Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The NHS needs to get its finger out and stop whining about lack of funds. They are bloated and wasteful.

Sasaferrato

Super Refuser!
Had it been Rees-Mogg who said this, I wouldn't have been surprised.

Had it been Nigel Farage who said this, well, kind of expected really.

Had it been the late Herr Schicklgruber, not only expected but enacted.

It wasn't though, it wasn't any of the above.



So, if this utter cunt becomes Health Secretary, the NHS will be more starved of funds than it is now.

And those are the shitstains that parrot the mantra that the NHS isn't safe under the Conservatives.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

My wife got her death sentence diagnosis from a stuttering completely out of her depth nurse, who was taking a Consultant's clinic because there was no Consultant. I really cannot express how angry this article has made me.
 
Bloody hell mate how to get me wound up in one thread title.

But yeah - when my OH ends up in hospital due to respiratory complications of a winter virus (which happens every so often) and can't get on a proper respiratory ward and instead ends up on a trolley in a corridor without a nebuliser for 6 hours or on an overspill ward being seen by a GI consultant after 3 days instead of a respiratory consultant within 24 hours, sure it's the NHS using winter crisis to ask for more money.

"The NHS needs to accept that money is tight" - how about the rich need to be made to empty out their pockets through higher taxes to provide better funding.

What an absolute cock.
 
Last edited:
Also I am certain without a doubt that there are inefficiencies within the NHS, it would be a miracle if there weren't in an organisation that large and with such a wide remit.

The way to deal with that is not to squeeze funding and see which bit breaks first while blaming the subsequent unavailability of care on the strapped for cash and resources service.
 
The NHS is wasteful and inefficient (but thats defensive practice for you) and desperately needs reform. From the top to the bottom and inside out. So I agree with the article regarding that.

The problem is that efficiency and reform are completely different things and often they are incompatible, however much politicians pretend otherwise. Reform does not save money in anything other than the long term. It actually costs money, as you have to keep business as usual running while you try new things.

The health and social care system needs reform, but unless Streeting has anything substantive to say about that, it’s probably not going to get more from Labour than efficiency and - worse - subsidiarity.
 
The NHS is wasteful and inefficient (but thats defensive practice for you) and desperately needs reform. From the top to the bottom and inside out. So I agree with the article regarding that.

There's no doubt that there's waste in the NHS, I've heard so many stories from friends and family that work in it, and clearly cutting that waste would help somewhat, but I doubt it would solve the massive under funding.

I came across a classic last week, when I had to see the skin doctor, who was based in a GP surgery, the trust that runs the dermatology service uses a different computer system, and instead of training the GP's receptionists in how to book in patients arriving for their appointments, the dermatology service has their own receptionist, who spends about 2 minutes booking in patients for each 15 minute appointment, so around 8 out of every 60 minutes is actually productive!
 
Waste in the NHS looks to me like a management problem. The 'solutions' that are regularly introduced seem to assume that it's a problem with nurses and doctors, who are actually doing their best in really difficult circumstances.

The "solutions" are also more aimed at cutting money supply than making it efficient. Just saying "the NHS is inefficient" invites more cost-cutting exercises which will only make things worse.
 
Don't worry. Labour has a clever plan. NHS staff, many of whom work regular 12-hour shifts, can now work lots more overtime. That will solve the waiting list problem. They won't get tired or anything like that, or find transport at odd times of day hard to organise. Their work/life balance won't become unstable.

So, Wes obviously knows what he's talking about.
 
given the amount of waste in whitehall - the billions spaffed on useless ppe during the pandemic, for example - streeting should perhaps remove the mote in his eye before talking about nhs cuts. i refer colleagues to my proposal for a reform of parliamentary working hours:
I see the government wants gps available seven days a week. But this principle doesn't go far enough. Libraries, hospitals and indeed shopping centres are open seven days a week. But parliament spends around a third of the year closed, meaning councillors and MEPs have to take up a burden which should be borne by MPs. And with brexit rapidly approaching there will be no more UK MEPs. Theresa May must act now and open parliament seven days a week from 1000 to 2000, while the contracts of MPs must be reviewed so they have a comparable amount of annual leave to other public sector employees. As Britain leaves the EU demand for legislation is expected to soar, to take up the burden formerly carried by the European parliament etc. We must insist our MPs do what they're paid for and end the part-time nature of our parliament.
 
There's no doubt that there's waste in the NHS, I've heard so many stories from friends and family that work in it, and clearly cutting that waste would help somewhat, but I doubt it would solve the massive under funding.

I came across a classic last week, when I had to see the skin doctor, who was based in a GP surgery, the trust that runs the dermatology service uses a different computer system, and instead of training the GP's receptionists in how to book in patients arriving for their appointments, the dermatology service has their own receptionist, who spends about 2 minutes booking in patients for each 15 minute appointment, so around 8 out of every 60 minutes is actually productive!
Yeah for my gastroscopy i had on friday they sent me 3 letters in seperate envolopes which all arrived the same day and all were pretty much saying the same thing.
 
It's hardly a profound observation that the NHS will use any excuse to plead for more money. Who wouldn't after 13 years of a government like this one? It also comes as no surprise to anyone that there are inefficiencies. Of course there are in an organisation as large as the NHS - but it takes time and, as ever, resources to make improvements, which it doesn't have.

Which brings us to his comparison with Singapore. About the only thing the UK has in common with Singapore is it's an island, but Singapore's a city state with a population of about 6.5 million - roughly 10% of the UK - and although I don't know their health service budget, I'll bet it's a lot more per head that the UK's. I'm sure we'd all benefit from their 'technology, data, and population-level health interventions' but it simply won't happen here because of the scale differential and the, again, time and resources necessary to implement them.

One thing I think we can all agree with Wes about though is his desire to see us moving towards a family-doctor relationship. He cites Singapore again in that but really, it's only what we used to have here and not all that long ago either. To make that happen his big challenge is to employ more doctors and keep them here, rather than training them for them to then go work in Dubai or Australia. But that costs money that he'll say he doesn't have.
 
Singapore spends less of its GDP on health than the UK. About half. It's a fact that they boast about.

MOH | Achieving more with less - Singapore's healthcare expenditure

But yes, it is not at all comparable.

A point touched on in that link is bed occupancy. This is an example of how 'business' thinking doesn't work well for health services. We saw the trouble 'just in time' ordering caused during the pandemic. Stock piles of essentials may be inefficient by some measures but they create resilience. Similarly, lower bed occupancy rates many be inefficient by some measures but they are the only way you can reduce waiting times. So if you want a mega-efficient, lean service and you want resilience and shorter waiting times, you're wishing for the impossible.
 
Yeah for my gastroscopy i had on friday they sent me 3 letters in seperate envolopes which all arrived the same day and all were pretty much saying the same thing.
I appreciate that the elderly make up a big chunk of NHS patients and prefer to receive letters, but a simple tick box saying 'yes, sending me an email is just fine' would save a whole load of time and money.

(And I wouldn't be scrabbling around to find the letter, which 'must be in the house somewhere'...)
 
and what are the chances that the 'solution' will be along the lines of

1 - give a load of money to management consultants to generate a load of glossy crap

2 - impose more top-down re-disorganisations and 'internal market' type bollocks that generates more bureacuracy, and needs more managers and accountants to run it

3 - do bugger all (at best) for actual front line services

4 - see it's not working, decide that 'reform' is needed, repeat stage 1 onwards
 
I appreciate that the elderly make up a big chunk of NHS patients and prefer to receive letters, but a simple tick box saying 'yes, sending me an email is just fine' would save a whole load of time and money.

(And I wouldn't be scrabbling around to find the letter, which 'must be in the house somewhere'...)
I agree that for many (but not everyone) an email would be fine. They have my email and mobile no on file as well. But regardless the 3 letters i was sent for the gastroscopy could easily have been combined into 1. Only 1 letter for the colonoscopy so far though to be fair.
 
Was on the news this morning that Guys hospital had done a week's worth of operations in one day but didn't give any details of how they'd managed it. :hmm:
 
I recall that Streeting’s reform idea might be for patients to self-refer to acute trusts. Definitely, something needs to be done about the relationship between primary care, social care and hospitals (which seem to hoover up all the senior clinical expertise, but deploy it in silos that ignore comorbidities).

But I can’t believe that the answer is to strengthen consultant-led hospital fiefdoms even further. I reckon that deploying more specialist doctors in primary care might be a better bet.
 
I recall that Streeting’s reform idea might be for patients to self-refer to acute trusts. Definitely, something needs to be done about the relationship between primary care, social care and hospitals (which seem to hoover up all the senior clinical expertise, but deploy it in silos that ignore comorbidities).

But I can’t believe that the answer is to strengthen consultant-led hospital fiefdoms even further. I reckon that deploying more specialist doctors in primary care might be a better bet.
From what I've seen with my parents' care over the last few years, there is a big need for much more joined-up thinking between hospitals and social care. One idea that I think would help would be for each patient to be allocated one person who has an overall responsibility to manage their care needs across all services and who can act as a single point of contact and, if necessary, an advocate. That doesn't have to be a doctor necessarily.
 
From what I've seen with my parents' care over the last few years, there is a big need for much more joined-up thinking between hospitals and social care. One idea that I think would help would be for each patient to be allocated one person who has an overall responsibility to manage their care needs across all services and who can act as a single point of contact and, if necessary, an advocate. That doesn't have to be a doctor necessarily.

Yes, as long as they are sharp enough to understand the various NICE protocols from clinical silos and to source person-specific guidance when there are comorbidities. Might be a sensible role for physicians associates, who currently get assigned into dead-end roles where they save time for GPs or for hospital departments, without making anything better for patients.
 
Back
Top Bottom