Proud to be a lawyer ???
Discussion
julian64 said:
Bluebarge said:
If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.
Idiot.Sorry just couldn't muster further comment.
The NHS generally runs on the basis of trying to find a 'suitable' (i.e. dispoable and not part of the clique) person to scapegoat , generally this will be a Nurse, Midwife , Paramedic or None Consultant Career Grade Doctor, although other HCPC professionals will occasionally be thrown to the lions, if a junior member of staff who is part of the clique is implicated they will miraculously esacpe from the remit of the investigation.
The Nurse/ Midwife / Paramedic will generally be a band 5 or band 6 practitioner as they will be the person who has (or should have) beein responsible for the care of the individual at the time of the incident, the system will ignore the wider issues in the unit / business unit as the initial investigation will be undertaken by the relevant band 7 and adjucated by the relevant band 8 or in the cases where it's a NCCG Doctor the investigateion will be conducted by the Clinical Lead for the speciality and adjucated by one ofthe assistant Medical Directors ... therefore addressing the failures of these managers doesn't happen as it's them who do the investigations. So the lazy insolent and difficult HCAs won;t dealt with and their evidence will not be challenged by the management side and challenges by the 'defendant' will be dismissed as trying to pass the buck.
sometimes consultants are scapegoated, usually because they are the wrong colour or gender for the speciality or trained outside the EU.
Breadvan72 said:
With each passing week I become less and less inclined to give free advice here. Ignorance is curable, but wilful ignorance and stubborn prejudice are inexcusable, and PH is awash with those.
I admit to not having been so tolerant of late, however, to have posts removed and to be banned from threads for pointing out that people are being wilfully dishonest or misleading, has in itself led me to think PH has gone beyond shelf life. Particularly this section and NPE.Ironically, it's the knobheads doing it who have the 'report' button on speed dial.
Snowboy said:
That's one if the reasons why medical care in the US is so expensive.
The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
Might keep certain standards maintained, as certain basic standards seem to have been allowed to lapse. To the medical staff posting, would you expect an 86 year old person to receive stitches in the face after a fall and be allowed home, when his data was on the hospital records . He got home ,cleaned up the mess and returned the cleaning stuff to the fridge, showing his state of confusion. He then suffered a stroke .That is in one hospital not in special measures ,where a simple check on the age and severity of injury might have saved a person moths of trauma in hospitals ,apart from the financial aspect to the NHS of providing full time care for a patient in a high care hospital for approximately nine months. looking back at MPH post, I got the usual scapegoat tactics , but at that time I & sister were more concerned about dad's future health than looking for a scapegoat.The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
Our local place is in special measures with a long list of problems ,including MRSA /ECOLI and Novavirus outbreaks. There is a supply of handwash readily available, but the advice is confusing. I thought the use was to prevent infection coming in and prevent visitors etc from contamination from infected surfaces. The advice given out is that it it to prevent incomers picking up nasties . If that is the case ,then hospital cleansing /disinfection procedures seem to have gotten it wrong ,as that would intimate that a hospital id full of nasties waiting to get out ,rather than a desire to prevent nasties getting in . And again ,our local has one of the highest fall lists of the UK.
BV/LL and the others with at least LLD after their name- since the failed Scots Legal pair wrecked the legal system by denying legal assistance to those who can't afford it, blokes like you can at least point us in the right direction . I am one who does appreciate your effort.
Edited by Who me ? on Saturday 28th June 20:42
[quote=Who me ?]
Snowboy said:
That's one if the reasons why medical care in the US is so expensive.
The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
Might keep certain standards maintained. To the medical staff posting, would you expect an 86 year old person to receive stitches in the face after a fall and be allowed home, when his data was on the hospital records . He got home ,cleaned up the mess and returned the cleaning stuff to the fridge, showing his state of confusion. He then suffered a stroke .That is in one hospital not in special measures ,where a simple check on the age and severity of injury might have saved a person moths of trauma in hospitals ,apart from the financial aspect to the NHS of providing full time care for a patient in a high care hospital for approximately nine months. The insurance premiums to protect against lawsuits.
