13000 Deaths - Keogh
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
But not unique to government, is it?
If certain hospitals fail the norm (and there is no doubt that some have done so), there must also be many that exceed the norm.
Otherwise, how is the norm established?
Not disputing that.If certain hospitals fail the norm (and there is no doubt that some have done so), there must also be many that exceed the norm.
Otherwise, how is the norm established?
Hospitals exceeding the norm isn't going to involve killing people needlessly through lack of basic care to anything like the same extent (if at all) so 'seleting' those below the norm is appropriate in highlighting problems and looking to solve them and save lives.
Eric Mc said:
But not unique to government, is it?
If certain hospitals fail the norm (and there is no doubt that some have done so), there must also be many that exceed the norm.
Otherwise, how is the norm established?
No doubt those that exceed the norm get a pat on the back and their administrators take generous performance-related bonuses and move on to bigger and better things - what else are you looking for? It's certainly not acceptable to allow the 'excellent' bits to balance-out the 'appalling' bits, is it?If certain hospitals fail the norm (and there is no doubt that some have done so), there must also be many that exceed the norm.
Otherwise, how is the norm established?
IroningMan said:
I don't think it's likely that Staffs was a statistical manipulation.
I am even less inclined to think that it is unique in the Health Service.
Headline-grabbing numbers are fit for purpose if they serve to open the eyes of those who still cling to the belief that the Health Service is the envy of the World and staffed exclusively by angels.
Neither do I, although my knowledge of Staffs is based purely on the MSM and the report.I am even less inclined to think that it is unique in the Health Service.
Headline-grabbing numbers are fit for purpose if they serve to open the eyes of those who still cling to the belief that the Health Service is the envy of the World and staffed exclusively by angels.
It's easy to view issues like the NHS in black and white, it doesn't help. No one but an idiot thinks "the Health Service is the envy of the World and staffed exclusively by angels".
The problems in the NHS are real and they are significant. They are also massively complex. Lurching from one politically motivated knee jerk reaction to the next is part of the problem not part of the solution. Both main political parties hold a large degree of guilt for where the NHS is today. It should not be a political football, it needs taking out of the hands of Westminster.
IroningMan said:
Eric Mc said:
But not unique to government, is it?
If certain hospitals fail the norm (and there is no doubt that some have done so), there must also be many that exceed the norm.
Otherwise, how is the norm established?
No doubt those that exceed the norm get a pat on the back and their administrators take generous performance-related bonuses and move on to bigger and better things - what else are you looking for? It's certainly not acceptable to allow the 'excellent' bits to balance-out the 'appalling' bits, is it?If certain hospitals fail the norm (and there is no doubt that some have done so), there must also be many that exceed the norm.
Otherwise, how is the norm established?
No - but I would appreciate a better explanation of the numbers used when drafting sensationalist headlines - no matter what the basic story is about.
Have we not all ranted and raved about the way stats, graphs, numbers etc have been used the Great Global Warming debate?
Or do people tend to believe the numbers that support their views and disbelieve the numbers that don't support their views?
Have we not all ranted and raved about the way stats, graphs, numbers etc have been used the Great Global Warming debate?
Or do people tend to believe the numbers that support their views and disbelieve the numbers that don't support their views?
I don’t think Mid Staffordshire was a statistical manipulation – I’m sure it genuinely was as bad as that. I will be interested to read Keogh’s findings on Tameside Hospital, which I believe will be found to be as bad as Mid Staffordshire.
The healthcare my father received at Tameside was utterly appalling in every way. His consultant was incompetent (though I won’t go into it here he was severely criticised at my father’s autopsy, and in a subsequent medical report – so this is not simply the bitterness of a bereaved relative) , the nursing was disinterested, uncaring and disorganised and the ward so chaotic the hospital didn’t even manage to issue him with a name band for nearly a week. Patients there habitually went without water to the extent that my father needed medical intervention for extreme dehydration twice whilst he was an inpatient. The ward seemed to consider this normal. Drinks we brought in disappeared; possession of a bottle of water had real value in there. People were left in soiled beds and more than once, confused patients wandered the ward at random. One very distressed old lady tried to get into my father’s bed – she thought it was hers and he had stolen it. She wasn’t even from the same ward. There were other problems too, but cataloguing the failing of the hospital is not the point of this thread.
So in my experience, there is foundation to these ‘outlier’ statistics. Problems in affected hospitals must be genuinely recognised and action must genuinely be taken. It is important not to loose sight of what this means. We will loose sight of this if we descent into political ideology and name calling.
Parts of the NHS are woeful. In some hospitals, whole departments are woeful. Problems in other hospitals are so widespread the whole hospital is affected. These need to be solved urgently. The NHS is also capable of delivering a high standard of care. Some departments are excellent; in some hospitals these departments are so widespread, the glow from them can be said to affect the whole hospital. What makes these high points different to Mid Staffs, Tameside, Basildon and Thurrock and other failing hospitals? It can’t be beyond us to discover that, then to use the good practise of the excellent parts to improve the bad parts, not as window dressing to balance them out into a more acceptable overall statistic.
The healthcare my father received at Tameside was utterly appalling in every way. His consultant was incompetent (though I won’t go into it here he was severely criticised at my father’s autopsy, and in a subsequent medical report – so this is not simply the bitterness of a bereaved relative) , the nursing was disinterested, uncaring and disorganised and the ward so chaotic the hospital didn’t even manage to issue him with a name band for nearly a week. Patients there habitually went without water to the extent that my father needed medical intervention for extreme dehydration twice whilst he was an inpatient. The ward seemed to consider this normal. Drinks we brought in disappeared; possession of a bottle of water had real value in there. People were left in soiled beds and more than once, confused patients wandered the ward at random. One very distressed old lady tried to get into my father’s bed – she thought it was hers and he had stolen it. She wasn’t even from the same ward. There were other problems too, but cataloguing the failing of the hospital is not the point of this thread.
So in my experience, there is foundation to these ‘outlier’ statistics. Problems in affected hospitals must be genuinely recognised and action must genuinely be taken. It is important not to loose sight of what this means. We will loose sight of this if we descent into political ideology and name calling.
Parts of the NHS are woeful. In some hospitals, whole departments are woeful. Problems in other hospitals are so widespread the whole hospital is affected. These need to be solved urgently. The NHS is also capable of delivering a high standard of care. Some departments are excellent; in some hospitals these departments are so widespread, the glow from them can be said to affect the whole hospital. What makes these high points different to Mid Staffs, Tameside, Basildon and Thurrock and other failing hospitals? It can’t be beyond us to discover that, then to use the good practise of the excellent parts to improve the bad parts, not as window dressing to balance them out into a more acceptable overall statistic.
Eric Mc said:
No - but I would appreciate a better explanation of the numbers used when drafting sensationalist headlines - no matter what the basic story is about.
Have we not all ranted and raved about the way stats, graphs, numbers etc have been used the Great Global Warming debate?
Or do people tend to believe the numbers that support their views and disbelieve the numbers that don't support their views?
There is some truth in this. I don't believe sensationalism ever solved anything - and the number 13,000 used in the article seems arbitrary to me. That said, in context, on-going long term failures by several hospitals have been habitually covered up and unfortunately the use of measured language when reporting this seems to condemn the stories to local news. Tameside newspapers have been filled with scandals involving the hospital for a decade, before anyone noticed nationally. Both are a sad reflection on standards of British journalism, whether hysteria or indifference.Have we not all ranted and raved about the way stats, graphs, numbers etc have been used the Great Global Warming debate?
Or do people tend to believe the numbers that support their views and disbelieve the numbers that don't support their views?
aw51 121565 said:
Feelings are mixed, let's say 
. Would I recommend Bolton Hospital? I'd have to say a guardedyes
.
My sentimentas about Stafford - I had an operation there last year which went smoothly and I was dealt with very well. However, I'd also have first and secondhand experience of friends and relatives receiving very poor care previously - onhuman lack of care, especially with elderly patients - so I don't really know what to think about the place. . Would I recommend Bolton Hospital? I'd have to say a guardedyes .Broadly speaking, all hospitals could and should meet a minimum standard - it is, after all, their job - and those falling beneath it deserve close scrutiny and criticism. This is not just the public's money being spent, but the public's welfare that is at stake.
Eric Mc said:
No - but I would appreciate a better explanation of the numbers used when drafting sensationalist headlines - no matter what the basic story is about.
Have we not all ranted and raved about the way stats, graphs, numbers etc have been used the Great Global Warming debate?
Or do people tend to believe the numbers that support their views and disbelieve the numbers that don't support their views?
Have we not all ranted and raved about the way stats, graphs, numbers etc have been used the Great Global Warming debate?
Or do people tend to believe the numbers that support their views and disbelieve the numbers that don't support their views?
Eric Mc on the Frank Wrathall thread said:
I think that using a hands free is only very marginally less dangerous than using a hand held device.
The studies are now beginning to prove conclusively that engaging in phone conversations whilst driving is a seriously distracting activity.
You seem to.......The studies are now beginning to prove conclusively that engaging in phone conversations whilst driving is a seriously distracting activity.
Edited by TIGA84 on Monday 15th July 13:33
intersting too that david nicholson was on the radio / tv blurting on about the fact that the NHS needs another £30Bn.
this from the same bloke that agreed to £20Bn efficiency svings not that long ago and ironically pointed to the fact that the NHS needs more money to stop another mid-staffs...
I don't recall too many mentions of funding in the francis report being the cause of deaths at mid-staffs.
this smacks of someone saying something now for in 5 years or to to be able to say "I told you so".
At the end of the day alot of stuff has happened under his stewardship....
this from the same bloke that agreed to £20Bn efficiency svings not that long ago and ironically pointed to the fact that the NHS needs more money to stop another mid-staffs...
I don't recall too many mentions of funding in the francis report being the cause of deaths at mid-staffs.
this smacks of someone saying something now for in 5 years or to to be able to say "I told you so".
At the end of the day alot of stuff has happened under his stewardship....
Eric Mc said:
Who is this straw man that TB always seems to throw into so many of his comments?
Is it anything to do with "The Wizard of Oz"?
Or is it Mr Ad Hominem I am thinking of?
I'm glad it's not just me that's noticed this. 'Strawman' and 'ad hominem' are, as I've mentioned before, used far too often on PH. TB trots out the former in a substantial minority of his posts.Is it anything to do with "The Wizard of Oz"?
Or is it Mr Ad Hominem I am thinking of?
iphonedyou said:
Eric Mc said:
Who is this straw man that TB always seems to throw into so many of his comments?
Is it anything to do with "The Wizard of Oz"?
Or is it Mr Ad Hominem I am thinking of?
I'm glad it's not just me that's noticed this. 'Strawman' and 'ad hominem' are, as I've mentioned before, used far too often on PH. TB trots out the former in a substantial minority of his posts.Is it anything to do with "The Wizard of Oz"?
Or is it Mr Ad Hominem I am thinking of?
When there is a false reference to e.g. 'everyone (on PH)', or 'all (public sector workers)' or as we saw from eccles 'anybody (connected with the public sector couldn't possibly think for themselves)', the poster has set up a strawman to argue down. Nobody apart from the poster has used the exaggeration in question and as such it's a strawman which misrepresents another person's position. Or as we've seen, a lot of persons, often accompanied by telling them/us what we think and say which is even more silly.
I rarely use ad homs or the term ad hom.
You may wish to understand what it is you're monitoring before spouting off about it.
Nom de ploom said:
intersting too that david nicholson was on the radio / tv blurting on about the fact that the NHS needs another £30Bn.
this from the same bloke that agreed to £20Bn efficiency svings not that long ago and ironically pointed to the fact that the NHS needs more money to stop another mid-staffs...
I don't recall too many mentions of funding in the francis report being the cause of deaths at mid-staffs.
this smacks of someone saying something now for in 5 years or to to be able to say "I told you so".
At the end of the day alot of stuff has happened under his stewardship....
He didn't say the NHS needed another £30 billion. Quite the opposite in fact.this from the same bloke that agreed to £20Bn efficiency svings not that long ago and ironically pointed to the fact that the NHS needs more money to stop another mid-staffs...
I don't recall too many mentions of funding in the francis report being the cause of deaths at mid-staffs.
this smacks of someone saying something now for in 5 years or to to be able to say "I told you so".
At the end of the day alot of stuff has happened under his stewardship....
£30 billion is the gap over the next 7 years between what will be allocated from the public purse and what the NHS would be expecting on its current unsustainable trajectory. He stated that this gap cannot be bridged by more money because there won't be any more money nor can salami-sliced 'efficiency savings' deliver either. Instead the NHS must change to fit the new reality - wholesale reconfiguration.
By that he essentially means downgrading and closing small departments/hospitals in favour of centralised centres of excellence, and moving care out of the hospitals to more appropriate settings. This does relate to Mid Staffs, the 14 hospital trusts under review and quite a few other hospital trusts that are financially and clinically unsustainable.
At a high level, it is effectively what was wrong at Mid Staffs: a catchment area far below the recommended Royal Colleges minimum; not enough patient income to cover high fixed costs; departments that were too small to provide a safe service; and not enough patients for said departments to be clinically safe. Obviously there were many things wrong at Mid Staffs but fundamentally its two hospitals should not have existed in their current form.
turbobloke said:
W
When there is a false reference to e.g. 'everyone (on PH)', or 'all (public sector workers)' or as we saw from eccles 'anybody (connected with the public sector couldn't possibly think for themselves)', the poster has set up a strawman to argue down. Nobody apart from the poster has used the exaggeration in question and as such it's a strawman which misrepresents another person's position. Or as we've seen, a lot of persons, often accompanied by telling them/us what we think and say which is even more silly.
You seem to have deliberately (or not) missed the point of my post you quoted. It was in direct response to the ridiculous post about the pretty much all of the NHS being bought and paid for Labour voters.When there is a false reference to e.g. 'everyone (on PH)', or 'all (public sector workers)' or as we saw from eccles 'anybody (connected with the public sector couldn't possibly think for themselves)', the poster has set up a strawman to argue down. Nobody apart from the poster has used the exaggeration in question and as such it's a strawman which misrepresents another person's position. Or as we've seen, a lot of persons, often accompanied by telling them/us what we think and say which is even more silly.
That's not a strawman, it's a sarcastic response to a ridiculous post.
There definitely is an element on here who seem to hold the idiotic view that anyone employed in the public sector is a Labour voter and is somehow beholden to them.
eccles said:
turbobloke said:
When there is a false reference to e.g. 'everyone (on PH)', or 'all (public sector workers)' or as we saw from eccles 'anybody (connected with the public sector couldn't possibly think for themselves)', the poster has set up a strawman to argue down. Nobody apart from the poster has used the exaggeration in question and as such it's a strawman which misrepresents another person's position. Or as we've seen, a lot of persons, often accompanied by telling them/us what we think and say which is even more silly.
You seem to have deliberately (or not) missed the point of my post you quoted. It was in direct response to the ridiculous post about the pretty much all of the NHS being bought and paid for Labour voters.eccles said:
Ah, yes, but it fits in with that funny lot on here who think anyone connected to the public sector couldn't possibly think for themselves and is some kind of labour drone. 
As such you misrepresented the position of quite a few people in order to argue against the fabricated viewpoint you created. That's a strawman, and by now even Eric will understand why.Overview of the report:
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Do...
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Do...
Edited by dbdb on Wednesday 17th July 00:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff