Defence Committee launches web forum on Forces medical care

#2
AT THE TARGET IN FRONT...


...CARRY ON!

This is the chance folks, to put your views forward in a constructive manner.

hopefully they'll listen.

one can but hope.
 
#3
Gotta echo BP20's sentiment. But for those who have yet to follow the link, the closing date on this eConsultation is 11 Jun, so fer Christ's sake get responding to it :!:

DMSD Corporate Comms response (my telecon - five minutes ago) was repleat with 'ers' and 'ums', so it's down to ARRSE'rs, e-Goaters and RumRation'ers to publicise this thing.

I know there are gainsayers who take a 'what's the bluddy point' view of this, but worse case scenario as I see it is that if hardly anybody bothers to post, out of institutional apathy, any good stuff that does get on the eConsultation will be dismissed out of hand as the irrelevant ramblings of a discontented few.

Grip it :!:
 
#5
Why was this Consultation not put out on the National press as well.
Not all have PC's at home.
If 42 is all the answers he will get we dont stand a cat in hells chance.

I think this is another of those Whitehall Games they play from time to time.
Delete Consultation and incert Pasification. (a new word for them to throw about).

Phredd
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#6
Phredd,

tempting as it is to suspect that this is just another Neue Arbeit smoke and mirrors exercise, I can assure you that the folk in DMSD are taking it VERY seriously, not least because it is 100 per cent outside MoD control (honest Injun, Cubs honour, cross my Playtex heart)

Interesting post on the site today:

I am a military surgeon. I am going to make comment on the medical care provided to the injured service personnel on arrival in the UK and in the field hospital; the 2 are crucially linked. I have worked in the old military hospitals and the new system whereby military medical and nursing staff are working within large NHS Hospitals. It is true that the old military hospitals were oasis of calm. However, the sort of treatment that could be provided in those hospitals was simply not adequate for the treatment of the most severely injured person. It is not true to say that the old military hospitals simply catered for military patients. There were not enough military patients to fill those hospitals. They admitted and treated patients from the local area, as residents of Ely, Wroughton and Gosport will remember. Severely injured patients from those hospitals were frequently transferred elsewhere for the most intensive care.

In WW II the pioneering work on burns patients, predominantly pilots, done by Sir Archibald McIndoe was performed in a non military hospital. He, his staff and the people of the local town were all well aware of the sensitivities of treating military patients, the particular experiences that those patients had been through, and the importance of welcoming them back into the normal community despite the obvious facial disfigurement demonstrated by most of those patients. None of those staff and civilians needed to be pilots to have sympathy and understanding of the patients' circumstances. It was also to the credit of McIndoe that he insisted upon his patients being allowed to wear uniform and their rank. This was against the wishes of the military protocols of the time, but very much favoured by the patients. The same holds true today; I know that the civilian nurses that have treated military patients over some years have great understanding of the service men and their needs and circumstances.

The current system of having military doctors and nurses working within the NHS at large hospitals ensures that we clinical staff are always up to date and familiar with the management of severely injured patients. It seems obvious that the treatment of someone who is blown up or shot is nothing like treating somebody who might have a "simple" broken ankle of a torn knee ligament. The skills required to treat the injured soldier are far closer to those required to treat the severely injured mororcyclist, the person who has fallen from many meters, those who have been run over by motorised lawn mowers and even traction engines; patients with this sort of injury have all been recently treated by military and civilian staff working in these non military hospitals.

The care of the soldiers in the front line is provided by many others, like me, who rotate through those field hospitals. It seems that the pre hospital care and the care given in the field hospitals is excellent and has resulted in the survival of patients who would not have survived in the past. Field hospital care relies upon its doctors, nurses and other staff being familiar, competant and confident in the management of the most severely injured. This is ensured by our work in the NHS environment.

Military casualties continue to be treated whilst en-route to the UK. I have been told by the intensive care doctors here that on several occasions that the the condition of patients has been considerably improved by the intensive care treatment given in the aeroplane while travelling home. Those military staff responsible for the improvement in the aeroplane usually work in busy NHS intensive care units where they remain expert.

The care here in the UK needs the input of many different expert doctors and nurses. It is self evident that bullets and bombs might affect any part or many parts of the body. The services do not have the quantity of work to employ doctors and nurses in all fields of expertise and so the injured service men must be treated at any of the UK's hospitals that have staff from all specialities and sub specialities. While the service personnel are in the UK hospital they are put in the same area. The exception to this is when the condition of the patient requires specialist nursing or other expertise that can only be provided in another part of the hospital.

It is true that military patients have found themselves by elderly patients. These elderly patients have often served in the military themselves. The idea of having a veterens hospital network such as in the US would continue to expose our injured soldiers and their relatives to the proximity of elderly patients who deserve our respect and care.

Don't look now but this site may represent YOUR chance to get your point across......you have until Monday week to make the most of it....the ball, Sir Phredd, is in your court.....

Link here to make life easy !


Crack on feller,


Le Chevre
 
#7
Goatman said:
Interesting post on the site today:

In WW II the pioneering work on burns patients, predominantly pilots, done by Sir Archibald McIndoe was performed in a non military hospital. He, his staff and the people of the local town were all well aware of the sensitivities of treating military patients, the particular experiences that those patients had been through, and the importance of welcoming them back into the normal community despite the obvious facial disfigurement demonstrated by most of those patients. None of those staff and civilians needed to be pilots to have sympathy and understanding of the patients' circumstances. It was also to the credit of McIndoe that he insisted upon his patients being allowed to wear uniform and their rank. This was against the wishes of the military protocols of the time, but very much favoured by the patients. The same holds true today; I know that the civilian nurses that have treated military patients over some years have great understanding of the service men and their needs and circumstances.
All I'll say about that surgeon's comments is that during WWII the whole country was on a war-footing with almost every family having at least one member in the Armed Forces, almost all the population would have identified themselves on a contemporary census form as white, British and Christian, thus returning servicemen were seen as heroes and treated accordingly.

Contrast that with a serviceman arriving at Selly Oak today, taking into account the very different political / social atmosphere. I've no doubt that there are still many very able and professional medical staff on hand, but I would argue that in the wider sense there is far less understanding of, and in some cases sympathy for, their predicament.
 
#8
We just got an extension - use it!

"In view of the continuing interest in this eConsultation, and in response to some criticism that it has not been publicised as it might be, the Committee has decided to extend the eConsultation until 18 June, to give people as much opportunity as possible to have their say."
 
#9
Goatman

He must have heard me and a multitude of others

Phredd



"In view of the continuing interest in this eConsultation, and in response to some criticism that it has not been publicised as it might be, the Committee has decided to extend the eConsultation until 18 June, to give people as much opportunity as possible to have their say