Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
spaximus said:
That is just not true doctors are no different. In the wards there are the same Doctors as nurses as in the week. If it is deemed a quiet period they have less. A&E for example has known patterns that they rota for busy periods late on a Saturday night for example.
Anyone who is sick and needs to be seen in hospital is seen, yes might not be as quick as they would like but they are seen.
It is the clinics that do not operate at weekends and elective surgery, when this happens the nurses are not needed.
Hunt is trying every thing he can to get the public on his side with lies, and twisted reports. He is failing badly.
rubbish , medical staffing for ward cover is considerably more populous 9-5 monday to friday Anyone who is sick and needs to be seen in hospital is seen, yes might not be as quick as they would like but they are seen.
It is the clinics that do not operate at weekends and elective surgery, when this happens the nurses are not needed.
Hunt is trying every thing he can to get the public on his side with lies, and twisted reports. He is failing badly.
most medical specialities do not have resident medical staff 24/7 , they are grouped into cover pools at Foundation / core trainee (SHO ) level , with cover being a small fraction of the 'in hours' numbers, at higher trainee level the cover is even more sparse ...
A+E and critical care units are not respresentative examplars of how the rest of the scute estate and scute services within Mental health are staffed ( for either Nursing or Medicine)
mph1977 said:
spaximus said:
That is just not true doctors are no different. In the wards there are the same Doctors as nurses as in the week. If it is deemed a quiet period they have less. A&E for example has known patterns that they rota for busy periods late on a Saturday night for example.
Anyone who is sick and needs to be seen in hospital is seen, yes might not be as quick as they would like but they are seen.
It is the clinics that do not operate at weekends and elective surgery, when this happens the nurses are not needed.
Hunt is trying every thing he can to get the public on his side with lies, and twisted reports. He is failing badly.
rubbish , medical staffing for ward cover is considerably more populous 9-5 monday to friday Anyone who is sick and needs to be seen in hospital is seen, yes might not be as quick as they would like but they are seen.
It is the clinics that do not operate at weekends and elective surgery, when this happens the nurses are not needed.
Hunt is trying every thing he can to get the public on his side with lies, and twisted reports. He is failing badly.
most medical specialities do not have resident medical staff 24/7 , they are grouped into cover pools at Foundation / core trainee (SHO ) level , with cover being a small fraction of the 'in hours' numbers, at higher trainee level the cover is even more sparse ...
A+E and critical care units are not respresentative examplars of how the rest of the scute estate and scute services within Mental health are staffed ( for either Nursing or Medicine)
Junior trainees are pooled, but my experience and certainly that of my hospital is that each of the specialities has a dedicated speciality senior registrar and consultant available
turbo,
The WHO study has nothing to do with junior doctors and was a reply to a poster who made quite a few statements none of which were correct. You are not just cherry picking the part of the research, which you didn't understand to begin with, but even the parts that you think prove your point, they are blighted with 'weasel' words. To discuss things further with such obvious blinkered view is pointless. You don't read stuff to form an opinion, you pick stuff to read to confirm your prejudices. It's not left and right issue. Read opinions from Dr Dan Poulter (he was a health minister and he is health professional). He is a Tory politician. Lot of doctors ( and certainly quite a few), as any normal person would expect, did vote for Conservatives.
You had various people, some of whom who work in dreaded public sector, some who don't, trying to explain realities of new contract and why, if you can do basic maths, the figures do not stack up. You were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything. You think that someone who says that morning-after pill promotes promiscuity and that female GPs only want to work Mondays and Wednesdays, 'is saying as it is'. If you were honest with yourself you'd find that no amount of evidence would change your mind on the subject.
The unanswered questions, to start with, still stand; If 15% increase in base was cost neutral, how is proposed 11%, lower increase in base also cost neutral, when all other factors staying the same. And if stated aim is true, which is to reduce the hours that juniors work, who will cover the difference? There is a good reason that full-on 7 day system is not implemented anywhere, regardless of political system or framework in place for delivering service; it would be very inefficient.
The WHO study has nothing to do with junior doctors and was a reply to a poster who made quite a few statements none of which were correct. You are not just cherry picking the part of the research, which you didn't understand to begin with, but even the parts that you think prove your point, they are blighted with 'weasel' words. To discuss things further with such obvious blinkered view is pointless. You don't read stuff to form an opinion, you pick stuff to read to confirm your prejudices. It's not left and right issue. Read opinions from Dr Dan Poulter (he was a health minister and he is health professional). He is a Tory politician. Lot of doctors ( and certainly quite a few), as any normal person would expect, did vote for Conservatives.
You had various people, some of whom who work in dreaded public sector, some who don't, trying to explain realities of new contract and why, if you can do basic maths, the figures do not stack up. You were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything. You think that someone who says that morning-after pill promotes promiscuity and that female GPs only want to work Mondays and Wednesdays, 'is saying as it is'. If you were honest with yourself you'd find that no amount of evidence would change your mind on the subject.
The unanswered questions, to start with, still stand; If 15% increase in base was cost neutral, how is proposed 11%, lower increase in base also cost neutral, when all other factors staying the same. And if stated aim is true, which is to reduce the hours that juniors work, who will cover the difference? There is a good reason that full-on 7 day system is not implemented anywhere, regardless of political system or framework in place for delivering service; it would be very inefficient.
eccles said:
mph1977 said:
eccles said:
The NHS shouldn't have 'weekends' as such. People don't stop being sick just because it's a certain day of the week. Nurses have the same level of cover 7 days a week, so why should doctors be different?
although there isn;t the same level of Nurse cover ( actually on the physical wards/ units rather than none job clipboard carriers) in terms of seniority 24/7 (purely budget driven BTW - used to be quite usueful when ward based band 6s were aloowed to do nights - got an awful lot of the appraisals etc done in the quiet hours)numbers wise the variation weekday / weekend is small ( if it varies it;s usually one more in theweek but often on management duties rather than hands on ) and there is variation between days and nights , it;s far smaller variation than there is for medical cover ...
or not.jjlynn27 said:
You had various people, some of whom who work in dreaded public sector, some who don't, trying to explain realities of new contract and why, if you can do basic maths, the figures do not stack up. You were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything.
If YOU could do basic maths, you'd understand that the whole public sector approach to pensions is unsustainable and making essential changes now would potentially mean more money was available to fund services such as the NHS (and increase salaries for staff).However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
mph1977 said:
rubbish , medical staffing for ward cover is considerably more populous 9-5 monday to friday
most medical specialities do not have resident medical staff 24/7 , they are grouped into cover pools at Foundation / core trainee (SHO ) level , with cover being a small fraction of the 'in hours' numbers, at higher trainee level the cover is even more sparse ...
A+E and critical care units are not respresentative examplars of how the rest of the scute estate and scute services within Mental health are staffed ( for either Nursing or Medicine)
As I said there is not the need for so many staff at week ends as the clinics and outpatients are not running. You also confirmed what I said about A&E being well staffed. Which is interesting as this is where all the people go before being admitted. you know the people who all die as they do not get the correct treatment due to no Doctors being theremost medical specialities do not have resident medical staff 24/7 , they are grouped into cover pools at Foundation / core trainee (SHO ) level , with cover being a small fraction of the 'in hours' numbers, at higher trainee level the cover is even more sparse ...
A+E and critical care units are not respresentative examplars of how the rest of the scute estate and scute services within Mental health are staffed ( for either Nursing or Medicine)
As for grouping, this is all dependent upon the hospital and what area is capable of being covered. But it remains where does hunt intend to produce all these extra staff at no cost to cover an increase in hours? He cannot it is simple.
jjlynn27 said:
The questions still stand.
Anyone can ask any questions they like, but it's advisable to ask them of the person most relevant to the potential answers, somebody who was involved in generating the context for the questions and hss more than a passing interest in then. huntj@parliament.uk
My interest in the junior doctors' strike vote arose primarily from seeing JDs on a protest with placards carrying Labour Party propaganda and chanting slogans amounting to the same tripe, after which the most pertinent comment I can remember making is that the claims of the two sides are far apart in this case.
Without knowing the algorithm behind the govt's salary calculator (etc) anyone outside the insider groups can't really say for sure what's going on.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
You had various people, some of whom who work in dreaded public sector, some who don't, trying to explain realities of new contract and why, if you can do basic maths, the figures do not stack up. You were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything.
If YOU could do basic maths, you'd understand that the whole public sector approach to pensions is unsustainable and making essential changes now would potentially mean more money was available to fund services such as the NHS (and increase salaries for staff).However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
Basic maths isn't the only problem, reasoning by assertion is another weakness. Typing "you were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything" doesn't make it so, however many times it's posted. It's obviously a wishful thinking generalisation offered as a mild ad hom attack, typical of empty vessels making a lot of noise.
@jjlynn27 if Keogh is wrong you can nail him and Hunt at the same time with the same keyboard.
NHS Medical Director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh: "There is an avoidable ‘weekend effect’ which if addressed could save lives. This is something that we as clinicians should collectively seek to solve."
Bruce.Keogh@dh.gsi.gov.uk
sidicks said:
If YOU could do basic maths, you'd understand that the whole public sector approach to pensions is unsustainable and making essential changes now would potentially mean more money was available to fund services such as the NHS (and increase salaries for staff).
However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
You are absolutely correct. Anything on Hunt's figures?However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
turbobloke said:
Yes, typical selectivity at work.
Basic maths isn't the only problem, reasoning by assertion is another weakness. Typing "you were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything" doesn't make it so, however many times it's posted. It's obviously a wishful thinking generalisation offered as a mild ad hom attack, typical of empty vessels making a lot of noise.
@jjlynn27 if Keogh is wrong you can nail him and Hunt at the same time with the same keyboard.
NHS Medical Director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh: "There is an avoidable ‘weekend effect’ which if addressed could save lives. This is something that we as clinicians should collectively seek to solve."
Bruce.Keogh@dh.gsi.gov.uk
There is a 'weekend effect'. Nobody is disputing there isn't. It was explained to you the most probable cause for that effect. The same study, chaired by Keogh, implicitly states that conclusion that avoidable deaths are down to staffing level shouldn't be drawn, and that more research is needed. In any case, it will cost more, regardless of jds payments. Support services, quite a few of them supplied by private sector, social support network and so on. There is no funding in place for those, and even if there was, it would be inefficient use of money. If it was efficient it would be already implemented, if not in UK then somewhere, anywhere else. Basic maths isn't the only problem, reasoning by assertion is another weakness. Typing "you were shown that you were wrong on pretty much everything" doesn't make it so, however many times it's posted. It's obviously a wishful thinking generalisation offered as a mild ad hom attack, typical of empty vessels making a lot of noise.
@jjlynn27 if Keogh is wrong you can nail him and Hunt at the same time with the same keyboard.
NHS Medical Director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh: "There is an avoidable ‘weekend effect’ which if addressed could save lives. This is something that we as clinicians should collectively seek to solve."
Bruce.Keogh@dh.gsi.gov.uk
In my opinion, based on the evidence that I've seen so far, Hunt is telling porkies. It would be quite pointless to write to him, so the questions still stand.
Edited by jjlynn27 on Sunday 22 November 17:54
jjlynn27 said:
There is a 'weekend effect'. Nobody is disputing there isn't. It was explained to you the most probable cause for that effect. The same study, chaired by Keogh, implicitly states that conclusion that avoidable deaths are down to staffing level shouldn't be drawn, and that more research is needed. In any case, it will cost more, regardless of jds payments. Support services, quite a few of them supplied by private sector, social support network and so on. There is no funding in place for those, and even if there was, it would be inefficient use of money. If it was efficient it would be already implemented, if not in UK then somewhere, anywhere else.
An interesting conclusion...jjlynn27 said:
In my opinion, based on evidence that I've seen so far Hunt is telling porkies. It would be quite pointless to write to him, so the questions still stand.
You are entitled to that opinion.sidicks said:
If YOU could do basic maths, you'd understand that the whole public sector approach to pensions is unsustainable and making essential changes now would potentially mean more money was available to fund services such as the NHS (and increase salaries for staff).
I thought Hunt's proposals were supposed to be "cost neutral". How is that going to mean more money to fund services?sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
There is a 'weekend effect'. Nobody is disputing there isn't. It was explained to you the most probable cause for that effect. The same study, chaired by Keogh, implicitly states that conclusion that avoidable deaths are down to staffing level shouldn't be drawn, and that more research is needed. In any case, it will cost more, regardless of jds payments. Support services, quite a few of them supplied by private sector, social support network and so on. There is no funding in place for those, and even if there was, it would be inefficient use of money. If it was efficient it would be already implemented, if not in UK then somewhere, anywhere else.
An interesting conclusion...sidicks said:
Countdown said:
I thought Hunt's proposals were supposed to be "cost neutral". How is that going to mean more money to fund services?
I've said nothing about Hunt's proposals.sidicks said:
If YOU could do basic maths, you'd understand that the whole public sector approach to pensions is unsustainable and making essential changes now would potentially mean more money was available to fund services such as the NHS (and increase salaries for staff).
However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
So the "essential changes" you refer to aren't the ones being proposed by JH / the changes that this entire thread is about?However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Didn't Circle Healthcare come to the same conclusion ?
The conclusion that, because no-one else does it, it isn't worth doing?Countdown said:
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
Didn't Circle Healthcare come to the same conclusion ?
The conclusion that, because no-one else does it, it isn't worth doing?Is it beyond the bounds of reasonableness that Stafford Hospital could have been run better, by a number of potential providers including a different set of NHS people as well as others? Given the levels of error, fraud and waste in general, it's also reasonable to assume that improvements in efficiency are absolutely possible. Who in particular is tasked with making the improvements doesn't remove the potential for improvement.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff