured servicemen and women?
Access to specialists relating to operational injuries?
Best return to the tax payer?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top