Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
George111 said:
Nobody is suggesting that it's not used, but to use it you need nurses, doctors, consultants, admin staff, porters, cleaners, the coffee shop, the water machines filling up, the blood lab, transport services, pharmacy etc etc. This all costs a lot more than just the junior doctors pay and if Gove can't even fund more doctors to provide what he calls 247 then how is he going to fund the rest ?
See above...turbobloke said:
George111 said:
RYH64E said:
IanA2 said:
I refer you to both Mr Tolstoy and the Marmalade.
I see you've made no attempt at all to address the points I've made, where's the sense in having expensive equipment housed in expensive hospitals and not using it outside of normal working hours because all the doctors have gone home?To use your marmalade analogy, the current situation is like having all the marmalade on the first couple of slices of toast and nothing at all on the rest.
Also 'the NHS' is a bit broad. Equipment and related accommodation were under discussion, in particular their restricted use over time and the waste of assets this represents.
"I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
There is talk about a NHS equipment leasing program. This will take care of equipment renewal and financing pressure for the hospital management. Increase supply of operators and doctors and turn it into a shift work industry, and now you process more volumes at a cheaper cost.
It is a good move. if we want universal healthcare at world class standards, then we need to establish a per capita cost to this service. The right way to do it is to turn it into a high tech conveyer belt for health care service. The foundations are being laid for it...so i think the overall structure is being set up right.
I believe the NHS should only be a funding, sourcing, licensing & standards setting body. Leave the service delivery to a separate hospitals body to run. public or private doesn't matter as long as the service is delivered free to the user at high standards for a universal system.
It is a good move. if we want universal healthcare at world class standards, then we need to establish a per capita cost to this service. The right way to do it is to turn it into a high tech conveyer belt for health care service. The foundations are being laid for it...so i think the overall structure is being set up right.
I believe the NHS should only be a funding, sourcing, licensing & standards setting body. Leave the service delivery to a separate hospitals body to run. public or private doesn't matter as long as the service is delivered free to the user at high standards for a universal system.
George111 said:
turbobloke said:
George111 said:
RYH64E said:
IanA2 said:
I refer you to both Mr Tolstoy and the Marmalade.
I see you've made no attempt at all to address the points I've made, where's the sense in having expensive equipment housed in expensive hospitals and not using it outside of normal working hours because all the doctors have gone home?To use your marmalade analogy, the current situation is like having all the marmalade on the first couple of slices of toast and nothing at all on the rest.
Also 'the NHS' is a bit broad. Equipment and related accommodation were under discussion, in particular their restricted use over time and the waste of assets this represents.
"I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
The post you replied to in the nested quotes above isn't the one you now quote, and even in that quote the point is that by having staff working flexibly as humans the expensive buildings and equipment which are not humans
are better utilised. In the NHS this represents improved vfm for the taxpayer.George111 said:
Yes he did here a page or so back:
"I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
I wasn't suggesting that patients were machines, I was suggesting that there are different ways of dealing with increasing demand, you ca either 1) increase the amount of facilities available (more hospitals, more departments, more equipment), or 2) make better use of the facilities you already have by using them more than 8 hours per day Monday to Friday. "I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
The NHS doesn't need more money, it needs to make better use of the money it has, even if that means less convenient working hours for the staff.
RYH64E said:
George111 said:
Yes he did here a page or so back:
"I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
I wasn't suggesting that patients were machines..."I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
RYH64E said:
I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?
Which option did you choose?RYH64E said:
I wasn't suggesting that patients were machines, I was suggesting that there are different ways of dealing with increasing demand, you ca either 1) increase the amount of facilities available (more hospitals, more departments, more equipment), or 2) make better use of the facilities you already have by using them more than 8 hours per day Monday to Friday.
Do you need more staff for that? You are aware that there are already shortage of doctors to cover '8 hours Monday to Friday' demand?RYH64E said:
The NHS doesn't need more money, it needs to make better use of the money it has, even if that means less convenient working hours for the staff.
Bold part, how do you know this?Edited by jjlynn27 on Saturday 13th February 15:53
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to be reasonable any business requires constant attention in terms of efficiency savings. Without a doubt given the size of the NHS savings can always be found.
For example we read today that the NHS has been stitched up to the tune of multi-millions of pounds regarding the supply and purchase of anti deppressants drugs. I do wonder if the drugs company has stitched up the private medical sector in much the same M.O.
For example we read today that the NHS has been stitched up to the tune of multi-millions of pounds regarding the supply and purchase of anti deppressants drugs. I do wonder if the drugs company has stitched up the private medical sector in much the same M.O.
jjlynn27 said:
RYH64E said:
I wasn't suggesting that patients were machines, I was suggesting that there are different ways of dealing with increasing demand, you ca either 1) increase the amount of facilities available (more hospitals, more departments, more equipment), or 2) make better use of the facilities you already have by using them more than 8 hours per day Monday to Friday.
Do you need more staff for that? You are aware that there are already shortage of doctors to cover '8 hours Monday to Friday' demand?RYH64E said:
The NHS doesn't need more money, it needs to make better use of the money it has, even if that means less convenient working hours for the staff.
Bold part, how do you know this?Edited by jjlynn27 on Saturday 13th February 15:53
sidicks said:
NoNeed said:
It spends tens of Billions on legal claims, eliminating those at source would be a good start.
No it doesn't. Tens of millions maybe.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/114020...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9065534/N...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307196/NH...
http://www.nhsla.com/aboutus/Documents/NHS%20LA%20...
NoNeed said:
Yes it does
isn't this a reserve for future claims, the actual cost last year was £1.3bn - still far too much.I am unclear to what extent the higher numbers are reserves for existing claims that will incur costs in the future or for future claims?
Either way, it's a scary number. Add that to the massive potential for efficiency savings and it's clear that taxpayers' money could do so much more!
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 13th February 17:14
sidicks said:
This is a reserve for the future.
The actual cost last year was £1.3bn - still far too much, but the annual cost is the relevant metric for comparison purposes!
£1.3 billion would make a very good start.The actual cost last year was £1.3bn - still far too much, but the annual cost is the relevant metric for comparison purposes!
Shouldn't we be trying to eliminat this future cost so that more is spent on clinical requirements. And would one way be stopping doctors from working 90 hours a week.
NoNeed said:
£1.3 billion would make a very good start.
Shouldn't we be trying to eliminat this future cost so that more is spent on clinical requirements. And would one way be stopping doctors from working 90 hours a week.
I was editing my post while you were replying. I agree!Shouldn't we be trying to eliminat this future cost so that more is spent on clinical requirements. And would one way be stopping doctors from working 90 hours a week.
If you believe the government, the new contracts restrict the permitted hours that can be worked by doctors..
sidicks said:
NoNeed said:
£1.3 billion would make a very good start.
Shouldn't we be trying to eliminat this future cost so that more is spent on clinical requirements. And would one way be stopping doctors from working 90 hours a week.
I was editing my post while you were replying. I agree!Shouldn't we be trying to eliminat this future cost so that more is spent on clinical requirements. And would one way be stopping doctors from working 90 hours a week.
If you believe the government, the new contracts restrict the permitted hours that can be worked by doctors..
turbobloke said:
RYH64E said:
George111 said:
Yes he did here a page or so back:
"I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
I wasn't suggesting that patients were machines..."I've got a similar problem at work, too much to do and not enough time to do it, as I see it my options are: a) buy another new building, equip it with more of the same machinery that I already have, and employ more staff, or b) move from a single shift pattern to a two or three shift pattern and make better use of the facilities I already have. Is it so different for the NHS?"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff