NHS - "Best Year Ever"?

#1
Saw this on Sky News.

This smacks to me of an effective use doublespeak, newspeak or any other kind of Orwellian distortion of the truth. Honestly, how can this woman go on National Television and not be worried by the chance of her nose growing.
 
#2
Hewitt has not got the real grasp on the NHS. Maybe she never will by the tone of this statement.
I work in the commercial medical field and regularly have meetings with CEO, Finance and Procurement/Purchasing bods. One central London hospital(a foundation trust) bought technology from us eighteen months ago. Cost £1 million.
They now cannot afford to pay for the disposable items to perform the surgery. Therefore a massive capital investment will be happily stored in a room and collect dust from now until whenever. :x
They didn't budget for the ongoing cost and maintenance of the kit. How in the name of sanity do these managers have a job? I would be on the streets if I ran the business that way.

fastmedic
 
#3
Like the Armed Forces, the NHS is simply not a business. There is scope for making efficiencies and for introducing accountability. However, the natural selection inherent in applying the principle of competition means that some poor gits will be saddled with useless services and will not be in a position to "choose" to go elsewhere.

The wheels are clearly coming off the New Liabour project - corruption over "education x3" may lead to the downfall of Bliar, the claim that the economy is "safe" is no longer taken for granted and the "24 hours to save the NHS" has changed into "9 years to fcuk up the NHS".

There is a good article by Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times today. I like what he has to say about local accountability - decisions on health should be made at a local level, by voters. My former home constituency saw a shock by-election defeat for Liabour over anger at health cutbacks - the seat was taken for granted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2147734,00.html

painful lesson on healthcare in the NHS Bermuda triangle
Simon Jenkins

The prime minister was blunt. “No gain without pain” was his Easter message to the National Health Service to celebrate his third attempt to reorganise it.

Two days later I felt the pain. It was a stabbing sensation from a burst cyst and it occurred in two equally alarming places. One was the right groin and the other was mid-Wales. The latter is currently the NHS’s Bermuda triangle, where doctors, ambulances and entire hospitals simply disappear from the radar each time I visit.

Not long ago this part of Wales had a 24-hour GP service in the village and two hospitals, one offering surgery, within 10 miles. Now the 24-hour service is a Cardiff call centre with a response from a locum doctor 25 miles away in Dolgellau.

The latter explained that under NHS rules I had to visit her in person before she could refer me for an operation a further 40 miles away, either in Bangor or in Aberystwyth. If I were you, she said, I would drive yourself to an A&E somewhere, take a good book and hope for the best. I suddenly saw what Blair meant by his new “patient-driven, choice-based” NHS. You drive, we choose.

To the public the present NHS “crisis” must be baffling. Not a day passes without a bad news story in the press. Deficits are soaring, hospitals going into virtual administration, drug treatments being decided by the High Court and 6,000 staff about to be sacked. Even in fashionable Kensington and Chelsea the health trust has recently found itself with £6m in invoices not accounted for and the auditor not noticing. The same auditor, Price Waterhouse Coopers, is then called in to audit the loss, doubtless adding its own invoice to the pile.

Yet I can dimly see method in Blair’s pain and gain. There is at last an NHS “narrative”. Waiting lists are down and gleaming hospitals are rising at least in the big cities. The much-quoted £800m deficit is no big deal in a service costing £72 billion. It is only getting publicity because, at last, the government is refusing to rob Peter to pay Paul. The pus of inefficiency is finally starting to ooze from the NHS patient.

The British health service had by the mid-1980s become an unsustainable racket. Doctors were running hospitals according to mind-bending restrictive practices. Theatre productivity was pitiful. Nurses and paramedics were treated by doctors as serfs. A&E patients were handed from one clinician to another in a ludicrous make-work scheme. Drug companies, computer firms, management consultants, negligence lawyers and staff unions were walking away with the till each night.

By 1987 the Tories had doubled spending and the money had vanished. Margaret Thatcher lost her temper. Wailing to Panorama about the “bottomless pit” of NHS costs, she set in train what became the 1990 NHS Act and two decades of reform.

Any Briton who smugly insults public administration in France or Italy or Paraguay or Papua New Guinea should study Britain’s NHS, c1990-2006. Thatcher’s reform began as essentially sound. She introduced fundholding doctors and trust hospitals, forcing GPs to be more resource-minded and trying to release hospitals from the grip of a reactionary medical profession. A bureaucratised NHS would be supplanted by a market-led local one.

The 1990 Act was scuppered first by the Treasury and then by the Labour party. The Treasury refused to allow hospital trusts financial autonomy, even denying them freedom to negotiate their own wages. They lost control of their costs and simply dumped the bill on the exchequer. Yet as a recent report for auditors KPMG by Rupert Darwall — a director of the Reform think tank — has shown, Thatcher’s fundholding yielded a more dramatic fall in waiting times than did Labour’s extravagance.

When Blair came to office in 1997 he wrecked this structure out of sheer political vengeance. His health secretary, Frank Dobson, dismantled fundholding and the internal market and reduced the NHS to administrative chaos.

There followed three structural reorganisations, roughly in 1998, 2002 and 2004 (though connoisseurs have counted seven). There are now 572 hospital and primary care trusts. Community health councils give way to patient forums. Some 40 quangos float round Whitehall as flotsam left over by some overnight headline-grabbing initiative. Last week, desperate for a good news story, Patricia Hewitt came up with “dignity nurses”.

Within two years of being created, some 30 “strategic health authorities” are to be cut to 10 and 303 primary care trusts to be cut to 100. Millions of pounds have gone on these reorganisations, which are completely unrelated to health care. Some £15 billion (some say £30 billion) is being allocated to a nationwide “choose and book” computer for which nobody unconnected with the project sees any need. It would have been of no use to me last weekend, in contrast with a tiny fraction of that sum spent on a modicum of local healthcare.

After a further doubling of health spending Blair has returned to where Thatcher was in 1987, with fundholding, trust hospitals and internal markets. This time he appears to mean it, but he will need to keep his nerve.

The “missing billions” that caused such anguish to trust budgets this year resulted from Brown’s disastrous insistence that Whitehall, which means the Treasury, negotiates NHS pay. The resulting 2004 pre-election award to doctors sent GP pay to £100,000 (and reportedly to £250,000 for some). It came as a bolt from the blue to hospital treasurers. So has the new national tariff for hospital operations. Neither took any account of local costs and wrecked all long-term planning. Four top children’s hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, have indicated that the tariff may bankrupt them.

Hospitals are the financially threatened species of the new Blair/Thatcherism. By allowing hospitals to borrow at will — rather than borrow from him — Brown has allowed them to build up a £6 billion liability at private rates of interest with twice as much in the pipeline. A big hospital such as Queen Elizabeth’s Woolwich predicts an annual debt charge of £100m, money it certainly does not have. British hospitals will soon be fighting for their lives.

The government appears to have accepted that an NHS hospital is no longer regarded by staff or patients as a philanthropic charity but as a factory supplying an expensive service, lucrative for some. Blair says he expects 40% of operations to be performed privately. But if hospitals are to revert to their 19th-century status their independence must be real.

Hospitals must be free to collaborate, plan their specialisms, liaise with “cottage” outposts and not have the Treasury and the NHS central costs imposed on them, whether expensive staff or expensive drugs. Otherwise they will end up like Railtrack, healthcare’s infrastructure authority with ministers meddling in every bedpan.

Blair is clearly relying on his new breed of highly paid and entrepreneurial GPs to hold and disburse NHS cash. It is a version of Thatcher’s original (but diluted) Enthoven plan whereby “money follows the patient”. Gone will be the local general hospital offering a table d’hôte service within easy range of patients, which is why northwest Scotland and mid-Wales are being denuded of beloved institutions.

On the other hand local GPs, their pockets and “commissioning” budgets bursting with money, may band together with local authorities to run new health centres, perhaps even hospitals. Already Wychavon council in Worcestershire is doing just that.

If there is any superfluous tier in all this it is the once-vaunted primary care trusts. They should be put out of their misery.

GPs should go back to the arrangement before the war, under the wing of elected local health committees. They were cheap and they worked. There will be “postcode lottery” rows. But democratic accountability will be clear, as in Scandinavia, Germany and other countries where healthcare contrives to be better than ours yet is not “nationalised”. In Denmark just 5% of patients need treatment that cannot be supplied within the remit of their elected county health authority.

It is possible, just possible, that this is the “gain” of which Blair was talking. Of the pain there is no doubt.
 
#4
Does this strike anyone as sounding like those Communist party proclamations of year-on-year improvement,
or the Nazi party lies which held that the glorious Wehrmacht was winning in Russia?

How, please, can we get rid of these clowns?
 
#5
Didn't she say that despite the one of the worst winters ever there were no bed shortages?

They must have used a government sponsored weather service that delivered weather to suit or just lied about it.

I don't suppose those being made redundant would agree with the claim 'Best Year Ever'.

Are we supposed to believe that?

Sorry the one brain cell sees through the lies.
 
#6
hmmm..that will be the best year in which I lay in a six bed side-ward with five old dears, all awash in their own piss and unable to get five minutes worth of "there-there m'dear" from the Croatian nurse. I never ever thought when I got that language card in 1995 that I would be using it to ingratiate myself with the Hrvatski whilst in a hospital bed at home!
 
#7
Well, Hewitt may have a point. Here's how it works:-

The government sets targets and gives inducements to have them met. E.g. GPs have to see X% of patients within 2 days in order to qualify for additional payments. Being human, they meet the target. To do this they employ a practice manager; somewhere else someone will be employed to check and someone else employed to authorise the payment. GPs are happy and Hewitt bigs it up to the media.

From the point of view of the patient things are different. Unfortunately, I am a frequent visitor to my GP. The way they meet the target is by not taking bookings more than 2 days out. When the 2 days are full, that's that - call back tommorow. I have a very full work schedule and this is a trifle inconvenient. I'm not going to die if I don't see a GP for a week rather than 2 days but there you go. But the phone lines are constantly engaged from 08:29 to mid morning by which time the 2 days are full and it's "call back tomorrow". Repeat as often as you like. By now I'm not very well, panic is setting in and I have to see a GP as an emergency. The receptionist gives me a little card saying something like "This patient is an oxygen thief, eating someone else's (your) lunch. Treat them accordingly" to give to the doctor. I end up getting additional medication because things have gone too far.

So:-

I have to jerk my work colleagues around.
The NHS employ practice managers and box tickers rather than operational staff.
The NHS spend more on my medication than necessary.
I feel sh!te most of the time.
The service is complete rubbish but must be OK because the target are being met. So that's alright then.

Not a happy bunny, C.
 
#8
NHS, Police Service, you name it...set targets and then reaching the target becomes more important than achieving the aim. They are not one and the same, despite what most (i.e. human not civil servant/government advisors) people might think. This allows the target of reducing costs by closing wards or police stations or post offices to be met, while people die, can't get cash or have to borrow a phone to report their house has been emptied by burglars again.

Politics eh...the realistic alternative to working for a living.
 
#9
mistersoft said:
Didn't she say that despite the one of the worst winters ever there were no bed shortages?
Certainly a cold winter, and colder than any in the last ten years by about 2 degrees C, but worst winter ever? No. I remember 1962/63. Just. A lot of snow in Berkshire! Feet. What did we have this year? Two inches!

Litotes
 
#10
Cuddles said:
NHS, Police Service, you name it...set targets and then reaching the target becomes more important than achieving the aim. They are not one and the same, despite what most (i.e. human not civil servant/government advisors) people might think. This allows the target of reducing costs by closing wards or police stations or post offices to be met, while people die, can't get cash or have to borrow a phone to report their house has been emptied by burglars again.

Politics eh...the realistic alternative to working for a living.
Apparently, a recent published book called "Freakonomics" covers the distortion produced by setting such targets. I haven't read it yet, but it is on my list!

Litotes
 
#11
mistersoft said:
Didn't she say that despite the one of the worst winters ever there were no bed shortages?

They must have used a government sponsored weather service that delivered weather to suit or just lied about it.

I don't suppose those being made redundant would agree with the claim 'Best Year Ever'.

Are we supposed to believe that?

Sorry the one brain cell sees through the lies.
The reason there were no bed shortages , Were from the reports in the local media all the operation's were cancelled and only emergency patients were admitted.
 
#12
Some of the targets are met on paper, whilst not actually changing the situation at all. Take A&E waiting times - once a patient has waited for almost the 4-hour limit, he's moved to an 'observation unit', or a 'medical admissions unit', where he continues to wait, though the A&E target for waiting time has been met.
 
#13
Litotes said:
mistersoft said:
Didn't she say that despite the one of the worst winters ever there were no bed shortages?
Certainly a cold winter, and colder than any in the last ten years by about 2 degrees C, but worst winter ever? No. I remember 1962/63. Just. A lot of snow in Berkshire! Feet. What did we have this year? Two inches!

Litotes
Even the weather isn't safe from being suitably doctored.

Shame the patients can't be suitably doctored.
 
#14
ViroBono said:
Some of the targets are met on paper, whilst not actually changing the situation at all. Take A&E waiting times - once a patient has waited for almost the 4-hour limit, he's moved to an 'observation unit', or a 'medical admissions unit', where he continues to wait, though the A&E target for waiting time has been met.
I work in such a unit, (as well as others) and I've seen patients getting shunted out of the assesment unit into other wards far too early because there's another load that have to come in. It's dangerous and puts the next ward under far more pressure than they should be under.

<<She also said "so-called job cuts" in recent weeks mainly affected agency and tempory staff and were reducing a "very innefficient and wasteful form of spending>> Yes, sure, that's why my number of shifts has been cut down and why half of my family and freinds are worrying about our futures. If you want to cut innefficiencies, get rid of the middle management who are turning hospitals into a business, you know its bad when the ward operator is told that a patient has died and they reply "oh good, that's a free bed" :evil:

Rant over. :?
 
#15
healer said:
ViroBono said:
Some of the targets are met on paper, whilst not actually changing the situation at all. Take A&E waiting times - once a patient has waited for almost the 4-hour limit, he's moved to an 'observation unit', or a 'medical admissions unit', where he continues to wait, though the A&E target for waiting time has been met.
I work in such a unit, (as well as others) and I've seen patients getting shunted out of the assesment unit into other wards far too early because there's another load that have to come in. It's dangerous and puts the next ward under far more pressure than they should be under.

<<She also said "so-called job cuts" in recent weeks mainly affected agency and tempory staff and were reducing a "very innefficient and wasteful form of spending>> Yes, sure, that's why my number of shifts has been cut down and why half of my family and freinds are worrying about our futures. If you want to cut innefficiencies, get rid of the middle management who are turning hospitals into a business, you know its bad when the ward operator is told that a patient has died and they reply "oh good, that's a free bed" :evil:

Rant over. :?
Good rant though

It must be difficult having to care for statistics.
 
#16
Too true mistersoft, I dont get it too badly, but the senior nurses cant seem to move for paperwork.

Oh and has anyone else that works in a hospital noticed that everything has a price tag on it now INCLUDING plasters?!?!?
 
#17
healer said:
Too true mistersoft, I dont get it too badly, but the senior nurses cant seem to move for paperwork.

Oh and has anyone else that works in a hospital noticed that everything has a price tag on it now INCLUDING plasters?!?!?
Nipping down to Boots for a pack of plasters.

Is that what they call Care in the Community?
 
#18
Who knows what they call it now, probably Care in the Bank manager's pocket.

It would probably help as well, if half the hospitals actually owned the buildings!!!
 
#19
healer said:
Too true mistersoft, I dont get it too badly, but the senior nurses cant seem to move for paperwork.

Oh and has anyone else that works in a hospital noticed that everything has a price tag on it now INCLUDING plasters?!?!?
MRSA is free
 
#20
lol! so is the novo virus! (gastro enteritis for the people who want to know). In reality though, a good number who went in with a minor problem (broken leg) come out worse (no leg at all)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads