Southern Health
Discussion
crankedup said:
Apparently the 'new position' will see the outgoing CEO 250k better off for her one year advisory role. Less expensive for the Authority if they were to fire her outright.
It might not have been more expensive to sack her. Assuming she won, the maximum she could get in an normal wrongful/unfair dismissal case is about £90k(ish) plus payment for any notice not given when dismissed. On the information given, I can't see how she could play the discrimination card at a tribunal.Unless the Trust's legal costs were significantly above the usual cost for a normal unfair/wrongful dismissal case, they'd probably be better off financially going to tribunal. And, maybe more importantly, would look better in the media.
Not interested about the lady in question. But those who dreamt up a 240k a year job & gave it to someone, with no competitor for the role, should be fired.
Public trust in the NHS is eroded by such waste, should take £350m a week off them rather than give more for the NHS to squander ..
Public trust in the NHS is eroded by such waste, should take £350m a week off them rather than give more for the NHS to squander ..
I know it's difficult to judge someone's competence from the TV - but she seems to be pretty dim, and she certainly has no leadership charisma whatsoever.
One wonders how she got the job in the first place.
Honestly, could you see her earning £1/4M in as a CEO/MD or whatever in a private company?
One wonders how she got the job in the first place.
Honestly, could you see her earning £1/4M in as a CEO/MD or whatever in a private company?
Mr GrimNasty said:
I know it's difficult to judge someone's competence from the TV - but she seems to be pretty dim, and she certainly has no leadership charisma whatsoever.
One wonders how she got the job in the first place.
Honestly, could you see her earning £1/4M in as a CEO/MD or whatever in a private company?
I know exactly what you mean. Nepotism and stupidity, and an ability to speak the public service lingo. One wonders how she got the job in the first place.
Honestly, could you see her earning £1/4M in as a CEO/MD or whatever in a private company?
Digga said:
I was pondering this. Given that it has now come to light she 'gifted' un-tendered contracts to friends, I would have thought anything but a piss-weak HR team ought to be able to make a pretty robust case for outright dismissal for conduct.
Misconduct in public office? If it can be shown that she held public office.Today Chris Hopson, CE of NHS Providers, as far as I can tell, says 7 day care isn't possible and that the NHS needs more money.
Hopson left his £150K plus job at HMRC for this role so, although he is reluctant to say what his a salary is, we can assume it's up there with Percy and the like. It's funded by NHS Providers members, i.e areas of the NHS or, indirectly, the taxpayer.
All NHSP appears to do is comment on situations within the NHS; all Hopson is currently doing is calling for 'debate'. Along with more money, of course.
My contribution to the debate is a proposal for him to resign and immediately help the finances. If he can take a few thousand of his similarly wasteful colleagues with him, maybe we'll find there is enough money for 7 day care.
Hopson left his £150K plus job at HMRC for this role so, although he is reluctant to say what his a salary is, we can assume it's up there with Percy and the like. It's funded by NHS Providers members, i.e areas of the NHS or, indirectly, the taxpayer.
All NHSP appears to do is comment on situations within the NHS; all Hopson is currently doing is calling for 'debate'. Along with more money, of course.
My contribution to the debate is a proposal for him to resign and immediately help the finances. If he can take a few thousand of his similarly wasteful colleagues with him, maybe we'll find there is enough money for 7 day care.
The reality with NHS funding is that many trusts have been running near deficits for years but due to the wonderful way the NHS is made to report the finance situation it has always looked better than it was. The way Tesco manipulated the figures shows how easy it is to pull accruals and spending from one month to another.
What is happening now is that due to the unrealistic expectations that Hunt has said can be done with no new money, even after the Kings fund think tank, all the royal colleges and even his own department said it cannot, the chairman's of Trusts are now telling it as it. Hence today it was reported that 80% of the trusts will finish with a deficit this year.
Waiting times are up in every department, every target almost, is being missed and yet the NHS did 4000 more operations with no more money.
Yes there is waste, yes there are business managers who are overpaid, but when people say that they ignore what a huge task running a hospital is. Nothing is fixed, you don't know one day to the next what will come through the door, hence schedules in acute hospitals are more hope than promise. But if you really want to see waste on a biblical scale look at the armed forces, they can outshine anything the NHS can do and yet is a strikingly similar fashion, let down soldiers with poor equipment and logistics and when money was tightened they simply cut the number of staff and made them do more for the same, or recruited cheaper new soldiers.
The plan though is to cut the wage bill in the NHS, by that we mean Dr's and nurses and ancillary staff, who are not all paid mega money, by managers who are.
My Daughter is working one weekend on one off in A&E 10 hour shifts, 12 if it is a night shift. In that time she gets 1 1/2 hour break that is it. Under the new contract she will get two 1/2 hour breaks but no mention of who will cover the extra half an hour she is not there.
but back to the main point, if Hunt sacked this woman he would go up in my estimation, but they will not as she has probably done what she was told to do in cost cutting regardless of the risk. Now it has come home to roost, she will have emails that clear her hence this is all a cover up job and she will get paid off one way or another, as let's be frank who would touch her now so her career is finished?
What is happening now is that due to the unrealistic expectations that Hunt has said can be done with no new money, even after the Kings fund think tank, all the royal colleges and even his own department said it cannot, the chairman's of Trusts are now telling it as it. Hence today it was reported that 80% of the trusts will finish with a deficit this year.
Waiting times are up in every department, every target almost, is being missed and yet the NHS did 4000 more operations with no more money.
Yes there is waste, yes there are business managers who are overpaid, but when people say that they ignore what a huge task running a hospital is. Nothing is fixed, you don't know one day to the next what will come through the door, hence schedules in acute hospitals are more hope than promise. But if you really want to see waste on a biblical scale look at the armed forces, they can outshine anything the NHS can do and yet is a strikingly similar fashion, let down soldiers with poor equipment and logistics and when money was tightened they simply cut the number of staff and made them do more for the same, or recruited cheaper new soldiers.
The plan though is to cut the wage bill in the NHS, by that we mean Dr's and nurses and ancillary staff, who are not all paid mega money, by managers who are.
My Daughter is working one weekend on one off in A&E 10 hour shifts, 12 if it is a night shift. In that time she gets 1 1/2 hour break that is it. Under the new contract she will get two 1/2 hour breaks but no mention of who will cover the extra half an hour she is not there.
but back to the main point, if Hunt sacked this woman he would go up in my estimation, but they will not as she has probably done what she was told to do in cost cutting regardless of the risk. Now it has come home to roost, she will have emails that clear her hence this is all a cover up job and she will get paid off one way or another, as let's be frank who would touch her now so her career is finished?
spaximus said:
The reality with NHS funding is that many trusts have been running near deficits for years but due to the wonderful way the NHS is made to report the finance situation it has always looked better than it was. The way Tesco manipulated the figures shows how easy it is to pull accruals and spending from one month to another.
What is happening now is that due to the unrealistic expectations that Hunt has said can be done with no new money, even after the Kings fund think tank, all the royal colleges and even his own department said it cannot, the chairman's of Trusts are now telling it as it. Hence today it was reported that 80% of the trusts will finish with a deficit this year.
Waiting times are up in every department, every target almost, is being missed and yet the NHS did 4000 more operations with no more money.
Yes there is waste, yes there are business managers who are overpaid, but when people say that they ignore what a huge task running a hospital is. Nothing is fixed, you don't know one day to the next what will come through the door, hence schedules in acute hospitals are more hope than promise. But if you really want to see waste on a biblical scale look at the armed forces, they can outshine anything the NHS can do and yet is a strikingly similar fashion, let down soldiers with poor equipment and logistics and when money was tightened they simply cut the number of staff and made them do more for the same, or recruited cheaper new soldiers.
The plan though is to cut the wage bill in the NHS, by that we mean Dr's and nurses and ancillary staff, who are not all paid mega money, by managers who are.
My Daughter is working one weekend on one off in A&E 10 hour shifts, 12 if it is a night shift. In that time she gets 1 1/2 hour break that is it. Under the new contract she will get two 1/2 hour breaks but no mention of who will cover the extra half an hour she is not there.
but back to the main point, if Hunt sacked this woman he would go up in my estimation, but they will not as she has probably done what she was told to do in cost cutting regardless of the risk. Now it has come home to roost, she will have emails that clear her hence this is all a cover up job and she will get paid off one way or another, as let's be frank who would touch her now so her career is finished?
More money won't help. As you've clearly confirmed the whole management of the NHS is FUBAR. Cut the cost of these fWhat is happening now is that due to the unrealistic expectations that Hunt has said can be done with no new money, even after the Kings fund think tank, all the royal colleges and even his own department said it cannot, the chairman's of Trusts are now telling it as it. Hence today it was reported that 80% of the trusts will finish with a deficit this year.
Waiting times are up in every department, every target almost, is being missed and yet the NHS did 4000 more operations with no more money.
Yes there is waste, yes there are business managers who are overpaid, but when people say that they ignore what a huge task running a hospital is. Nothing is fixed, you don't know one day to the next what will come through the door, hence schedules in acute hospitals are more hope than promise. But if you really want to see waste on a biblical scale look at the armed forces, they can outshine anything the NHS can do and yet is a strikingly similar fashion, let down soldiers with poor equipment and logistics and when money was tightened they simply cut the number of staff and made them do more for the same, or recruited cheaper new soldiers.
The plan though is to cut the wage bill in the NHS, by that we mean Dr's and nurses and ancillary staff, who are not all paid mega money, by managers who are.
My Daughter is working one weekend on one off in A&E 10 hour shifts, 12 if it is a night shift. In that time she gets 1 1/2 hour break that is it. Under the new contract she will get two 1/2 hour breaks but no mention of who will cover the extra half an hour she is not there.
but back to the main point, if Hunt sacked this woman he would go up in my estimation, but they will not as she has probably done what she was told to do in cost cutting regardless of the risk. Now it has come home to roost, she will have emails that clear her hence this is all a cover up job and she will get paid off one way or another, as let's be frank who would touch her now so her career is finished?
kwits who are responsible. Things couldn't be any worse. IMO it's naive to think that pouring in more money won't just result in more waste.
REALIST123 said:
More money won't help. As you've clearly confirmed the whole management of the NHS is FUBAR. Cut the cost of these fkwits who are responsible. Things couldn't be any worse.
IMO it's naive to think that pouring in more money won't just result in more waste.
`kwits who are responsible. Things couldn't be any worse. IMO it's naive to think that pouring in more money won't just result in more waste.
It all depends on where and how the money is invested, not spent. There needs to be a cross party agreement to a plan on how the NHS should be and then leave it for 10 years for those changes to filter through. Every time the government changes there is always reorganisations, my wife has overseen so many that have been ordered it is hard to keep up. Regional Health Authorities, Trusts, CCG CSU to name a few and every time a smaller trust is taken over the cost of just changing the stationary is insane. Stop the changes and you would save billions.
The internal market has shot costs up. An example, operation X costs £1000, but there were complications so the cost is charged to the CCG by the CSU for £1500 based on what the CSU has been told. CSG queries this via the CSU back to the provider. This then goes on arguing until as who is to blame for the cost the provider the patient etc. It goes on and on, getting rid of the internal market set up to save money has increased costs in the back office and saved nothing on the NHS bill.
So many things wrong but there is no incentive to those within the NHS management to change things outside what their remit is. IT projects have been forced on them, the Blair idea of an integrated patients system nationally, great idea but the civil servants overseeing this wrote such poor contract specs that even when they failed to deliver on time to spec, companies still got paid and in many case charged more.
Changing the NHS needs a long term view. It is like trying to move a super tanker with one man in a rowing boat. But this being the NHS the first thing they would do is outsource the design for the rowing boat to one company, the oars to another so they wouldn't work correctly together.
Then they would outsource the selection of the man to GS4 or capita, making sure that all the diversity boxes were ticked. They would fail to ensure there was cover for when the man was on holiday and when they saw the super tanker was not moving, they would appoint consultants to look at why it was not working.
The first consultant would see it was because there was not enough rowing boats and the design and procurement was flawed, so they would not like the answer.
A second consultant would be appointed who having read the first report would conclude it was the fault of the man rowing the boat not working hard enough. They would accept that view and release a press story that it was due to idle man and not the fault of policy after all, so they make him work longer for less money, sorted.
In Hunts view the Dr's and the Nurses are the ones rowing, nothing wrong elsewhere.
And so it goes on and on. How do you stop it hard to say, but the fact is that there is not enough money at this moment in time to treat people. So do you let them suffer and argue about who is to blame or do something?
spaximus said:
REALIST123 said:
More money won't help. As you've clearly confirmed the whole management of the NHS is FUBAR. Cut the cost of these fkwits who are responsible. Things couldn't be any worse.
IMO it's naive to think that pouring in more money won't just result in more waste.
`kwits who are responsible. Things couldn't be any worse. IMO it's naive to think that pouring in more money won't just result in more waste.
It all depends on where and how the money is invested, not spent. There needs to be a cross party agreement to a plan on how the NHS should be and then leave it for 10 years for those changes to filter through. Every time the government changes there is always reorganisations, my wife has overseen so many that have been ordered it is hard to keep up. Regional Health Authorities, Trusts, CCG CSU to name a few and every time a smaller trust is taken over the cost of just changing the stationary is insane. Stop the changes and you would save billions.
The internal market has shot costs up. An example, operation X costs £1000, but there were complications so the cost is charged to the CCG by the CSU for £1500 based on what the CSU has been told. CSG queries this via the CSU back to the provider. This then goes on arguing until as who is to blame for the cost the provider the patient etc. It goes on and on, getting rid of the internal market set up to save money has increased costs in the back office and saved nothing on the NHS bill.
So many things wrong but there is no incentive to those within the NHS management to change things outside what their remit is. IT projects have been forced on them, the Blair idea of an integrated patients system nationally, great idea but the civil servants overseeing this wrote such poor contract specs that even when they failed to deliver on time to spec, companies still got paid and in many case charged more.
Changing the NHS needs a long term view. It is like trying to move a super tanker with one man in a rowing boat. But this being the NHS the first thing they would do is outsource the design for the rowing boat to one company, the oars to another so they wouldn't work correctly together.
Then they would outsource the selection of the man to GS4 or capita, making sure that all the diversity boxes were ticked. They would fail to ensure there was cover for when the man was on holiday and when they saw the super tanker was not moving, they would appoint consultants to look at why it was not working.
The first consultant would see it was because there was not enough rowing boats and the design and procurement was flawed, so they would not like the answer.
A second consultant would be appointed who having read the first report would conclude it was the fault of the man rowing the boat not working hard enough. They would accept that view and release a press story that it was due to idle man and not the fault of policy after all, so they make him work longer for less money, sorted.
In Hunts view the Dr's and the Nurses are the ones rowing, nothing wrong elsewhere.
And so it goes on and on. How do you stop it hard to say, but the fact is that there is not enough money at this moment in time to treat people. So do you let them suffer and argue about who is to blame or do something?
REALIST123 said:
Good news. Tim Smart, the similarly overpaid boss of Percy, and the creator of her 'new' role, which it turns out she was already doing as part of her old role, has resigned too.
That's best part of £500,000 to spend on doctors and nurses. Fat chance.
That he's gone is excellent news, but does she get to keep this made-up, meaningless job?That's best part of £500,000 to spend on doctors and nurses. Fat chance.
FlyingMeeces said:
REALIST123 said:
Good news. Tim Smart, the similarly overpaid boss of Percy, and the creator of her 'new' role, which it turns out she was already doing as part of her old role, has resigned too.
That's best part of £500,000 to spend on doctors and nurses. Fat chance.
That he's gone is excellent news, but does she get to keep this made-up, meaningless job?That's best part of £500,000 to spend on doctors and nurses. Fat chance.
s3fella said:
s the lot of them Good f riddance!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37410464
Veering of the subject slightly, the new Brighton, Sussex, waste of money hospital (or a major refurb of the old one) is now likely to coat £486 million.
So we will have major hospital with very poor ambulance access (one road), appallingly non-planned parking, possibly no helipad for emergencies..
Brilliant... or rather not.
So we will have major hospital with very poor ambulance access (one road), appallingly non-planned parking, possibly no helipad for emergencies..
Brilliant... or rather not.
D900SP said:
Veering of the subject slightly, the new Brighton, Sussex, waste of money hospital (or a major refurb of the old one) is now likely to coat £486 million.
So we will have major hospital with very poor ambulance access (one road), appallingly non-planned parking, possibly no helipad for emergencies..
Brilliant... or rather not.
They should have gone to North Hampshire Trust for advice.So we will have major hospital with very poor ambulance access (one road), appallingly non-planned parking, possibly no helipad for emergencies..
Brilliant... or rather not.
A few years ago they got the go ahead to use public funds to build a new private only hospital, the Candover Clinic. It has outpatients, diagnostic suite with state of the art MRI, CT, X-Ray and Ultrasound. 22 beds for in patients and fully equipped operating theatres.
This was all built for just £5m according to my FOI they answered.
They expect to get £2m per year in private income so should cover the costs in a couple of years.
But, and it's a big but, they refused to let me know the budgeted running costs as, to quote
"The second part of your request for information on annual running costs is not subject to the freedom of information act as this is run by a separate company (non-public organisation) and so this request is excluded from the FOI provisions."
This just reeks of smoke and mirrors accounting. No doubt the cost of £5m was the building with no equipment in it and the running costs, which they wont disclose, will cover the "hire" of the equipment.
I've yet to go back and ask why the running costs aren't covered as surely they're all paid for from public funds and therefore should be subject to FOI.
I first found out about the clinic from my mother who was sent an appointment letter for the main NHS hospital next door. At the bottom of the letter was a message saying; if you want your treatment quicker why not give the clinic a call and go private.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff