The Student Room Group

NHS 'dangerously' short 100,000 staff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43143325

The NHS in England has nearly 100,000 jobs unfilled, a situation described as "dangerously" understaffed. The total represents one in 12 of all the posts in the health service and would be enough to staff 10 large hospitals.

It includes 35,000 nurse posts and nearly 10,000 doctor vacancies. The figures have been revealed in a finance report, showing NHS services are heading for a £931m deficit this year, twice what was planned.

The overspend by hospitals, mental health trusts and ambulance services has been partly blamed on the need to cover the vacancies with overtime and temporary staff.

The accounts to the end of December also show higher than expected spending on paying the private sector to see NHS patients in an attempt to relieve the pressure on hard-pressed A&E units.

Despite the overspend, the forecast is still some way short of the record £2.45bn deficit accrued in 2015-16.

Scroll to see replies

Same in the teaching world. Currently in Manchester high schools are fully subscribed with 50,000 students on role. Primary schools however have 83,000 students on role. You do the maths!
Conservatives approach : Privatise the NHS
Labours approach : Tax the rich and inject billions of pounds to the NHS
Lib dems approach : Do nothing


Is there any party that will do anything helpful towards this failed service?
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
Conservatives approach : Privatise the NHS
Labours approach : Tax the rich and inject billions of pounds to the NHS
Lib dems approach : Do nothing


Is there any party that will do anything helpful towards this failed service?


Haha that's so true, it is a hard problem to tackle and it's going to require some compromise either way.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
Conservatives approach : Privatise the NHS
Labours approach : Tax the rich and inject billions of pounds to the NHS
Lib dems approach : Do nothing


Is there any party that will do anything helpful towards this failed service?


You answered your own question. Labour.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
Conservatives approach : Privatise the NHS
Labours approach : Tax the rich and inject billions of pounds to the NHS
Lib dems approach : Do nothing


Is there any party that will do anything helpful towards this failed service?


Well that's not the Conservative's approach as they also go for the "let's throw lots of money at the problem and hope it foes away" approach

The reason nobody will do anything is because there is a small portion of the population who would shout privatisation privatisation privatisation, even though the vast majority really don't give a **** who provides their healthcare as long as the universal access is maintained.
I don’t understand how the NHS is lacking doctors if medicine is one of the most competitive university course...?
Original post by Captain Haddock
You answered your own question. Labour.


No. Injecting billions of pounds into the NHS is not helpful because it already receives a **** ton of money it would just create more problems and pressure.
What is needed is an urgent review of how money is spent and distribution towards the most urgent sector which is A&E which no party is calling for because there aren't enough beds, clean sheets and staff. And people are being influenced not to become doctors or nurses because of the mess the NUS is in.
Original post by rainbowcat1437
I don’t understand how the NHS is lacking doctors if medicine is one of the most competitive university course...?


We don’t train enough doctors in this country. Yes the course is competitive, that is partly because there are so few training spaces.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Well that's not the Conservative's approach as they also go for the "let's throw lots of money at the problem and hope it foes away" approach

The reason nobody will do anything is because there is a small portion of the population who would shout privatisation privatisation privatisation, even though the vast majority really don't give a **** who provides their healthcare as long as the universal access is maintained.


This.

Throwing money is the only option though. The uninformed idiots would scream "privitisation" at any meaningful reform.

Meanwhile the inefficiency and unimpressive outcomes continue.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by rainbowcat1437
I don’t understand how the NHS is lacking doctors if medicine is one of the most competitive university course...?


Original post by SophieSmall
We don’t train enough doctors in this country. Yes the course is competitive, that is partly because there are so few training spaces.


You also need to remember that the students that do make it onto the course may not complete it, or may not choose to pursue a career as a physician after graduation. Also, for the people who do go on to become doctors, NHS retention rates are pretty abysmal. You can train as many doctors as you like but you need to be able to keep them too.
I'm not from the UK so I don't know a lot about this - could somebody please explain why people are so against privatising the NHS (especially if it'll solve many problems)?

I know a lot of GPs who leave the UK and move to Dubai so they can work private, and they all seem so much happier.
Original post by euphrosyne
I'm not from the UK so I don't know a lot about this - could somebody please explain why people are so against privatising the NHS (especially if it'll solve many problems)?

I know a lot of GPs who leave the UK and move to Dubai so they can work private, and they all seem so much happier.


The concern is that privatisation may lead to the NHS not being “free at the point of access” which could lead to the poorer in society not seeking healthcare causing poor health and furthering health inequalities.
Original post by SophieSmall
The concern is that privatisation may lead to the NHS not being “free at the point of access” which could lead to the poorer in society not seeking healthcare causing poor health and furthering health inequalities.


Although the UK is the only country in the world with an NHS-style system, and other European countries/Australia etc seem to manage with partially insurance-based systems.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
No. Injecting billions of pounds into the NHS is not helpful because it already receives a **** ton of money it would just create more problems and pressure.
What is needed is an urgent review of how money is spent and distribution towards the most urgent sector which is A&E which no party is calling for because there aren't enough beds, clean sheets and staff. And people are being influenced not to become doctors or nurses because of the mess the NUS is in.


Well clearly the NHS needs more than a **** ton. If we are spending one **** ton, then many of our neighbours are spending 1.2, 1.5, even close to 2 **** tons on a per capita basis, so evidently 'a **** ton' is not a particularly impressive amount of money when it comes to something as important as health. One could argue all day about how money should be spent but it's all academic if there isn't enough money in the first place.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Although the UK is the only country in the world with an NHS-style system, and other European countries/Australia etc seem to manage with partially insurance-based systems.


I’m aware, not saying that is what will happen. Just saying that is what a lot of people are concerned about. Because they asked. :smile:
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
No. Injecting billions of pounds into the NHS is not helpful because it already receives a **** ton of money it would just create more problems and pressure.
What is needed is an urgent review of how money is spent and distribution towards the most urgent sector which is A&E which no party is calling for because there aren't enough beds, clean sheets and staff. And people are being influenced not to become doctors or nurses because of the mess the NUS is in.


"**** ton" yes, you sound like someone who knows what you're talking about.
Original post by SophieSmall
I’m aware, not saying that is what will happen. Just saying that is what a lot of people are concerned about. Because they asked. :smile:


Yep, sorry, my post was not intended as a criticism of you.
Original post by Captain Haddock
Well clearly the NHS needs more than a **** ton. If we are spending one **** ton, then many of our neighbours are spending 1.2, 1.5, even close to 2 **** tons on a per capita basis, so evidently 'a **** ton' is not a particularly impressive amount of money when it comes to something as important as health. One could argue all day about how money should be spent but it's all academic if there isn't enough money in the first place.


The proportion of UK GDP spent on healthcare compares perfectly reasonably with other Western countries.

https://www.ft.com/content/4a009b68-7cf1-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Although the UK is the only country in the world with an NHS-style system, and other European countries/Australia etc seem to manage with partially insurance-based systems.


You give too much credit to the UK government actually being able to get something right in the long-term. With Comrade Corbyn, Theresa the Doormat, and the Fantom LibDems, there's not exactly much to be optimistic about.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you