This talk about the NHS? Labour and Tories Watch

ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Wired_1800)
...I am still interested in knowing what key elements do you think should be added to the NHS to ensure it is fit for purpose.
Define "elements", "fit" and "purpose". If you mean free at the point of delivery - that's already a broken promise because drugs are not free (there's a prescription charge in England). It really depends on what you mean.

I went to a hospital recently and their process was fantastic. When you got in, you went to the reception and spoke with someone. After about 25 mins, you are seen by a nurse or a medical assistant, who assesses you. If your case is not serious, you are given a solution and sent away. If you case is serious you are asked to wait to be seen by a doctor. I was there for about 90 mins and it was one of my quickest visits to a hospital.

I wonder why many hospitals don't adopt such processes.
The NHS is very fragmented. It's not easy to unify.

If I can't even see scans (X rays and MRIs) from the neighbouring trust, what's the hope that things will change in a few years' time?
0
reply
modifiedgenes
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by ecolier)
Define "elements", "fit" and "purpose". If you mean free at the point of delivery - that's already a broken promise because drugs are not free (there's a prescription charge in England). It really depends on what you mean.



The NHS is very fragmented. It's not easy to unify.

If I can't even see scans (X rays and MRIs) from the neighbouring trust, what's the hope that things will change in a few years' time?
I find it baffling that many trusts use the exact same software to administrate patient records but all of them have their own peculiar layout and platform and none able to communicate with that of another. It must also come as something as a shock to any member of staff who changes their job or moves as the system is not immediately accessible to them. No doubt attempts to amalgamate these into one unified system have been made or considered but in my experience, anything involving software becomes hugely expensive very quickly.

I was however impressed that somehow our new GP practice that we moved to last year had all my patient records going back right into childhood- they had data which must have been 30 years old easily, presumably when it was first recorded on paper so someone somewhere has been busy inputting it into a database somewhere. Bearing in mind I have lived in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England throughout my childhood it was still all recorded.

My experience so far has been limited to work experience and only as a patient, but I believe the principal problems are political. Too often healthcare is used as a political football. The department for health should be governed by a cross-parliamentary group of MPs with long term policies that are reviewed by parliament annually. There is too much short-term thinking and attempt at making political capital out of it. All this talk of waiting times and funding and goals is nonsense, all it does is throw negativity on the public and the people who work within the NHS. It needs to be stopped. The department of Education is the same. Discussion about the health or education policy should be limited to formulating policy only, not politicians standing up and tying to boast about or criticise performance of these services.

You made a valid point about people with long standing clinical experience taking up managerial posts, but do all clinical staff desire that? Business management can be pretty thankless.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by ecolier)
Define "elements", "fit" and "purpose". If you mean free at the point of delivery - that's already a broken promise because drugs are not free (there's a prescription charge in England). It really depends on what you mean.



The NHS is very fragmented. It's not easy to unify.

If I can't even see scans (X rays and MRIs) from the neighbouring trust, what's the hope that things will change in a few years' time?
Am I the only who thinks the NHS is currently not fit for purpose? We have a bloated system with inefficiencies and high staff turnover. That is why I asked what you think are the processes or support that needs to be introduced to improve the system.
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by modifiedgenes)
I find it baffling that many trusts use the exact same software to administrate patient records but all of them have their own peculiar layout and platform and none able to communicate with that of another. It must also come as something as a shock to any member of staff who changes their job or moves as the system is not immediately accessible to them. No doubt attempts to amalgamate these into one unified system have been made or considered but in my experience, anything involving software becomes hugely expensive very quickly.
Yep agreed, it is quite strange both for patient and staff management how things are just fundamentally incompatible with other trusts.

I was however impressed that somehow our new GP practice that we moved to last year had all my patient records going back right into childhood- they had data which must have been 30 years old easily, presumably when it was first recorded on paper so someone somewhere has been busy inputting it into a database somewhere. Bearing in mind I have lived in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England throughout my childhood it was still all recorded.
The SCR is fairly good at that. I suppose it stems from the fact that there are loads of GP surgeries in the country and if there wasn't a good connection things wouldn't bode well! Hospital trusts can be huge and covering loads of patients (see Barts Health) so the need to integrate trusts' IT isn't as imminent (in the bosses' eyes!).

But for us doctors, wasting minutes-hours getting records in the long run costs far, far more than the short term pain of upgrading and unifying the system. But then who cares about the long term?

My experience so far has been limited to work experience and only as a patient, but I believe the principal problems are political. Too often healthcare is used as a political football. The department for health should be governed by a cross-parliamentary group of MPs with long term policies that are reviewed by parliament annually.
No, the BMA has already discussed this at length previously - the health budget is huge and there is no feasible way that the government (or the powers that be) would allow > 30% of the national budget to be controlled by an apolitical organisation. It's simply not feasible and someone has to be accountable.

There is too much short-term thinking and attempt at making political capital out of it. All this talk of waiting times and funding and goals is nonsense, all it does is throw negativity on the public and the people who work within the NHS. It needs to be stopped. The department of Education is the same. Discussion about the health or education policy should be limited to formulating policy only, not politicians standing up and tying to boast about or criticise performance of these services.
Yep, but then with managers in place - everything becomes a tick-box exercise, hence this thread!

You made a valid point about people with long standing clinical experience taking up managerial posts, but do all clinical staff desire that? Business management can be pretty thankless.
I am sure if one trust tries it and it improves the situation then there's no reason why the consultants would mind. Remember that most consultants do not just do clinical work, many have other roles (training director for junior doctors, head of department, medical school head of department etc.) so they are already involved in management anyway.

(Original post by Wired_1800)
Am I the only who thinks the NHS is currently not fit for purpose? We have a bloated system with inefficiencies and high staff turnover. That is why I asked what you think are the processes or support that needs to be introduced to improve the system.
Yes, but I don't know how we can overhaul the system without creating massive disruption and exodus of staff. The NHS has relied on the goodwill of its workforce for eons, but we are tired of change unless it's clear that things will improve for the patients.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by ecolier)
Yep agreed, it is quite strange both for patient and staff management how things are just fundamentally incompatible with other trusts.



The SCR is fairly good at that. I suppose it stems from the fact that there are loads of GP surgeries in the country and if there wasn't a good connection things wouldn't bode well! Hospital trusts can be huge and covering loads of patients (see Barts Health) so the need to integrate trusts' IT isn't as imminent (in the bosses' eyes!).

But for us doctors, wasting minutes-hours getting records in the long run costs far, far more than the short term pain of upgrading and unifying the system. But then who cares about the long term?



No, the BMA has already discussed this at length previously - the health budget is huge and there is no feasible way that the government (or the powers that be) would allow > 30% of the national budget to be controlled by an apolitical organisation. It's simply not feasible and someone has to be accountable.



Yep, but then with managers in place - everything becomes a tick-box exercise, hence this thread!



I am sure if one trust tries it and it improves the situation then there's no reason why the consultants would mind. Remember that most consultants do not just do clinical work, many have other roles (training director for junior doctors, head of department, medical school head of department etc.) so they are already involved in management anyway.



Yes, but I don't know how we can overhaul the system without creating massive disruption and exodus of staff. The NHS has relied on the goodwill of its workforce for eons, but we are tired of change unless it's clear that things will improve for the patients.
So you prefer the status quo?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Capitalism<3)
People tend to like Labour because of the NHS.
However, the NHS could have its spending tripled and people who still complain it is not enough. The main two problems are there are so much waste and it can't be criticised, it nearly as bad as Muslims and Muhammad. Which means cutting bureaucrats who drink tea and have meetings about meetings can be held to account.

Side note, please don't think I am a fan of the Tories, the Tories are fake conservatives, who want to teach 4 year olds about transgenderism, support feminism, don't care about crime or the nuclear family.
Its not clear imo but are you saying waste is one problem and not being allowed to criticise is the other?
If these are the main two problems then in the main the NHS would be sorted?
Why havent the tories sorted this out?
Why dont you think people are allowed to criticise the NHS? Do you feel you are censored? I hear people complaining and criticising all the time?
How much of the NHS problems are down to tea drinking bureaucrats? Would it not be possible to sack them all?


Are we to believe you are against transgenders, feminists, non nuclear families and the current legal/ policing system?

Thank you for your insight.
0
reply
modifiedgenes
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
Ecolier, the idea that any government minister or head of department is accountable for much these days is surely myth. Ever since the Blair government when 'ministries' became 'departments' there has been a deliberate distancing between the performance of departments and the MPs who preside over them simply to limit the political fall out of anything adverse.

Years ago Edwina Currie was basically obliged to resign as a junior minister for health just for an off-hand comment about eggs. Today, I am not aware of any MPs being forced to go unless they have been caught fiddling expenses or basically committed blue murder, the performance and morale of the people working under them appears to be the least of their worries?

Surely the NHS would be better off it the department of health was presided over by a parliamentary committee formed by members of multiple parties. For too long it has been used for reasons of political capital and subjected to nothing but short-term policies that are aimed at vote-winning. That needs to be stopped. It doesn't benefit voters or the NHS as an organisation.

Until we remove the possibility of political capital being made from the NHS, it will forever be stuck in a cycle of change and funding restructuring as each new parliament changes things simply because it presents an opportunity to gain votes. Having a committee formed from MPs of all stripes also means that they can admit to failures and accept accountability without it reflecting badly on their respective parties.
Last edited by modifiedgenes; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are cats selfish

Yes (144)
61.28%
No (91)
38.72%

Watched Threads

View All