NHS PR costs

[ralphrj]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-217629...

In 1981 there were 8 Press Officers employed across the whole NHS.

In 2012 there were 82 Press Officers employed in the NHS in London alone at a cost of £9.7m for the last 3 years.





Edit: to correct spend over 3 years

Edited by ralphrj on Wednesday 13th March 12:52

[Ozzie Osmond]

Check out the graph on this link to see how much the NHS has grown since 1981

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/hi...

[maffski]

ralphrj said:

In 2012 there were 82 Press Officers employed in the NHS in London alone at a cost of £9.7m or £118,293 each.

According to the article this is the spend over the last 3 years, not 2012.

[ralphrj]

maffski said:

According to the article this is the spend over the last 3 years, not 2012.

Thanks for the correction. I'd obviously missed that bit.

[voyds9]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Check out the graph on this link to see how much the NHS has grown since 1981

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/hi...

Are we really spending £1 in 7 of national income on the NHS.

I find that figure a) hard to accept b) hard to justify

It may be time to put a limit on NHS treatment. Get it back to original purpose, patch you up and get you back to work.

[Smiler.]

voyds9 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Check out the graph on this link to see how much the NHS has grown since 1981

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/hi...

Are we really spending £1 in 7 of national income on the NHS.

I find that figure a) hard to accept b) hard to justify

It may be time to put a limit on NHS treatment. Get it back to original purpose, patch you up and get you back to work.

Can you imaging the uproar though?

"Yeah, but my mum & dad paid tax all their lifes, so I demand my rights for you to give me bigger fake tits & correct the spelling of 'tramp stump' on my arse".


On another NHS note, I read somewhere recently about an NHS Trust, which already in dire straights has just been hit with a £3.9M payout following a successful employment tribunal (sexual harassment/discrimination) case brought by a female doctor.

I wonder if those responsible will be reprimanded/sacked?

[captainzep]

voyds9 said:

Are we really spending £1 in 7 of national income on the NHS.

I find that figure a) hard to accept b) hard to justify

It may be time to put a limit on NHS treatment. Get it back to original purpose, patch you up and get you back to work.

The original purpose never really changed and the NHS's main 'customers' i.e. retired people don't work.

The taxpayer is a victim of both the NHS's own success and it's political weight as a 'national treasure'. -No party will be elected on the basis of significant changes to the principle of 'free at point of access' and the fact that fewer people drop dead from cardiac arrests & lung cancer mean that far more people linger with chronic disease costing the state vast amounts of cash.

'PR cost' stories like this are written to add to the age-old 'over-managed bureaucratic NHS' agenda which the press fall back on during quiet times. The key is always in the text "'x' cost equates to 'y' nurses", -regardless of whether throwing 'y' nurses at a system would actually improve services for people.

There is vast waste in the NHS. Some of it is on amateur PR bks that is poorly conceived and has no impact. By far the biggest waste is generated by an ignorant public, whether they turn up to A&E with a cold, maintain repeat prescription drugs they don't need, ring for an ambulance because they can't afford a taxi, book appointments they don't turn up to, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

[grumbledoak]

captainzep said:

The taxpayer is a victim of both the NHS's own success and it's political weight as a 'national treasure' 1.4 MILLION bought and paid for Labour voters

That's more like it.

[Digga]

captainzep said:

By far the biggest waste is generated by an ignorant public, whether they turn up to A&E with a cold, maintain repeat prescription drugs they don't need, ring for an ambulance because they can't afford a taxi, book appointments they don't turn up to, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Absolutely. And none of this is very easy top change, given the selfish, entitlement culture we have and the fact that all of these are, as you say, 'free' at the opint of access. The only sure thing is that if something clearly cannot go on forever, then it won't.

[Rotary Madness]

I read somewhere that people who waste medicine through not canceling prescriptions etc cost the NHS over 800million a year! Then you have more and more exotic and very very expensive treatments for rare kinds of cancer, that save in the grand scheme of things, few lives but cost the NHS piles of money.

However isnt the largest growing drain on the NHS the rapidly aging population, and the fact 50% of us are fat fkers, that just complicate things and add more health problems?

[muffinmenace]

How are they not cancelling the prescriptions though?

I thought the point is you have to request the repeat it or if it's done with the collection service from the pharmacy it will stop when you fail to pick it up.

Or is this people letting it lapse once and and that totals the 800million estimate?

[tankplanker]

voyds9 said:

Are we really spending £1 in 7 of national income on the NHS.

I find that figure a) hard to accept b) hard to justify

It may be time to put a limit on NHS treatment. Get it back to original purpose, patch you up and get you back to work.

Still costs significantly less per person than the US system and provides a more even level of care despite income than the US as well.

Needs a good prune of the middle/upper management, unnecessary reports and bureaucracy.

[mph1977]

Smiler. said:

voyds9 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Check out the graph on this link to see how much the NHS has grown since 1981

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/hi...

Are we really spending £1 in 7 of national income on the NHS.

I find that figure a) hard to accept b) hard to justify

It may be time to put a limit on NHS treatment. Get it back to original purpose, patch you up and get you back to work.

Can you imaging the uproar though?

"Yeah, but my mum & dad paid tax all their lifes, so I demand my rights for you to give me bigger fake tits & correct the spelling of 'tramp stump' on my arse".


On another NHS note, I read somewhere recently about an NHS Trust, which already in dire straights has just been hit with a £3.9M payout following a successful employment tribunal (sexual harassment/discrimination) case brought by a female doctor.

I wonder if those responsible will be reprimanded/sacked?

I believe the senior managers in question 'left' the trust before the ET and the current incumbants of the posts are continuing in the same manner...

[mph1977]

captainzep said:

voyds9 said:

Are we really spending £1 in 7 of national income on the NHS.

I find that figure a) hard to accept b) hard to justify

It may be time to put a limit on NHS treatment. Get it back to original purpose, patch you up and get you back to work.

The original purpose never really changed and the NHS's main 'customers' i.e. retired people don't work.

The taxpayer is a victim of both the NHS's own success and it's political weight as a 'national treasure'. -No party will be elected on the basis of significant changes to the principle of 'free at point of access' and the fact that fewer people drop dead from cardiac arrests & lung cancer mean that far more people linger with chronic disease costing the state vast amounts of cash.

also the hand wringing and wailing that prevents service improvement such as the paeds cardiac surgery stuff, cardio thoracic surgery is a declining speciality as better prevention and the the rise of interventions that don;t involve cracking the rib cage open ( e.g. primary and rescue angioplasty doen by a cardiologist or interventional radiologist immediately following an MI rather than a CABG under ardio thoracics some months later ) ...

captainzep said:

'PR cost' stories like this are written to add to the age-old 'over-managed bureaucratic NHS' agenda which the press fall back on during quiet times. The key is always in the text "'x' cost equates to 'y' nurses", -regardless of whether throwing 'y' nurses at a system would actually improve services for people.

the NHS is over managed, 'General managers' Are de-facto political commissars as support services ( accountants, HR , estates, catering, cleaning etc) have their own professional managers and the line management of health professionals and their auxillary staff is in the hands of the profession.

there is an elephant in the room of 'Nurse Managers' who are neither clinically current Nurses ( unlike Doctors, Midwives and Paramedics as managers who set out to maintain clinical currency) nor are they adequately trained as managers often being less well educated than their most junior Staff Nurse

[quote]
There is vast waste in the NHS. Some of it is on amateur PR bks that is poorly conceived and has no impact. By far the biggest waste is generated by an ignorant public, whether they turn up to A&E with a cold, maintain repeat prescription drugs they don't need, ring for an ambulance because they can't afford a taxi, book appointments they don't turn up to, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

add in lay managers and the 'Nurse (mis)Managers' who are happy to not back front line staff in dealing with these abuses.

[Mojooo]

ralphrj said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-217629...

In 1981 there were 8 Press Officers employed across the whole NHS.

In 2012 there were 82 Press Officers employed in the NHS in London alone at a cost of £9.7m for the last 3 years.





Edit: to correct spend over 3 years

Edited by ralphrj on Wednesday 13th March 12:52

Might that be because there are a lot more media demands than there were 22 years ago?

I am sure the NHS could stick with 8 press officers but I daresay the media would complain that they cannot get a response from the remaining 8 overworked staff.

[captainzep]

mph1977 said:

the NHS is over managed, 'General managers' Are de-facto political commissars as support services ( accountants, HR , estates, catering, cleaning etc) have their own professional managers and the line management of health professionals and their auxillary staff is in the hands of the profession.

The NHS responds to the tasks which Govt impose on it.

For example, national scandal tends to lead to increased 'governance'. Governance can be very effective at generating change through closer internal overview or scrutiny but it also tends to lead to job creation.

Creating an 'internal market' within England was an interesting step which brought certain benefits to the tax-payer but also brought a massive swathe of commissioners, contract managers, accountants etc. all housed in additional offices and requiring more HR, IT, payroll resource.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but 'over-managed' suggests that too many people are doing an unnecessary job. The bureaucratic architecture of the NHS has been determined by Govt making an ever lengthening list of mandatory tasks.

[London424]

Mojooo said:

ralphrj said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-217629...

In 1981 there were 8 Press Officers employed across the whole NHS.

In 2012 there were 82 Press Officers employed in the NHS in London alone at a cost of £9.7m for the last 3 years.





Edit: to correct spend over 3 years

Edited by ralphrj on Wednesday 13th March 12:52

Might that be because there are a lot more media demands than there were 22 years ago?

I am sure the NHS could stick with 8 press officers but I daresay the media would complain that they cannot get a response from the remaining 8 overworked staff.

Does the NHS need PR staff? Why are they talking to the media in the first place?

Surely their sole function is to treat people.

[mph1977]

captainzep said:

mph1977 said:

the NHS is over managed, 'General managers' Are de-facto political commissars as support services ( accountants, HR , estates, catering, cleaning etc) have their own professional managers and the line management of health professionals and their auxillary staff is in the hands of the profession.

The NHS responds to the tasks which Govt impose on it.

For example, national scandal tends to lead to increased 'governance'. Governance can be very effective at generating change through closer internal overview or scrutiny but it also tends to lead to job creation.

governance tasks which by and large are devolved to clinical staff or ward based ancillary staff ( e.g. ward clerks ) but still require a nurse (mis)manager or l fail baked bean stacker on band 8 to have meetings about having meetings about havign meetings to discuss these activities.

Performance being measured by completion of these tasks rather than by effective care delivery

captainzep said:

Creating an 'internal market' within England was an interesting step which brought certain benefits to the tax-payer but also brought a massive swathe of commissioners, contract managers, accountants etc. all housed in additional offices and requiring more HR, IT, payroll resource.

This is part of the the shift between the NHS as a monolith vs the NHS being the main payer for elective healthcare, the funder of emergency / urgent healthcare and the back stop provider for none profitable services.

captainzep said:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but 'over-managed' suggests that too many people are doing an unnecessary job. The bureaucratic architecture of the NHS has been determined by Govt making an ever lengthening list of mandatory tasks.

like I said performance being measured by arbitrary performance figures pulled from the stinking rectums of politicians for crowd pleasing purposes rather than there being any clinical benefit

'Good' targets include the heart attack related targets the MINAP stuff and now the PCI stuff - as this has had demonstrable benefits , Hyper acute stroke management targets, the Major Trauma Centre stuff ( both the hyper acute andthe trauma networks and national commissioning for specialist trauma care), '2 week rule ' clinics for Chest pain/ TIA/ Suspected cancer

'Bad' targets include such things 4 hour A+E target at 98.5 % and no clinical exceptions , 18 week target ( although the not repeatedly cancelling elective surgery stuff is useful from a not buggering people about point of view)... the crude A8 and A19 targets for the ambulance service especially when the A8 can be met by a chimp with a defib duct taped to it ...

the way in which the GMS and GDP contracts were drafted is a bit of joke but again a mixture of good and bad ... yes QOF points are a potential cash goldmine but the underpinning chronic disease management stuff is good ..

[captainzep]

London424 said:

Does the NHS need PR staff? Why are they talking to the media in the first place?

Surely their sole function is to treat people.

'PR' is the sort of misleading term you'd expect from the BBC.

I suspect the article refers to 'Communications' teams that deal with a range of stuff. They will handle media enquiries which clinicians are often ill equipped or too busy to do, from local rags to national TV/radio. They will support press releases or corporate communication, for example local clinics or services often change and there's a statutory duty to inform the public through a range of media. They will maintain the output of websites and moderate social media for the organisation.

Govt. initiatives have tended to require NHS organisations to work or engage with the public as it's felt that patients/public should (in part) shape the way services are designed. Comms teams tend to lead on this.

Additionally the NHS is subject to a statutory obligation to consult formally with the public when large-scale service change is planned. This is a massive palaver with all sorts of legal principles to meet, (otherwise such changes could be challenged by pressure groups in the courts/judicial review -don't ask). Again, this work falls to Comms teams who will tend to seek help regarding the legalities.

Finally Trusts are big organisations employing several thousand people and someone needs to generate the internal comms -monthly staff newsletter, corporate emails, "GOOD NEWS!" bullst stories, etc etc.

Admittedly Holby City sheds little light on this side of things.

[mph1977]

captainzep said:

<snip> lots of sensible and valid stuff

Admittedly Holby City sheds little light on this side of things.

the 'Holbyverse' has gone to ratst from a reality of the NHS point of view in favour of the soap opera aspects. earlier series of Casualty were also 'reenactment' from the point of view of the clinical and organisational factors and the career progression of individuals .