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
There should be some mechanism of control and oversight, but allowing private law firms to sue the NHS is just wrong.
you appear to be confusing Acute Hospital care with community delivered healthcare ( which includes health-led intermediate care in cottage hospitals or Intermediate care funded beds in Nursing homes ) or 'emergency' social care .
part of the problem here is two fold
- single points of access for intermediate care run by social w**kers making it very hard to get people into that system, add in the (de facto) ex-Nurse but still registered as such idiots in 'Bed / clinical site management' making the choice lie to admit the patient or discharge them home.
- the level of hassle that arises from the ignorant over the use of intermediate care beds , which means where a patient appears to have capacity by standard brief tests discharge to home is the path of least resistance.
MPH, I kept a few details back from last post for brevity. Patient details were on hospital records as copied from his GP records as suffering from several problems, but major items such as glaucoma and Angina & HBP( and known to the local hospital, not a cottage or small hospital, it caters for major incidents and is seen regularly on TV programs such as Highland Emergency). The injury was to his jaw, but he managed to drag a chair and himself to his front porch and attract attention , where the ambulance crew found him, according to the neighbour who called 999, in a dazed condition, and that should have had alarm bells ringing with ambulance staff and A & E doctors . He was taken in in to A & E, stitched up and released on an A & E DOCTORS recommendation ( as per conversation a few days after with the head of A & E, where it was not realised that he was 86 years old and suffering from the afore mentioned problems). Not realised he was 86 = no one ,doctor on duty/nursing staff checked his age/ medical problems. I'd say LACK OF DUTY OF CARE.
Then you talk about return to home ,where there was no person to look after him ,possibly something medical staff had failed to look at. Not even a day visit from his local GP ,who e knew well,or a community Nurse, as an at risk patient?
You talk about blame. Then apportion this one out. I have six grand kids, but I could have seven. One day my son's partner was taken in to our ( now in special measures ) hospital maternity wing, with heavy bleeding. Nothing wrong, says the staff. Hours later, she was taken on blues back to hospital for a still birth.
Then you talk about return to home ,where there was no person to look after him ,possibly something medical staff had failed to look at. Not even a day visit from his local GP ,who e knew well,or a community Nurse, as an at risk patient?
You talk about blame. Then apportion this one out. I have six grand kids, but I could have seven. One day my son's partner was taken in to our ( now in special measures ) hospital maternity wing, with heavy bleeding. Nothing wrong, says the staff. Hours later, she was taken on blues back to hospital for a still birth.
[quote=Who me ?]MPH, I kept a few details back from last post for brevity. Patient details were on hospital records as copied from his GP records as suffering from several problems, but major items such as glaucoma and Angina & HBP( and known to the local hospital, not a cottage or small hospital, it caters for major incidents and is seen regularly on TV programs such as Highland Emergency).
[/quote]
if you are lucky you'll have a patient's records within 4 hours if they are paper only - and that's only if staff are selective about requesting notes when people attend the emergency dept.
summary care record may have pertinent relevant information if the GP has ensured it;s updated and the patient hasn;t been told to opt out
[quote=Who me ?]
The injury was to his jaw, but he managed to drag a chair and himself to his front porch and attract attention , where the ambulance crew found him, according to the neighbour who called 999, in a dazed condition, and that should have had alarm bells ringing with ambulance staff and A & E doctors . He was taken in in to A & E, stitched up and released on an A & E DOCTORS recommendation ( as per conversation a few days after with the head of A & E, where it was not realised that he was 86 years old and suffering from the afore mentioned problems). Not realised he was 86 = no one ,doctor on duty/nursing staff checked his age/ medical problems. I'd say LACK OF DUTY OF CARE.
[/quote]
Age is not a relevant factor in making discharge decisions.
Capacity and co-morbidity may be relevant , but if the person has capacity healthcare staff can neither force answers nor falsely limprison and assault a patient.
[quote=Who me ?]
Then you talk about return to home ,where there was no person to look after him ,possibly something medical staff had failed to look at. Not even a day visit from his local GP ,who e knew well,or a community Nurse, as an at risk patient?
[/quote]
and your point is ?
[quote=Who me ?]
You talk about blame. Then apportion this one out. I have six grand kids, but I could have seven. One day my son's partner was taken in to our ( now in special measures ) hospital maternity wing, with heavy bleeding. Nothing wrong, says the staff. Hours later, she was taken on blues back to hospital for a still birth.
[/quote]
and if we admitted every expectant mother who attended A+E or a maternity unit with symptoms we'd still have problems with miscarriage and still birth there is an unquantifiably small chance that there may have been a different outcome but at what cost ...
[/quote]
if you are lucky you'll have a patient's records within 4 hours if they are paper only - and that's only if staff are selective about requesting notes when people attend the emergency dept.
summary care record may have pertinent relevant information if the GP has ensured it;s updated and the patient hasn;t been told to opt out
[quote=Who me ?]
The injury was to his jaw, but he managed to drag a chair and himself to his front porch and attract attention , where the ambulance crew found him, according to the neighbour who called 999, in a dazed condition, and that should have had alarm bells ringing with ambulance staff and A & E doctors . He was taken in in to A & E, stitched up and released on an A & E DOCTORS recommendation ( as per conversation a few days after with the head of A & E, where it was not realised that he was 86 years old and suffering from the afore mentioned problems). Not realised he was 86 = no one ,doctor on duty/nursing staff checked his age/ medical problems. I'd say LACK OF DUTY OF CARE.
[/quote]
Age is not a relevant factor in making discharge decisions.
Capacity and co-morbidity may be relevant , but if the person has capacity healthcare staff can neither force answers nor falsely limprison and assault a patient.
[quote=Who me ?]
Then you talk about return to home ,where there was no person to look after him ,possibly something medical staff had failed to look at. Not even a day visit from his local GP ,who e knew well,or a community Nurse, as an at risk patient?
[/quote]
and your point is ?
[quote=Who me ?]
You talk about blame. Then apportion this one out. I have six grand kids, but I could have seven. One day my son's partner was taken in to our ( now in special measures ) hospital maternity wing, with heavy bleeding. Nothing wrong, says the staff. Hours later, she was taken on blues back to hospital for a still birth.
[/quote]
and if we admitted every expectant mother who attended A+E or a maternity unit with symptoms we'd still have problems with miscarriage and still birth there is an unquantifiably small chance that there may have been a different outcome but at what cost ...
Interesting thread.
A few observations; someone mentioned the safety culture in the aviation business. This is exactly the approach Sir Robert Francis has been taking. In a nutshell he opined that if the aviation business subscribed to the NHS culture of denial and obfuscation, then planes would be dropping out of the sky regularly.
That the closed culture of denial exists in the NHS, is I think no longer in doubt. Sir Robert Francis has been charged with reviewing the cases of Whistleblowers sacked for raising patient safety issues. For anyone who is interested just google, Edwin Jesudason, Kim Holt, Raj Mattu, Sharmila Chowdhury to name but a few. Have a look at http://medicalharm.org/ if you'd like an overview of how some managers receive news about patient safety issues. Or have a look at http://www.patientsfirst.org.uk/ set up by Kim Holt after her experiences at GOSH. Many excellent clinicians have had their lives ruined by breaking the code of Omerta.
It is hoped that the Francis Review will recommend a Public Inquiry.
Compensation for errors is a tricky area. If the harm is contextually avoidable, then it should be payable. The NHS is not free. It is free at the point of delivery by virtue of the huge taxation burden.
Moreover, it is not a national service. It is a franchise operation controlled by ill informed lay politicians and which has extremely variable management. Managers who by the way, largely have no regulatory bodies to call them to account. When they f
k up they just pop up somewhere else on the magic roundabout at a higher salary. Personally I am aware of world class Trusts and Stalinist Trusts that deliver pisspoor care. A friend was the national director of health of a poorish African country in the 80's. She told me that she was appalled at the standard of care she had seen in this country which she described as being third world; and that was nearly thirty years ago.
There are some fantastic clinicians working for the NHS, it is important that they are allowed to say when things are going wrong. In the latest national survey, many staff said they were scared to raise safety issues. I wonder why?
The bottom line is that everyone wants better services and that they be cost effective, that will never be achieved while the Stalinist mediocre highly paid managers rule.
So, Proud to be a lawyer? Well I am not a lawyer (although I very nearly did law at Warwick a million years ago) but Robert Francis is, and I'm proud of what he's done and what he's about to do.
A few observations; someone mentioned the safety culture in the aviation business. This is exactly the approach Sir Robert Francis has been taking. In a nutshell he opined that if the aviation business subscribed to the NHS culture of denial and obfuscation, then planes would be dropping out of the sky regularly.
That the closed culture of denial exists in the NHS, is I think no longer in doubt. Sir Robert Francis has been charged with reviewing the cases of Whistleblowers sacked for raising patient safety issues. For anyone who is interested just google, Edwin Jesudason, Kim Holt, Raj Mattu, Sharmila Chowdhury to name but a few. Have a look at http://medicalharm.org/ if you'd like an overview of how some managers receive news about patient safety issues. Or have a look at http://www.patientsfirst.org.uk/ set up by Kim Holt after her experiences at GOSH. Many excellent clinicians have had their lives ruined by breaking the code of Omerta.
It is hoped that the Francis Review will recommend a Public Inquiry.
Compensation for errors is a tricky area. If the harm is contextually avoidable, then it should be payable. The NHS is not free. It is free at the point of delivery by virtue of the huge taxation burden.
Moreover, it is not a national service. It is a franchise operation controlled by ill informed lay politicians and which has extremely variable management. Managers who by the way, largely have no regulatory bodies to call them to account. When they f
k up they just pop up somewhere else on the magic roundabout at a higher salary. Personally I am aware of world class Trusts and Stalinist Trusts that deliver pisspoor care. A friend was the national director of health of a poorish African country in the 80's. She told me that she was appalled at the standard of care she had seen in this country which she described as being third world; and that was nearly thirty years ago.There are some fantastic clinicians working for the NHS, it is important that they are allowed to say when things are going wrong. In the latest national survey, many staff said they were scared to raise safety issues. I wonder why?
The bottom line is that everyone wants better services and that they be cost effective, that will never be achieved while the Stalinist mediocre highly paid managers rule.
So, Proud to be a lawyer? Well I am not a lawyer (although I very nearly did law at Warwick a million years ago) but Robert Francis is, and I'm proud of what he's done and what he's about to do.
Edited by IanA2 on Sunday 29th June 19:01
IanA2 said:
Interesting thread.
A few observations; someone mentioned the safety culture in the aviation business. This is exactly the approach Sir Robert Francis has been taking. In a nutshell he opined that if the aviation business subscribed to the NHS culture of denial and obfuscation, then planes would be dropping out of the sky regularly.
That the closed culture of denial exists in the NHS, is I think no longer in doubt. Sir Robert Francis has been charged with reviewing the cases of Whistleblowers sacked for raising patient safety issues. For anyone who is interested just google, Edwin Jesudason, Kim Holt, Raj Mattu, Sharmila Chowdhury to name but a few. Have a look at http://medicalharm.org/ if you'd like an overview of how some managers receive news about patient safety issues. Or have a look at http://www.patientsfirst.org.uk/ set up by Kim Holt after her experiences at GOSH. Many excellent clinicians have had their lives ruined by breaking the code of Omerta.
It is hoped that the Francis Review will recommend a Public Inquiry.
Compensation for errors is a tricky area. If the harm is contextually avoidable, then it should be payable. The NHS is not free. It is free at the point of delivery by virtue of the huge taxation burden.
Moreover, it is not a national service. It is a franchise operation controlled by ill informed lay politicians and which has extremely variable management. Managers who by the way, largely have no regulatory bodies to call them to account. When they fk up they just pop up somewhere else on the magic roundabout at a higher salary. Personally I am aware of world class Trusts and Stalinist Trusts that deliver pisspoor care. A friend was the national director of health of a poorish African country in the 80's. She told me that she was appalled at the standard of care she had seen in this country which she described as being third world; and that was nearly thirty years ago.
There are some fantastic clinicians working for the NHS, it is important that they are allowed to say when things are going wrong. In the latest national survey, many staff said they were scared to raise safety issues. I wonder why?
The bottom line is that everyone wants better services and that they be cost effective, that will never be achieved while the Stalinist mediocre highly paid managers rule.
So, Proud to be a lawyer? Well I am not a lawyer (although I very nearly did law at Warwick a million years ago) but Robert Francis is, and I'm proud of what he's done and what he's about to do.
Interesting post.A few observations; someone mentioned the safety culture in the aviation business. This is exactly the approach Sir Robert Francis has been taking. In a nutshell he opined that if the aviation business subscribed to the NHS culture of denial and obfuscation, then planes would be dropping out of the sky regularly.
That the closed culture of denial exists in the NHS, is I think no longer in doubt. Sir Robert Francis has been charged with reviewing the cases of Whistleblowers sacked for raising patient safety issues. For anyone who is interested just google, Edwin Jesudason, Kim Holt, Raj Mattu, Sharmila Chowdhury to name but a few. Have a look at http://medicalharm.org/ if you'd like an overview of how some managers receive news about patient safety issues. Or have a look at http://www.patientsfirst.org.uk/ set up by Kim Holt after her experiences at GOSH. Many excellent clinicians have had their lives ruined by breaking the code of Omerta.
It is hoped that the Francis Review will recommend a Public Inquiry.
Compensation for errors is a tricky area. If the harm is contextually avoidable, then it should be payable. The NHS is not free. It is free at the point of delivery by virtue of the huge taxation burden.
Moreover, it is not a national service. It is a franchise operation controlled by ill informed lay politicians and which has extremely variable management. Managers who by the way, largely have no regulatory bodies to call them to account. When they f
k up they just pop up somewhere else on the magic roundabout at a higher salary. Personally I am aware of world class Trusts and Stalinist Trusts that deliver pisspoor care. A friend was the national director of health of a poorish African country in the 80's. She told me that she was appalled at the standard of care she had seen in this country which she described as being third world; and that was nearly thirty years ago.There are some fantastic clinicians working for the NHS, it is important that they are allowed to say when things are going wrong. In the latest national survey, many staff said they were scared to raise safety issues. I wonder why?
The bottom line is that everyone wants better services and that they be cost effective, that will never be achieved while the Stalinist mediocre highly paid managers rule.
So, Proud to be a lawyer? Well I am not a lawyer (although I very nearly did law at Warwick a million years ago) but Robert Francis is, and I'm proud of what he's done and what he's about to do.
The problem with the NHS is not entirely the fault of the institution.
Enquiries should concentrate on trying to eradicate the causes of a problem and not trying to blame an individual. There is no sense in sacking someone who made an error unless their actions were criminal.
The reason the aviation industry is spared the blame culture to a great extent is that politicians interfere much less frequently. With the NHS (not to mention the police) it is the opposite. If the response to any problem is for them in charge to blame someone then a reaction of denial is more understandable.
If a pilot makes a mistake then there is normally a reason for this. They might not have trained properly, the instructions might be faulty, it might be that there are two similar situations, each with different solutions, that sort of thing. The desire of the investigation is to ensure that in similar circs a pilot would not make the same mistakes, and the system works to a great extent.
In the NHS, social services, police, prison service, probation, customs, immigration, et al, there is political capital to be made out of an error, so there is little or no chance of improvement.
We see in the silly papers, such as the DM, that headlines depend on political persuasion. We know that some MPs, some high in office, on both sides of the house, don't give a damn about anything other than votes.
If someone is incapacitated by a medical error then that person may well require life-long assistance and there is a financial implication to this. If a person has gone into an operation knowing full well that the odds showed a possibility that they might end up with a problem that would be life-long then if it pans out wrong then they too will need life-long treatment, with all the financial implications that that entails.
Medical wards are understaffed. Nurses are under tremendous pressure. To fulfill the remit they need more staff. This is not something any government wants to admit.
My daughter worked as a midwife for a few months at a hospital which was featured in various papers, not all frivolous, with regards to a high death rate for children and mothers. My daughter came up with reasons for the problems, many quite obvious, and all solvable, albeit with a fair bit of application. But no one wants to know.
In the case of a death or injury to a child the first thing that happens is that there is a search not for the actual causes but for someone to blame. Bring in lawyers, who have no need to consider the future of the hospital, but are only responsible to the self-interest of their client, bring in the local politician who is only bothered by the risk to their post, bring in senior staff who are worried that they might be blamed, sacked and then their livelihood ruined, bring in all the others who are hounded, chased, threatened and examined, and we have no need to wonder why denial, or rather self defence, is the concern of all of them.
So, so much easier to blame. And many indulge in the it. It is a way to vent your anger, to compensate for loss, to mitigate your own pain.
Someone must pay is the refrain, either by money or by being punished. The thing is though is that as their is no intent to improve, we all end up paying.
Derek Smith said:
Interesting post.
The problem with the NHS is not entirely the fault of the institution.
Enquiries should concentrate on trying to eradicate the causes of a problem and not trying to blame an individual. There is no sense in sacking someone who made an error unless their actions were criminal.
The problem is that the lay management world views 'decisive management action'as being about finding individuals to blame and removing them from the system ... |Unfortunately many Nurse Managers are underqualified for their roles especially in the more Peripheral Hospitals - as they are 'trained nuirsxes' who se primary professional qualification was 'traditional' Nurse training, their Diploma and possibly much of their Degree (other than dissertation) are based on 'accreditation of prior learning' of post basic courses which were not necessarily delivered in the academically rigourous way the current equivalents ( which are now at NQF level 6 (honours) and 7 (masters) rather than NQF 4 and 5 'equivalent')The problem with the NHS is not entirely the fault of the institution.
Enquiries should concentrate on trying to eradicate the causes of a problem and not trying to blame an individual. There is no sense in sacking someone who made an error unless their actions were criminal.
Derek Smith said:
The reason the aviation industry is spared the blame culture to a great extent is that politicians interfere much less frequently. With the NHS (not to mention the police) it is the opposite. If the response to any problem is for them in charge to blame someone then a reaction of denial is more understandable.
Crew / Cockpit Resource Management removes Ranks and Roles from the equation when there is a potential problem identified , this the exact Opposite from the situation i nthe NHS where 'Rank' is thrown around on an almost continuous basis - ironically the military and the uniformed Emergency services are far less rank conscious in these kinds of scenarios than the NHS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_managem...
[quote]
If a pilot makes a mistake then there is normally a reason for this. They might not have trained properly, the instructions might be faulty, it might be that there are two similar situations, each with different solutions, that sort of thing. The desire of the investigation is to ensure that in similar circs a pilot would not make the same mistakes, and the system works to a great extent.
In the NHS, social services, police, prison service, probation, customs, immigration, et al, there is political capital to be made out of an error, so there is little or no chance of improvement.
blaming an individual is also self protection for the line manager who is undertaking the investigation if the Ward Manager is the investigating officer and case presenter for management side at any discip are they going to drop themselves in it to the next level of management who are sitting as assessors?
Derek - my point on old dad, was not one of looking at blame, but at the fact that someone IMHO, had failed to look after the condition of an able bodied person ( in normal circumstances) ,but in this case ,he was not able, and he was not afforded the care he needed. He was that bemused that he sat in his front doorway and lit matches to attract attention, when he had a working phone within six feet. I found the stack of burnt out matches the next day on his front step. I'd have expected any paramedic to have seen this and with questions to the person calling for assistance asked why, with a report to the doctor in A & E.
Derek- from past posts I know you were a BIB in charge. Q- what would you expect a unit to do if they found a dis orientated OAP on the street ?.
but from MPH'S replies I suspect he/she is one of the persons in charge of the run down of the NHS- a mr Harper( of the series the Royal)where it's OK to spend lots of thousands on Hospital administrators, but save pennies by getting in contract labour to clean . I see he/she/it thinks it's OK to send possible miscarriages home to bleed . But then , we don't have the best NHS staff in the world- all those have gone to places like Australia/ USA, where they get paid the rate for the job.
Derek- from past posts I know you were a BIB in charge. Q- what would you expect a unit to do if they found a dis orientated OAP on the street ?.
but from MPH'S replies I suspect he/she is one of the persons in charge of the run down of the NHS- a mr Harper( of the series the Royal)where it's OK to spend lots of thousands on Hospital administrators, but save pennies by getting in contract labour to clean . I see he/she/it thinks it's OK to send possible miscarriages home to bleed . But then , we don't have the best NHS staff in the world- all those have gone to places like Australia/ USA, where they get paid the rate for the job.
tenpenceshort said:
Breadvan72 said:
With each passing week I become less and less inclined to give free advice here. Ignorance is curable, but wilful ignorance and stubborn prejudice are inexcusable, and PH is awash with those.
I admit to not having been so tolerant of late,[quote=Who me ?]<snip>
but from MPH'S replies I suspect he/she is one of the persons in charge of the run down of the NHS- a mr Harper( of the series the Royal)where it's OK to spend lots of thousands on Hospital administrators, but save pennies by getting in contract labour to clean . I see he/she/it thinks it's OK to send possible miscarriages home to bleed . But then , we don't have the best NHS staff in the world- all those have gone to places like Australia/ USA, where they get paid the rate for the job.
[/quote]
You really haven;t got a clue have you, i've spent well over a decade working the NHS, narrowly avoiding being bullied and harassed out of Healthcare twice by underqualified incompetents in Navy Frocks and despite this i'll be heading back for more. Bercasue the only way to change things is from the inside
There are only so many beds and part of that is managing the use of these beds, not in the way the (ex) Nurses of Clinical Site Management like to do it but based on sound clinical judgements,
A significant problem with bed management is the way in which social w**kers will not take responsibility for their remit instead dumping it on the NHS and the Police, there are also issues in some places with Mental health teams who won't step up to the plate and carry out their duties with the necessary vigour instead leaving it to the Police, Ambulance and general Hoispital Emergency and acute assessment services to deal with people who need their services and interventions rather than dumping in a Cell, A+E dept cubicle or as an outlier in which ever random acute hospital bed is under least pressure.
There seems to be a rather remarkable level of excessive emotion attached to miscarriage - especially in early pregnancy, as for admitting every women who presents with a fear of miscarriage - again what is the clinical justification in all but a tiny tiny minority of cases ...
but from MPH'S replies I suspect he/she is one of the persons in charge of the run down of the NHS- a mr Harper( of the series the Royal)where it's OK to spend lots of thousands on Hospital administrators, but save pennies by getting in contract labour to clean . I see he/she/it thinks it's OK to send possible miscarriages home to bleed . But then , we don't have the best NHS staff in the world- all those have gone to places like Australia/ USA, where they get paid the rate for the job.
[/quote]
You really haven;t got a clue have you, i've spent well over a decade working the NHS, narrowly avoiding being bullied and harassed out of Healthcare twice by underqualified incompetents in Navy Frocks and despite this i'll be heading back for more. Bercasue the only way to change things is from the inside
There are only so many beds and part of that is managing the use of these beds, not in the way the (ex) Nurses of Clinical Site Management like to do it but based on sound clinical judgements,
A significant problem with bed management is the way in which social w**kers will not take responsibility for their remit instead dumping it on the NHS and the Police, there are also issues in some places with Mental health teams who won't step up to the plate and carry out their duties with the necessary vigour instead leaving it to the Police, Ambulance and general Hoispital Emergency and acute assessment services to deal with people who need their services and interventions rather than dumping in a Cell, A+E dept cubicle or as an outlier in which ever random acute hospital bed is under least pressure.
There seems to be a rather remarkable level of excessive emotion attached to miscarriage - especially in early pregnancy, as for admitting every women who presents with a fear of miscarriage - again what is the clinical justification in all but a tiny tiny minority of cases ...
I'm NOT talking about an EARLY miscarriage. I'm talking about a woman who walked into an A & E ,bleeding from down below, at ALMOST FULL TERM. She lost the child, ON THE WAY HOME,ON A BUS. Explain that and ask why some folks ask for legal help. Then explain to my son ,why he had to bury his child.
[quote=Who me ?]I'm NOT talking about an EARLY miscarriage. I'm talking about a woman who walked into an A & E ,bleeding from down below, at ALMOST FULL TERM. She lost the child, ON THE WAY HOME,ON A BUS. Explain that and ask why some folks ask for legal help. Then explain to my son ,why he had to bury his child.
[/quote]
Unfortunately as someone who has had to bury two born too earlies of my own i still consider there is rather a lot of over emotional claptrap talked about miscarriage - many are unpreventable and there is nothing that can be done to prevent the miscarriage, regardless of setting, profession or grade of staff in attendance.
[/quote]
Unfortunately as someone who has had to bury two born too earlies of my own i still consider there is rather a lot of over emotional claptrap talked about miscarriage - many are unpreventable and there is nothing that can be done to prevent the miscarriage, regardless of setting, profession or grade of staff in attendance.
Pity Charlotte Leslie didn't win the HSC Chair vote, touching on my comment about the magic roundabout, for those who don't know who she is, she's the Conservative MP for Bristol North West and member of the health select committee, she said:
“It is a grimly sick joke that two people so intimately involved in running such a fatally failed organisation should be getting rich by advising other health bodies on 'reputation’. This is particularly sick news for those who buried loved ones because the CQC was focused not on saving their relatives’ lives, but burying any bad news. This is a bitter indictment of the culture of the NHS over previous years, and raises serious questions as to how we can ever clean up the NHS if shameless individuals who were part of the rot are never held to account but keep on returning, making even more money out of the system.”
See the full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10934...
“It is a grimly sick joke that two people so intimately involved in running such a fatally failed organisation should be getting rich by advising other health bodies on 'reputation’. This is particularly sick news for those who buried loved ones because the CQC was focused not on saving their relatives’ lives, but burying any bad news. This is a bitter indictment of the culture of the NHS over previous years, and raises serious questions as to how we can ever clean up the NHS if shameless individuals who were part of the rot are never held to account but keep on returning, making even more money out of the system.”
See the full article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10934...
Breadvan72 said:
When I started at the Bar in the mid 1980s it was considered rather bad form even to have a business card, and touting of all forms was frowned upon. Of course, people did network (that word was not yet in use) in informal ways, and even then there were occasional beauty parades, but it was all very low key. Nowadays my chambers employs a team of professional marketing staff, and I am on constant three line whips to turn up to assorted schmoozefests (Attending these, I feel that I might as well hang a sign from my neck saying "will work for canapés"). Our marketing, however, is directed at solicitors and in-house lawyers, and we don't have billboards or adverts in local media. I agree that allowing pretty much unlimited advertising was a bad idea, as was allowing conditional fee agreements (and now even worse, US style contingency fees in which the lawyer takes a stake in the action).
Clients at the upper end of the market tend to be sophisticated, hard bargaining, and often not very loyal -they shop and switch all over the place. Clients at the lower end of the market tend to be vulnerable to being schmoozed and bamboozled by shady operators, and of course may be foolishly looking for something for nothing - the good grifter always finds his mark.
I just checked my diary for tomorrow. It has an event from 8.30 to 13.30 marked "Compulsory for Corporate Partners", entitled "The Fundamentals of Selling", to be given by a man called Kevin from some organisation I've never heard of. It's depressing. The best marketing I do is doing a good job for clients. Clients at the upper end of the market tend to be sophisticated, hard bargaining, and often not very loyal -they shop and switch all over the place. Clients at the lower end of the market tend to be vulnerable to being schmoozed and bamboozled by shady operators, and of course may be foolishly looking for something for nothing - the good grifter always finds his mark.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 28th June 09:05
As for pride in being a lawyer, Julian64 probably put it best; it's not particularly a question of being proud, but of feeling that what I do is worthwhile and allows me to look my kids in the eye.
That there are ambulance-chasing spivs around (most of whom are not actually lawyers) is not my responsibility.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff