Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[Countdown]

Europa1 said:

Inserting a cannula is hardly the most technically complicated medical procedure.

I don't think it's particularly easy. And I doubt it gets any easier after a 12 hour day or 60 hour week. Which is what doctors have been saying.....

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

If a doctor can't successfully insert a cannula doesn't it suggest that they are overpaid...?!

Mistakes happen in all professions. Making people work longer for less money isn't the best way of reducing the risk of mistakes happening.

[Countdown]

garyhun said:

What's incredibly worrying in all this is how an organisation that's been going for over 60 years can fail, over such a long period, to organise itself to best meet the needs of its customers.

Any other organisation in a similar situation would have perished decades ago.

Given the amount of crap that the NHS has to put up with I'm also surprised that it's managed to survive so long and function so well.

[mph1977]

Europa1 said:

Countdown said:

sidicks said:

So misplacing a cannula is not a fault of the person inserting the cannula but instead is the fault of them not getting enough cash.

Hmm....

Yes it can be. Quite easily.

A lack of funds can result in lack of recruitment and retention of suitably qualified and experienced staff which can cause problems like the ones mentioned.

Inserting a cannula is hardly the most technically complicated medical procedure.

in fact it's a basic psychomotor skill that has been over politicised by none -medical staff groups ( nurses, HCAs , A+E Ambulance staff), the skills and knowledge is in the underpinning knowledge ...

you can teach anyone with reasonable coordination to cannulate some fairly safe locations in half an hour or so one -to - one , the knoweldge comes with the why and when and in being able to insert them into 'none standard' and/or 'higher risk ' sites ...

[anonymous-user]

mph1977 said:

Europa1 said:

Countdown said:

sidicks said:

So misplacing a cannula is not a fault of the person inserting the cannula but instead is the fault of them not getting enough cash.

Hmm....

Yes it can be. Quite easily.

A lack of funds can result in lack of recruitment and retention of suitably qualified and experienced staff which can cause problems like the ones mentioned.

Inserting a cannula is hardly the most technically complicated medical procedure.

in fact it's a basic psychomotor skill that has been over politicised by none -medical staff groups ( nurses, HCAs , A+E Ambulance staff), the skills and knowledge is in the underpinning knowledge ...

you can teach anyone with reasonable coordination to cannulate some fairly safe locations in half an hour or so one -to - one , the knoweldge comes with the why and when and in being able to insert them into 'none standard' and/or 'higher risk ' sites ...

As they say, "There's none so blind....."

[ewenm]

The key point in the whole debacle for me is the removal of the financial penalty on trusts for staff working long hours. I'd have thought if you want to increase the service provision safely and reliably then ensuring that the staff providing the extra cover are not working long hours is a key step. With budget pressures and no financial penalty I find it hard to disagree with the assertion that trusts are likely to work staff longer and so jeopardise safe treatment.

[crankedup]

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

[0000]

ewenm said:

The key point in the whole debacle for me is the removal of the financial penalty on trusts for staff working long hours. I'd have thought if you want to increase the service provision safely and reliably then ensuring that the staff providing the extra cover are not working long hours is a key step. With budget pressures and no financial penalty I find it hard to disagree with the assertion that trusts are likely to work staff longer and so jeopardise safe treatment.

Jeremy Hunt said:

We will also introduce a new Guardian role within every Trust, who will have the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours based on excess hours worked.

[Quhet]

crankedup said:

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

and you died?

[turbobloke]

Quhet said:

crankedup said:

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

and you died?

Not from laughing at a guess.

[ewenm]

0000 said:

ewenm said:

The key point in the whole debacle for me is the removal of the financial penalty on trusts for staff working long hours. I'd have thought if you want to increase the service provision safely and reliably then ensuring that the staff providing the extra cover are not working long hours is a key step. With budget pressures and no financial penalty I find it hard to disagree with the assertion that trusts are likely to work staff longer and so jeopardise safe treatment.

Jeremy Hunt said:

We will also introduce a new Guardian role within every Trust, who will have the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours based on excess hours worked.

Good, although why change it from the current fine system? Having "the authority to act" does not mean "will act" - why not make it mandatory fines? An independent "Guardian" free of the trust's budgetary considerations would be prefereable to one within the trust.

[rovermorris999]

Quhet said:

and you died?

And that right there is what is wrong with so much of the public sector, speaking as one who worked in it for 19 years.

[economicpygmy]

Quhet said:

crankedup said:

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

and you died?

Not a great example of an adequate 7 day service made.

[crankedup]

economicpygmy said:

Quhet said:

crankedup said:

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

and you died?

Not a great example of an adequate 7 day service made.

Precisely, as indicated by Mr Hunt, the services provided by other key staff will have thier contracts reviewed to bring the service in line with a seven day service. Talks already in progress.

[968]

economicpygmy said:

Quhet said:

crankedup said:

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

and you died?

Not a great example of an adequate 7 day service made.

So in order to have a scan on a weekend, the hospital needs to employ all the radiographers to do the investigations, all the pathology technicians to interpret bloods and radiologists to interpret the scans. Hence in order to run the NHS at full capacity on the weekend, they need to employ all staff members. How much do you think that will cost?

As it happens, if a scam is deemed urgent, it is done 24 hours a day 7 days a week by the on call radiographers, and the surgeons will request the scan to be done straight away, if there are clinical reasons for it to be done and if the results will affect their management. I doubt very much the scan was not done because no one was available, it's more likely that the scan wasn't necessary immediately, compared to, for example, the victim of a multiple pile up with multiple internal injuries or the child who is unconscious and signs of raised intracranial pressure.

[968]

And for those who persist in believing this outright lie from Hunt that you can utilise the same number of staff over 7 days who struggle with 5, what will happen is they will work on weekends but then there will be less during the week when they are really needed, or rotas will be adjusted to have the minimum staff numbers to run a department. How safe will that be? Ask Mid Staffs.

[0000]

968 said:

And for those who persist in believing this outright lie from Hunt that you can utilise the same number of staff over 7 days who struggle with 5, what will happen is they will work on weekends but then there will be less during the week when they are really needed [snip]

So, is it an outright lie, or will there just be less staff on during the week?

[crankedup]

968 said:

economicpygmy said:

Quhet said:

crankedup said:

I had the misfortune to injure myself, five or six years back now, it happened late one Friday night. Decided to 'man up' and went back to my daughters house.
Next morning things didn' feel to good around my old body and looking down I realised that medical attention was required!
Off to A&E, several medics sucked in through clenched teeth and tests revealed some traces of blood in my urine sample.
I overheard a medic suggest 'he needs to go for a scan', yes came the reply but we haven't got anybody to operate the machine until Monday!

Quite!

and you died?

Not a great example of an adequate 7 day service made.

So in order to have a scan on a weekend, the hospital needs to employ all the radiographers to do the investigations, all the pathology technicians to interpret bloods and radiologists to interpret the scans. Hence in order to run the NHS at full capacity on the weekend, they need to employ all staff members. How much do you think that will cost?

As it happens, if a scam is deemed urgent, it is done 24 hours a day 7 days a week by the on call radiographers, and the surgeons will request the scan to be done straight away, if there are clinical reasons for it to be done and if the results will affect their management. I doubt very much the scan was not done because no one was available, it's more likely that the scan wasn't necessary immediately, compared to, for example, the victim of a multiple pile up with multiple internal injuries or the child who is unconscious and signs of raised intracranial pressure.

Yes, good to get the professional perspective on my personal example. The Doctors did share concern regarding my ailment judging from their tone, clearly I was not in immeadiate urgent need. Thankfully the Doctors 'call' regarding my condition was the correct action. My example is not intended to be a negative criticism of the Doctors, but I do wonder why it is we have hugely expensive equipment idle when it could or maybe should be in use.

[968]

crankedup said:

Yes, good to get the professional perspective on my personal example. The Doctors did share concern regarding my ailment judging from their tone, clearly I was not in immeadiate urgent need. Thankfully the Doctors 'call' regarding my condition was the correct action. My example is not intended to be a negative criticism of the Doctors, but I do wonder why it is we have hugely expensive equipment idle when it could or maybe should be in use.

The equipment probably wasn't idle it was probably in use by other teams dealing with emergencies.

[968]

0000 said:

So, is it an outright lie, or will there just be less staff on during the week?

It is a lie to suggest the NHS will run at the same capacity 7 days a week with reduced staff. That is what will happen, and ironically will waste enormous amounts of money and have little impact or benefit for patients.