NHS rant alert

And in addition, NHS Direct, known as NHS Redirect amongst doctors, and later 111 started to send loads of unnecessary patients to EDs, whilst the ability to staff medical posts dropped due to a variety of changes enacted by Govt. And the same in GP land where pressure on appointments due to staffing and incased bureaucracy, as well as bed blockage because of reduced social provision all conspired together.

As for your 2003/4 jump, which you attribute to EU expansion, and which is obviously wildly improbable to be due to that, the King's Fund says:

In 2003/4, the number of attendances jumped – by nearly 18 per cent – to 16.5 million. This reflects the decision around this time to incorporate data relating to attendances at walk-in centres and minor injuries units (referred to as ‘type 3 units’ in the figures). These aimed to improve patients’ access to primary care, modernise the NHS to be more responsive to patients’ busy lifestyles, and offer patients more choice (Monitor 2014).

But I think you knew that.

Similar counting tricks have been played since, for example requiring GP admissions to be admitted via A&E even though they don't see a doctor there, as well as ways Trusts inflate figures to show greater levels of activity to attract funding and meet targets. Some of these numbers are not real.

The A&E crisis is NOT due to immigrants.

So where did the the additional 5.1 million come from? You seem to take any view other than immigration, do you not attribute any rise in numbers due to it?
 
The issue of demand is interesting. The population is not any more sick than it was 10 years ago. In fact, people are generally a bit healthier. So where is the demand coming from? .

3 of my regular playing partners, before moving north of the borders were medics. Two GP's and a nephrologist. They had a different slant on this, although the absolute numbers may be the same.

They said that the 20's to late 40's are healthier but those that were older, not so. Further to that they felt that in later life the health service can keep people alive longer but their quality of life, as they fought critical illness that used to kill, was actually worse.

Splitting hairs maybe but I wonder if there's some truth in it?
 
3 of my regular playing partners, before moving north of the borders were medics. Two GP's and a nephrologist. They had a different slant on this, although the absolute numbers may be the same.

They said that the 20's to late 40's are healthier but those that were older, not so. Further to that they felt that in later life the health service can keep people alive longer but their quality of life, as they fought critical illness that used to kill, was actually worse.

Splitting hairs maybe but I wonder if there's some truth in it?

I think the evidence suggests that most people are healthier at all ages, but it catches up with you eventually. People live longer healthier but then consume at least the same amount of healthcare resource in a shorter period. It is known as compression of morbidity. There are also a lot of survivors that in times gone by would be dead, people surviving cancer, heart disease and stroke, so they remain heavy consumers of healthcare as a result. There are also an awful lot more older people. Each year of increase in life expectancy generates a disproportionate number of older people so even if each one only consumes as much healthcare as an 80 year old ever did, that is still a lot more than the average 70 year old and there are a lot of 80 year olds, so the bill rockets.

Funny enough, most doctors are more sanguine about a lot of health intervention near the end of life and would mostly prefer that heroic measures are not used on them.
 
Just got back from hospital with Missis T. Missis T loves her job and won't have a bad word said re the NHS, but her faith has been tested to the limit. She called me at 10.35 to say she could go home once her analgesia was sorted.
I arrived at 11.35, no sign of prescription. She had her dinner. Agency nurse walks in and asks to see her drain, Missis T hasn't got one, Oh.
She comes in three hours later and I am sat in Missis T's chair, she asks me if I am ready for my medication. As Missis T is ready to go she asks to look at Missis T's wound to see if she is OK to go home. Missis T hasn't got one. She should of checked the woman's next door who has already gone home, but the agency nurse never knew had. At 15.30 I asked how long before her prescription arrives. At 16.00 the tell us it has not been "written up" or sanctioned yet by dr. I was not happy. At 18.00 they told us that it still had not been written up. I had to go for a walk to calm down. now don't get me wrong it was not just about us. But get rid of us and a bed is empty. They went down to physically fetch it.
It does not help when two of the three nurses are agency. Coupled with the fact that the only trained nurse was kicked by a patient and spent an hour in A and E did not help.
In the end Missis T was glad to get out and her eyes have been opened.
Thursday night when Missis T first went into A and E, it was classed as " black alert" for the hospital. The way in which they were seeing patients in A and E and discharging them probably does not help matters.
When the news first broke that Kings Mill was being first taken over by Nottingham hospitals, there was a lot of apprehension. Now the news has sunk in, the realisation that the management at Nottingham is rated better than Kings mills so may actually bring a lot more to the table.
The bottom line is that periods of brilliant care were mixed with periods of utter tripe.
Happy that Missis T is home.
 
So where did the the additional 5.1 million come from? You seem to take any view other than immigration, do you not attribute any rise in numbers due to it?

Try to apply some modicum of common sense. You cuted a rise in ED attendance figures and attributed it to EU expansion. That was obviously ridiculous at face value. I showed you that the number was actually due to a different way of counting attendance, as stated by a leading UK think tank which has no reason to deny immigration and in response you appear not to understand what that even means so accuse me of denying it is due to immigration. Sorry, but the increase you cited was NOT due to immigration. That is a fact. You may not like it but that is just too bad. The increase in ED attendance is due to rising demand created by unreasonable expectations, GP pressures, 111, silly targets, staffing shortages and social care shortages creating bed blocking.
 
It's a shame that so many trained medical professionals feel they are personnaly better of working in the private sector no matter what their politics after receiving thousands of pounds in publicly funded training.

Private medicine is not a major factor in UK medicine, unless you are referring to the Governments strategy to hand over more and more services to private providers. Private patients in NHS hospitals bring in nice income and Trusts encourage this.

The irony is that the Govt want the healthcare sector including the NHS to operate like a market. But it turns out they only want it to be a rigged market, so they impose stupid and damaging rules like a cap on locum fees, which is currently adding to the pressure on staffing.

Have you a problem with the NHS being staffed by people who got their expensive training outside the UK? Should we refund those countries?
 
I believe this was a major Labour strategy not so long ago but I like you have little real idea what is really going on in the NHS other than what is reported in the media.

Speak for yourself. I have a pretty good idea what is going on in the NHS.

I was speaking of the Tory strategy of preparing the NHS for piecemeal privatisation. The key steps for this were not Labour, and include the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the TTIP and bringing in Simon Stevens, former DH Civil Servant and later United Health Group executive to oversee.
 
Missis T was being nursed by one agency nurse who quite frankly was useless, verging on dangerous. She spent Some time talking to the other agency nurse. He now works at Donny but has cut his hours to do his masters. He works for the agency when it suits, by his own admission he gets paid a fortune. Furthermore he understands that he is resented when he walks onto a word due to him being paid more than anyone else on the ward including the ward leader. ironically Missis T helped to train him as a student and was over the moon to see him, he was the polar opposite to previous mentioned agency staff.
The bottom line is that Missis T who was removed from her role as " Bank nurse coordinator" due to cutbacks now gets nursed by agency staff who are costing the NHS hundreds of millions.
 
Last edited:
And I've recently been in conversation with Micheal Fallon but he didn't update me on NATOs nuclear strategy .

I m not sure why you have such an in depth knowledge into the NHS, I presumed from the EU thread you worked for a private pharmaceutical company, an industry much loved by the NHS.
 
And I've recently been in conversation with Micheal Fallon but he didn't update me on NATOs nuclear strategy .

I m not sure why you have such an in depth knowledge into the NHS, I presumed from the EU thread you worked for a private pharmaceutical company, an industry much loved by the NHS.

I don't need to explain myself to you. If you don't believe what I have to say, fine. I could care less. But try to bring some facts and reasoned arguments rather than personal attacks. There's a good chap.
 
Personal attacks not my style old man, unlike some, but we can agree to disagree on our relevant knowledge of a subject.

Oh, but they are. You chose not to debate the substance of what I said, preferring to say that because I worked in pharma, I didn't know what I was talking about. That is the definition of an ad hominem.

Could you cite a source or reference for your assertion that many medical professionals are heading into private medicine? So as I can determine objectively what your relevant knowledge is.
 
Last edited:
Could you cite a source or reference for your assertion that many medical professionals are heading into private medicine? So as I can determine objectively what your relevant knowledge is.

Well,I am taking the good word of those on here, including you that many hospitals are reliant on bank and agencies nurses and staff. And I didn't write private medicine, I thought I wrote private industry.
 
Speak for yourself. I have a pretty good idea what is going on in the NHS.

I was speaking of the Tory strategy of preparing the NHS for piecemeal privatisation. The key steps for this were not Labour, and include the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the TTIP and bringing in Simon Stevens, former DH Civil Servant and later United Health Group executive to oversee.

Apart from clinical services, I'm inclined to think the NHS is pretty much already privatised. A number of hospitals, or parts of them, are PFI's. Most ancillary services are outsourced, and central purchasing, NHS Supply Chain, is majority owned by DHL.

Pretty much all of that, well actually all of that came about under Labour. Without a doubt the rest of the NHS is being privatised under the Tories, but both Labour and the Cons are responsible for its privatisation.
 
Apart from clinical services, I'm inclined to think the NHS is pretty much already privatised. A number of hospitals, or parts of them, are PFI's. Most ancillary services are outsourced, and central purchasing, NHS Supply Chain, is majority owned by DHL.

Pretty much all of that, well actually all of that came about under Labour. Without a doubt the rest of the NHS is being privatised under the Tories, but both Labour and the Cons are responsible for its privatisation.

I agree that New Labour were complicit, especially Milburn, but the pace has accelerated since. The Health and Social Care Act was almost the point of no return, and there TTIP opens the door for the big US HMOs to move in.
 
Well,I am taking the good word of those on here, including you that many hospitals are reliant on bank and agencies nurses and staff. And I didn't write private medicine, I thought I wrote private industry.

You taught wrong, you wrote the private sector.

Many hospitals are reliant on bank/agency/locum staff, but the problem is that they choose to staff themselves so thinly in the first place, so are at risk if there is a change in demand or sickness. Most of these bank etc staff are people who would like permanent positions or are supplementing a regular job. If the Govt thinks health is a market, than this is the free market in action, except the Govt has chosen to rig it. Pity they didn't take the same attitude to their friends in the City who are making millions on predatory PFI contracts.
 
PFI is the scandal the public knows little about. Private companies build hospitals, and rent them to the NHS at extortionate rates, with crippling maintenance contracts for 30 years, then can kick the NHS out and walk away. The deals were negotiated between skilled private sector negotiators and numpties at the DH. Guess who got the better deal? Many of the contracts were sold on at he profits after completion, such was the obvious profit contained within.

PFI was a way for politicians to deliver shiny new hospitals, and off balance sheet (not part of the public debt). If there ever was a selling off the family silver, and throwing in most of the family's gold too, it is PFI.

The ultimate irony occurred when HMRC sold off their buildings on a leaseback basis to a company which then turned out to be offshore.

Problem is politicians! They like to boast about how many shiny new hospitals have been built in their term of office, but the Treasury is unwilling to fund them. Therefore the only way to do this has been PFI. Unfortunately Civil Servants and Hospital Managers are pretty hopeless at negotiating with private finance companies and have allowed themselves to be Royally shafted. The old hospitals may have been old and crumbling, but at least they were owned by the NHS and us the tax paying public.
 
Try to apply some modicum of common sense. You cuted a rise in ED attendance figures and attributed it to EU expansion. That was obviously ridiculous at face value. I showed you that the number was actually due to a different way of counting attendance, as stated by a leading UK think tank which has no reason to deny immigration and in response you appear not to understand what that even means so accuse me of denying it is due to immigration. Sorry, but the increase you cited was NOT due to immigration. That is a fact. You may not like it but that is just too bad. The increase in ED attendance is due to rising demand created by unreasonable expectations, GP pressures, 111, silly targets, staffing shortages and social care shortages creating bed blocking.

The increase in demand at A&E matches exactly the increases in Immigration. To suggest there is no link is to be in denial of the facts. Immigrants are more likely to use A@E as many do not register with GPs
 
Top