peterms Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 We have..... one that invariably delivers high quality That's just not true though, is it. 'Trapped in mediocrity': The damning verdict on the NHS as report reveals 14 hospitals had higher than expected mortality rates Poor care, inadequate staffing and bad management behind deaths of patients at worst hospitals, says NHS chief Dozens of hospitals across England may have the “ingredients” of poor care, over-stretched staff and substandard management that led to the deaths of hundreds of patients in Mid Staffordshire, the Medical Director of the NHS warned today. In a damming report into 14 hospitals with the highest mortality rates in the country Sir Bruce Keogh found they had become “trapped in mediocrity” ignoring concerns raised by patients and staff. As a result of the inquiry 11 of the 14 hospitals are to be placed in special measures and will be subject to intense on-going inspections. But Sir Bruce warned many other hospitals could have similar – but as yet unidentified – problems and called for new, more accurate, tests to identify failing hospitals. A member of Sir Bruce’s review panel went further suggesting that the 14 hospitals investigated were not necessarily even the worst in the country.... It's not true to say the NHS is irredeemably broken, neither is it honest or constructive to pretend that it "invariably delivers high quality care" when clearly it ain't so. That article, from a supposedly "quality" newspaper, is shockingly incompetent. Let's be charitable, and suppose that it's the failing business model of print journalism rather than the political patronage of thieving bloodsuckers who would privatise the NHS, that drives this piss-poor exercise in reading, not even "critical reading", just basic reading words and comprehending meaning; an exercise which 14-year-olds are trained to do to a higher level of critical appreciation than this pitiful drone. Start with the title. Yes, I know it's the subbie, not the drone, who writes the headline. But the report says "These organisations have been trapped in mediocrity, which I am confident can be replaced by a sense of ambition if we give staff the confidence to achieve excellence". The headline says "Trapped in mediocrity". See the difference? Understand the vast gulf of difference in respect of a conclusion? If you don't, you'll fail any exam worthy of the name, even one set by Michael "Pinocchio" Gove himself. The "report" in the Indie then goes on to many paras of "he said, she said", lacking even the barest attempt at analysis, and presumably written by the intern of an intern, aged 11. The report is here. Even reading the intro and conclusions will give a better summary than the shocking reporting we have been subjected to (which like several comments on VT, seems to have depended more on the Tory party's pre-briefing line than actual reading). Many of the points which are made are about (in order) staff feeling engaged; boards being better equipped; the complexity of stats and the impossibility of attributing meaningful conclusions to those available (pretty much the exact opposite was reported, oddly); the problems with trusts, including isolation and reliance on agency staff; "the lack of value and support being given to frontline clinicians, particularly junior nurses and doctors"; and "the imbalance that exists around the use of transparency for the purpose of accountability and blame rather than support and improvement". Sorry if that's less headline-grabbing, excitable, and worrying than what the papers said. But at least it's based on the report, not paid spin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 17, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted July 17, 2013 Probably the best thread for this, as it'd die in the 'Birmingham is going to hell in a handcart' thread...Is it sad that that's not surprising in the slightest?Bin Dunne in some topic, possibly this one in the last week or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted July 17, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2013 Tory political party seek to kill off nhs . Why do you keep spouting this same nonsense? If they wanted to kill off the NHS why have they ring fenced its budget against spending cuts? Can you actually explain that? Why do you think ring-fencing the budget (by the way, it's disputed whether this has happened, but let that pass) is proof that they're not killing off the NHS? Standard operating practice for privatisations is to spend loads in the period before privatisation, to reduce costs to the carpetbaggers afterwards; a form of embezzlement, but one to which the criminal law, oddly, seems blind. In the case of the NHS, we have a process of creeping privatisation, coupled with systematic demoralisation of the staff working for it (which is probably a bigger enabler of privatisation than any purely asset-thieving measure). Did you not read the bits in the Keogh report about staff attitudes, and how crucial they are? Are you unaware than in the last year, a new political party has been formed to fight the cuts to the NHS begun by the Tories, acquiesced in by the low-life Blairite scum, and refreshed with renewed greed by the current lot of bloodsuckers? Don't you see that both the deliberate demoralisation of staff, and the response to it, are indicators of the fight that is beginning? A fight which the Tories will lose, but only if we care enough to crush them. Which is exactly why their whole agendas is to make us think, falsely, that the NHS is nothing special. I wonder, could we bring a case of treason? Dismantling the NHS seems far more of an attack on the country than disrespecting that bunch of moneygrabbing freeloaders who suck up our money in the name of "the monarchy". 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Peter, maybe you're right, maybe the Tory hating papers have somehow been strong-armed into towing the line of CCHQ, or against all probability are actively participating in a conspiracy, all is well with the NHS and everyone can just relax. Good job we've got you here to set us all straight, eh? Those inspectors who at times during their work astonishingly felt compelled to physically intervene on wards and in operating theatres - due to the dire and dangerous state of some of the things they encountered - are probably also in on this conspiracy. Bastard nurses, you can't trust 'em. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Peter, maybe you're right, maybe the Tory hating papers have somehow been strong-armed into towing the line of CCHQ, or against all probability are actively participating in a conspiracy, all is well with the NHS and everyone can just relax. Good job we've got you here to set us all straight, eh? Those inspectors who at times during their work astonishingly felt compelled to physically intervene on wards and in operating theatres - due to the dire and dangerous state of some of the things they encountered - are probably also in on this conspiracy. Bastard nurses, you can't trust 'em. I hope for a more considered response once you've got time for one, given the quality of your previous posts on a wide range of subjects. You seem to be retreating from giving serious answers to serious pioints, unusually. Yes, many of the papers are toeing the line of the briefing they were given. It's only because they do so, that briefers continue to use that tactic. If it didn't work, they would drop it. The lack of staff on many would-be-serious newspapers makes them susceptible to this. And obviously, CCHQ doesn't come into this. And obviously, you and I both know this. Are the comments about conspiracies a misplaced joke (I always credited you with a better sense of humour) or a real attempt to divert attention? On the inspections: I've been part of a similar team, sent in to review services with a tight brief, a short timescale and the authority to interview whoever we choose, from Directors of services downwards. It yields some insights, but lets's not go overboard about how much you can learn by doing this. I found it moderately instructive, I hope we were able to offer some insights, but as for making national news and determining the future of a crucial service, er, no, that's not what this sort of exercise can do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 18, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 18, 2013 The state owned NHS blood plasma supplier was effectively sold to Bain Capital today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Bain the job destroyers from the US ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Mitt Romney's Old Firm Bain Capital Buys NHS Blood Service PRUK In £230m Deal The main blood plasma supplier to the NHS will be taken over by Bain Capital, the venture capital firm once led by former US presidential candidate Mitt Romney.The deal, estimated to be worth £230m, will see Bain take a majority stake of 80% in Plasma Resources UK (PRUK), with the government keeping a 20% share.This includes an upfront cash payment of £90million and a deferred payment expected to be worth £110m in 5 years’ time. Bain have also agreed to invest a further £50 million in the firm to create a "UK Life Sciences Champion".Former health minister and foreign minister Lord Owen said: "It's hard to conceive of a worse outcome for a sale of this particularly sensitive national health asset than a private equity company with none of the safeguards in terms of governance of a publicly quoted company and being answerable to shareholders."Private equity has a useful function, as I saw in years past on the advisory board of Terra Firma, but Bain Capital should not have been chosen for this sale. Is there no limit to what and how this coalition government will privatise?"Labour MP Valerie Vaz, who serves on the Commons Health Committee, told the Huffington Post UK: "It is unclear why Plasma Resource UK should be sold."It is important the NHS controls vital services such as plasma products. The Government has learnt no lessons from the use of contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s whose victims are still seeking justice."Unite union head of health Rachael Maskell said: "This news is the thin end of the privatisation wedge. Everything we have warned about for the last two years is coming true – that this government wishes to sell-off large swathes of the NHS to profiteering private companies.“It is wrong that this announcement was made just as MPs are about to take six weeks holiday which won’t allow parliamentary scrutiny of this development.”Ministers were reportedly apprehensive about the prospect of selling PRUK to a foreign private equity group, but concluded it represented the best value-for-money.When the deal was announced, Dr Dan Poulter said: “This deal will ensure that patients will have access to high quality plasma products for years to come and it is good news that Bain are investing in medicine and the life science industry in the UK.Bain developed a political notoriety during the 2012 US Presidential Elections as Mitt Romney’s experience at the company’s helm led to him being accused of being a “job destroyer”.The agreement represents the latest government proposal to privatise non-core assets, including the Royal Mail and the student loan book.PRUK has annual sales of around £110m and consists of two companies, Bio Products Laboratory (BPL), which is staffed by around 200 people in the UK and over 1,000 in the US. The other company is DCI in America, which collects plasma from American donors and sends it to BPL where it is separated into blood proteins, clotting factors and albumin for supply to NHS hospitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 18, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 18, 2013 And so the sell off begins.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Wahey, tax cut for shale gas firms. Get out and enjoy the country while you can, as those ecosystems will be **** in no time. We really are going to the **** dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I sat next to a bloke on a flight from Chengdu who is an expert in this field Even he was concerned about fracking But everyone seems to be too busy making money to care .... Edited July 19, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2013 I sat next to a bloke on a flight from Chengdu who is an expert in this field Even he was concerned about fracking But everyone seems to be too busy making money to care .... You say everyone.... is that the same sort of everyone that Cameron and his mates use when they say "everyone is in it together" by any chance? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I don't have the instant distrust of fracking. There is potential for good here, if we can change the leopard's spots and get the govt to make it in our interest and not their sponsors' interest. As I may have banged on about previously, the alternatives are: use less electric rely on the middle east rely on china rely on russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Or find alternatives.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I sat next to a bloke on a flight from Chengdu who is an expert in this field Even he was concerned about fracking But everyone seems to be too busy making money to care .... You don't talk to people on flights - you have said so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I sat next to a bloke on a flight from Chengdu who is an expert in this field Even he was concerned about fracking But everyone seems to be too busy making money to care .... You don't talk to people on flights - you have said so I didn't say I talked to him just that I sat next to him ( and got his life story ) But ok I'll give you that one ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Or find alternatives.. tories wont have wind power because UKIP are against it wont have wave power because its too costly wont have solar because we're northern we could all rig up an exercise bike to a home battery the only sensible thing is use less power - there was an article yesterday where some hotel in London (Marriott?), is being PAID £20k a year by the govt to experiment with turning the air con from 4c to 6c. Apparently the customers haven't noticed, their bill has gone down, and they've been paid £20k for co-operating with an experiment. If they've saved money and the customers haven't noticed......why is this not an instant roll out? because we like to burn stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 More research into geothermal energy is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 More research into geothermal energy is required. tough decision to make though, really the people who decide are between a rock and hot place 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 If only they could convert the hot air on this thread into energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts