Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
Two thoughts.
Is it coincidence that the Chief Medical Officer in Scotland just published this? You tube recruitment drive
The Government in England has just finished negotiations with the BMA over a new contract for Consultants, and are imminently expected to publish the proposals for the new contract, to be balloted on by Consultants. That must be a sphincter-tightener for Jeremy and CMD.
Is it coincidence that the Chief Medical Officer in Scotland just published this? You tube recruitment drive
The Government in England has just finished negotiations with the BMA over a new contract for Consultants, and are imminently expected to publish the proposals for the new contract, to be balloted on by Consultants. That must be a sphincter-tightener for Jeremy and CMD.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
968 I have a huge respect for doctors and for your input to various threads on PH (ie eye surgery) and I totally agree that much of the problems could be laid at the door of excessive managerial
However your assertion on funding above is wrong, just factually incorrect.
Even the Kings fund agrees that funding in REAL terms has risen year on year, between 2010 and 2020 three will be an annual real terms increase of 1% per year, in cash terms funding will increase from 97bn to 134bn
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nuts...
In the last 60 years there has been just six years when the budget did not increase year on year.
In 1951 the nhs budget was 2.1% of GDP.
IN 2012 the nhs budget was a frankly ridiculous 8.1% of gdp
At current rates of growth by the time I die 16% of gdp will be spent on health.
It cannot keep going like this
But they are factors of:-However your assertion on funding above is wrong, just factually incorrect.
Even the Kings fund agrees that funding in REAL terms has risen year on year, between 2010 and 2020 three will be an annual real terms increase of 1% per year, in cash terms funding will increase from 97bn to 134bn
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nuts...
In the last 60 years there has been just six years when the budget did not increase year on year.
In 1951 the nhs budget was 2.1% of GDP.
IN 2012 the nhs budget was a frankly ridiculous 8.1% of gdp
At current rates of growth by the time I die 16% of gdp will be spent on health.
It cannot keep going like this
Living longer means different illnesses
Drugs now cost so much more
Expected living standard is now vastly higher than was
But yep it's a challenge clearly we have to go insurance route at some point
PugwasHDJ80 said:
968 said:
rovinghawk said:
I don't know how you define "reduced funding" but my understanding is that more is spent every year. I'm no financial giant but I thought that this would be called "increased funding".
Your understanding is wrong. The level of funding has dropped in real terms in by a huge amount over a short period of time despite increasing demands.However your assertion on funding above is wrong, just factually incorrect.
Even the Kings fund agrees that funding in REAL terms has risen year on year, between 2010 and 2020 three will be an annual real terms increase of 1% per year, in cash terms funding will increase from 97bn to 134bn
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nuts...
In the last 60 years there has been just six years when the budget did not increase year on year.
In 1951 the nhs budget was 2.1% of GDP.
IN 2012 the nhs budget was a frankly ridiculous 8.1% of gdp
At current rates of growth by the time I die 16% of gdp will be spent on health.
It cannot keep going like this
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 11th February 22:22
PugwasHDJ80 said:
968 I have a huge respect for doctors and for your input to various threads on PH (ie eye surgery) and I totally agree that much of the problems could be laid at the door of excessive managerial
However your assertion on funding above is wrong, just factually incorrect.
Even the Kings fund agrees that funding in REAL terms has risen year on year, between 2010 and 2020 three will be an annual real terms increase of 1% per year, in cash terms funding will increase from 97bn to 134bn
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nuts...
In the last 60 years there has been just six years when the budget did not increase year on year.
In 1951 the nhs budget was 2.1% of GDP.
IN 2012 the nhs budget was a frankly ridiculous 8.1% of gdp
At current rates of growth by the time I die 16% of gdp will be spent on health.
It cannot keep going like this
My mistake. The reduction in funding is based on what was projected to be required based on increasing demands in the NHS over that period of time, the reduction is around 3-4% However your assertion on funding above is wrong, just factually incorrect.
Even the Kings fund agrees that funding in REAL terms has risen year on year, between 2010 and 2020 three will be an annual real terms increase of 1% per year, in cash terms funding will increase from 97bn to 134bn
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nuts...
In the last 60 years there has been just six years when the budget did not increase year on year.
In 1951 the nhs budget was 2.1% of GDP.
IN 2012 the nhs budget was a frankly ridiculous 8.1% of gdp
At current rates of growth by the time I die 16% of gdp will be spent on health.
It cannot keep going like this
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/verdict/nhs-h...
You may be right in that the funding may be unsustainable, however, the real question is what will we do about it? The answer is very uncomfortable for most people in this country, ie the heresy of introducing charges for certain things to generate revenue. Of course this will never happen because any health secretary that institutes this will lose an election, hence we are forever destined to have it kicked around like a political football. Even a SoS as inept as Hunt wouldn't do that (at least openly).
What needs to happen, as I've said many times, is that the NHS should be independently run and there should be NO SoS or DoH. Instead there should be a cross party select committee to whom the NHS would be accountable to and would petition to for funding. If that were the case, there would be no continuing reorganisation of the NHS every 5 years, thus long term planning would occur. There would be an bility to make difficult and politically unpalatable decisions about the direction of the NHS. Unfortunately in order to provide the incredibly expensive interventions that we offer, there has to be funding from somewhere.
Welshbeef said:
But they are factors of:-
Living longer means different illnesses
Drugs now cost so much more
Expected living standard is now vastly higher than was
But yep it's a challenge clearly we have to go insurance route at some point
Except insurance route in this country is a waste of time as they will only offer you what is NICE approved and will not cover you for ongoing treatment or chronic illnesses.Living longer means different illnesses
Drugs now cost so much more
Expected living standard is now vastly higher than was
But yep it's a challenge clearly we have to go insurance route at some point
anonymous said:
[redacted]
A philosophical question perhaps. I make no apology for treating the 25 or so patients I saw this afternoon with an incredibly expensive medicine. It enables all of those elderly men and women to maintain their independence and lead fulfilling lives. Who is to make the judgement that we would withdraw such care simply because they are elderly? If your parents get to the stage of being elderly would you suggest that they should not be entitled to access these treatments to retain their sight, because it's delaying the inevitability of their death?968 said:
mph1977 said:
Maybe you be thinking that many South Asian Doctors will be speaking good English and be willing to be doing the Needful...
You think you're hilarious? Actually they generally do speak far better English than their Greek or Bulgarian counterparts and having worked with them for 20 years and being the child of immigrant medical parents who worked within the NHS for 40 years, I think I have a bit more experience than you do. They also carry a massive amount of clinical experience and their training is rigorous unlike in Greece where to be a consultant you need 2 years of speciality training.At least the Spanish and Portugese doctors i've worked with held no delusion over their level of competence with English and especially vernacular and idiomatic english .
as for thecomment about greece and duration of speciality training , furstly would these doctors be able to register as Specialists in the UK and secondly is this in fact like US 'board certifcation' which is more akin to becoming a 'proper registrar' or a Staff Grade than actually becoming a Consultant
drainbrain said:
I recall in ICU an agency nurse trying to take a blood sample. 1st try the needle went right through the vein. So did the second. And when the third try did the same with the girl shaking and near to tears I told her to give it up. 5 minutes later a 'proper' nurse got the blood out of me before I knew the needle was in my arm.
To be fair to the agency nurse plenty of people screw things like that up. Only very recently a doctor misplaced a cannula, sending medication outside of the vein causing blistering and a review by someone from the plastic surgery team.Sometimes these things just happen.
mph1977 said:
however to suggest thant importing SHO level docotors from Indian sub-continent is a panacea is fallacious at best ... i worked with some very good 1st gen / temporay immigrant Doctos fro mthe Subcontinent i've also worked with some who were outright dangerous and compunded thisd with a belief they spoke 'good english' - but their syntax was a Indlish and their accent and delivery impentrable ...
At least the Spanish and Portugese doctors i've worked with held no delusion over their level of competence with English and especially vernacular and idiomatic english .
as for thecomment about greece and duration of speciality training , furstly would these doctors be able to register as Specialists in the UK and secondly is this in fact like US 'board certifcation' which is more akin to becoming a 'proper registrar' or a Staff Grade than actually becoming a Consultant
In answer to your last question Greek doctors who have speciality training completion do not need any equivalence exams and can simply apply to consultant posts in this country despite having no experience. In reality most NHS trusts realise this and how hopelessly under qualified they are and don't employ them at consultant grade. Some have, however, with disastrous consequences.At least the Spanish and Portugese doctors i've worked with held no delusion over their level of competence with English and especially vernacular and idiomatic english .
as for thecomment about greece and duration of speciality training , furstly would these doctors be able to register as Specialists in the UK and secondly is this in fact like US 'board certifcation' which is more akin to becoming a 'proper registrar' or a Staff Grade than actually becoming a Consultant
In answer to the rest of your comment, which demonstrates your lack of knowledge about clinical matters, ask any consultant about how easy it is to appoint non career grades compared to 10 years ago and they'll tell you it's nigh on impossible because Indians, Sri Lankan and Pakistani doctors simply don't come here anymore. This has led to massive problems delivering services which in turn has led to departments having to employ locums on a regular basis.
You might want to reflect on your own use of English. Your posts are barely comprehensible and spelling atrocious.
vonuber said:
I think this is all part of the Conservatives plan to basically run it enough into the ground that they can then part - or fully - privatise it, whilst subsequently handily ending up on the boards of most of the companies who are suddenly running the contracts.
The same is going to happen with Network Rail.
That makes no sense. Why would you run something into the ground to privatise it?The same is going to happen with Network Rail.
Parts of the NHS (as was) are pivatised already so I'm not even sure what you mean by part privatise?
Personally I don't give a crap who owns it as long as its there and working efficiently. My mother and father in law have both spent a lot of time in hospital in the past few years, and efficiency is not a word I'd associate with the NHS. Thats before we get to the basic care failings
SBDJ said:
drainbrain said:
I recall in ICU an agency nurse trying to take a blood sample. 1st try the needle went right through the vein. So did the second. And when the third try did the same with the girl shaking and near to tears I told her to give it up. 5 minutes later a 'proper' nurse got the blood out of me before I knew the needle was in my arm.
To be fair to the agency nurse plenty of people screw things like that up. Only very recently a doctor misplaced a cannula, sending medication outside of the vein causing blistering and a review by someone from the plastic surgery team.Sometimes these things just happen.
mph1977 said:
however to suggest thant importing SHO level docotors from Indian sub-continent is a panacea is fallacious at best ... i worked with some very good 1st gen / temporay immigrant Doctos fro mthe Subcontinent i've also worked with some who were outright dangerous and compunded thisd with a belief they spoke 'good english' - but their syntax was a Indlish and their accent and delivery impentrable ...
At least the Spanish and Portugese doctors i've worked with held no delusion over their level of competence with English and especially vernacular and idiomatic english .
as for thecomment about greece and duration of speciality training , furstly would these doctors be able to register as Specialists in the UK and secondly is this in fact like US 'board certifcation' which is more akin to becoming a 'proper registrar' or a Staff Grade than actually becoming a Consultant
Is this supposed to be a joke?At least the Spanish and Portugese doctors i've worked with held no delusion over their level of competence with English and especially vernacular and idiomatic english .
as for thecomment about greece and duration of speciality training , furstly would these doctors be able to register as Specialists in the UK and secondly is this in fact like US 'board certifcation' which is more akin to becoming a 'proper registrar' or a Staff Grade than actually becoming a Consultant
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.Hmm....
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.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
968 said:
rovinghawk said:
I don't know how you define "reduced funding" but my understanding is that more is spent every year. I'm no financial giant but I thought that this would be called "increased funding".
Your understanding is wrong. The level of funding has dropped in real terms in by a huge amount over a short period of time despite increasing demands.However your assertion on funding above is wrong, just factually incorrect.
Even the Kings fund agrees that funding in REAL terms has risen year on year, between 2010 and 2020 three will be an annual real terms increase of 1% per year, in cash terms funding will increase from 97bn to 134bn
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nuts...
In the last 60 years there has been just six years when the budget did not increase year on year.
In 1951 the nhs budget was 2.1% of GDP.
IN 2012 the nhs budget was a frankly ridiculous 8.1% of gdp
At current rates of growth by the time I die 16% of gdp will be spent on health.
It cannot keep going like this
A large percentage of hospitals in the article have gone from surplus to debt in 2 years. Increased demand added to decreased budgets.
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.Hmm....
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.
Countdown said:
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.
If a doctor can't successfully insert a cannula doesn't it suggest that they are overpaid...?!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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff