NHS: "No one is safe"

[SevenRivers]

Newspapers don't sell news, they peddle opinions which generally have a political slant. Now provide us with evidence

 

The number of patients that died in Staffordshire is news. Those dead people are a matter of fact, not opinion.

[JFKvsNixon]

Not really. You'll note that I used the plural. The whole public sector system is awful from top to bottom, discouraging innovation, stifling talent (there is lots), promoting pointless bureaucracy and empire building focussed on bums on seats (regardless of ability, and there is lots of process following dross) rather than putting the required talent into the appropriate posts.

 

All of this is at the expense of what they are actually there to deliver.

 

And yes, the private sector can suffer from this too, especially where a huge organisation is geared up to serve the public sector in its present manifestation.

 

And you know this is true throughout the public sector?

 

It's convenient that you don't notice the continued ****-ups that the private sector commit, from the financial sector crisis, which brought the biggest financial crisis in 80 years, to it not being competent enough to put the right animals product into the food that it sells.

 

For me there should not be the competition and sniping between both sectors and they should be tailored to compliment each other. They have both got things that they could learn off each other, for example there is no doubt from me that the private sector could manage the logistical side of the NHS far better than it is currently being managed.

[Tony]

And you know this is true throughout the public sector?

Yep, that pretty much sums up my experience of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming for a second that there isn't lots of great stuff happening in the public sector (and to some extent the third sector) but the good stuff is continually overwhelmed by process, pension protecting, and empire building. It continually regresses to the mean, and the mean falls further and further behind society.

 

It's convenient that you don't notice the continued ****-ups that the private sector commit, from the financial sector crisis, which brought the biggest financial crisis in 80 years, to it not being competent enough to put the right animals product into the food that it sells.

Huh? My thoughts on the financial disaster are written extensively elsewhere on SF, please feel free to search for them. Horsemeat, yea, it's bad isn't it, and with luck its been caught early. Now it's known about it is being sorted out, literally within days rather than being allowed to grind on for years with no proper resolution... eg, are your kids school meals Halal, or is your local hospital killing hundreds of people just like other hospitals were decades ago?

 

Otherwise, see the next bit and the link.

 

For me there should not be the competition and sniping between both sectors and they should be tailored to compliment each other. They have both got things that they could learn off each other, for example there is no doubt from me that the private sector could manage the logistical side of the NHS far better than it is currently being managed.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9556929&postcount=25

[JFKvsNixon]

Yep, that pretty much sums up my experience of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming for a second that there isn't lots of great stuff happening in the public sector (and to some extent the third sector) but the good stuff is continually overwhelmed by process, pension protecting, and empire building. It continually regresses to the mean, and the mean falls further and further behind society.

 

Huh? My thoughts on the financial disaster are written extensively elsewhere on SF, please feel free to search for them. Horsemeat, yea, it's bad isn't it, and with luck its been caught early. Now it's known about it is being sorted out, literally within days rather than being allowed to grind on for years with no proper resolution... eg, are your kids school meals Halal, or is your local hospital killing hundreds of people just like other hospitals were decades ago?

 

Otherwise, see the next bit and the link.

 

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9556929&postcount=25

 

My thoughts would be that the frontline service should still be provided by the NHS, and that the logistical support should be provided by private industry. If the support services were run along the lines of a supermarket, could you imagine the purchasing power available to be able to drive prices down?

[biotechpete]

Good question. My thoughts are in a hybrid where the private sector owns the infrastructure and delivers the service under contracts written, administered and paid for by the public sector.

 

This happens a lot now in any case (GP's are private sector businesses for example) so it isn't much of a hop, skip and jump to implement.

 

Performance and remuneration are fortified by competition where contracts and their administrators are good enough. The trouble with the NHS is that it is institutionally on its last legs in pretty much every respect. Practitioners should have the freedom to perform more excellently each year, not be encouraged to regress to an ever lowering mean that is masked by a changing landscape.

 

The only obstacle to having an NHS that costs less, runs at a profit while doing more, better, is a silly emotional attachment to a post war ideal that never happened... and politicians that are hungry for votes at all costs.

 

That's exactly what has happened already in the case of the many PFI hospitals and buildings that have been built over the last decade or so. Problem is that many of them are also among the most expensive and poorly performing trusts in the country. The reason being that the private sector partners were allowed to write the contracts themselves, build buildings that last 10 years but will be paid off for 30 at many times their actual cost and continue to rinse the trusts for repairs on the buildings they are totally failing to properly maintain.

 

The splintering of the NHS is costing more not less, becuase suppliers are not on the whole, required to negotiate centrally and different trusts use different equipment. The private sector drives up the costs of things like maintenence once the equipment has been procured.

 

The NHS really needs better management centrally but the local consultants have far too much power and are very resistant to change in almost every case.

[I1L2T3]

Good question. My thoughts are in a hybrid where the private sector owns the infrastructure and delivers the service under contracts written, administered and paid for by the public sector.

 

This happens a lot now in any case (GP's are private sector businesses for example) so it isn't much of a hop, skip and jump to implement.

 

Performance and remuneration are fortified by competition where contracts and their administrators are good enough. The trouble with the NHS is that it is institutionally on its last legs in pretty much every respect. Practitioners should have the freedom to perform more excellently each year, not be encouraged to regress to an ever lowering mean that is masked by a changing landscape.

 

The only obstacle to having an NHS that costs less, runs at a profit while doing more, better, is a silly emotional attachment to a post war ideal that never happened... and politicians that are hungry for votes at all costs.

 

You describe issues with governance and that is definitely IMO the biggest problem the NHS has. But the private sector hardly provides a better example with banks milking the country dry and breakdowns in management at supermarkets etc... That allow unauthorised substances into food.

 

Some of the worst breakdowns in the NHS are in cleaning services which contributed to huge increases in hospital acquired infections, mostly provided by private contractors.

 

if anything needs root and branch reform in the NHS it's governance, monitoring, reporting and compliance procedures. Fragmenting the service is going to make improving those aspects very difficult.

[JFKvsNixon]

You describe issues with governance and that is definitely IMO the biggest problem the NHS has. But the private sector hardly provides a better example with banks milking the country dry and breakdowns in management at supermarkets etc... That allow unauthorised substances into food.

 

Some of the worst breakdowns in the NHS are in cleaning services which contributed to huge increases in hospital acquired infections, mostly provided by private contractors.

 

if anything needs root and branch reform in the NHS it's governance, monitoring, reporting and compliance procedures. Fragmenting the service is going to make improving those aspects very difficult.

 

Do you not see a link between the two crisis of the Stafford hospital and supermarket meat? It's that everybody, public sector and the private sector, is trying to do more for less money. There are too many corners being cut in the drive to save money.

[ricgem2002]

2 years in and the condems have improved the nhs how?

[I1L2T3]

Do you not see a link between the two crisis of the Stafford hospital and supermarket meat? It's that everybody, public sector and the private sector, is trying to do more for less money. There are too many corners being cut in the drive to save money.

 

Absolutely. It's why I commented on the governance aspect that Tony mentioned.

 

It's why I see a problem with the move to increasingly fragmented and privatised health services. The Tories won't want to increase governance. They will want to cut it and they will want to cut regulation. Why? Because regulation and governance can be barriers to profit taking.

 

The service will end up costing more, delivering less and at even lower levels of quality.

 

As an example a friend of mine worked in a private hospital on nights, one where some quite major surgery was done. One doctor on duty at night. One! They used to joke that the resusitation team could be reached by calling 999.

[tinfoilhat]

Absolutely. It's why I commented on the governance aspect that Tony mentioned.

 

It's why I see a problem with the move to increasingly fragmented and privatised health services. The Tories won't want to increase governance. They will want to cut it and they will want to cut regulation. Why? Because regulation and governance can be barriers to profit taking.

 

The service will end up costing more, delivering less and at even lower levels of quality.

 

As an example a friend of mine worked in a private hospital on nights, one where some quite major surgery was done. One doctor on duty at night. One! They used to joke that the resusitation team could be reached by calling 999.

 

Same with Rotherham general the last time I heard (about 5 years ago).

 

The other problem you have with privatising stuff is the frontline staff still have a public sector mentality. You aren't going to change someone over night who has been working there 20 years, hence it's a largly pointless exercise.