O/T BBC and the NHS

[sidders]

... the predictable attempts by tweedle dum and tweedle dee to twist the topic. So how would you deal with the self-inflicted drink and drug wasters?

Here speaks the horse who says it's OK to smoke and doesn't see that as inflicting unnecessary expense on the NHS

[TheBlackHorse]

... so Tweedle Dum, as I started the thread it is I, not you, who know what I meant to say. To clarify differently, an average 9/10 are receiving BHS treatment instead of 9.5/10 (8.8/10 in Nottm) within 4 hours. The NHS are an easy target and the BBC/media associate anything wrong in the NHS must be the fault of the government - easy points against the gov't it would seem to those who have little knowledge of what happens in A&E ... that's why Jacob is right. So twist off Tweedle D's.

[Elite_Pie]

... so Tweedle Dum, as I started the thread it is I, not you, who know what I meant to say. To clarify differently, an average 9/10 are receiving BHS treatment instead of 9.5/10 (8.8/10 in Nottm) within 4 hours.

BHS treatment? Bloody hell, I thought British Home Stores had gone down the pan a while back. Didn't realise they were into healthcare.

[TheBlackHorse]

... at least you answer to Tweedle Dum ... NHS NHS NHS. As for Tweedle Dee, I have not said it's ok to smoke; in fact if left to me I would ban smoking altogether - but that's another topic altogether.

[Old_pie]

"We'll said Jacob"? What does that even mean?

I take it to mean that from Jacob's experience, and more likely more generally, A&E are, despite being stretched, quite good at prioritising so the secondary and rather artificial headline target figure that the BBC are obsessing over may well simply mean that more minor and self-inflicted injuries (ever been around town late on a Friday or Saturday?) are being left longer. The BBC could be asking more pointed questions and then we'd know, wouldn't we?

That is not to say all is well - it just is may take on "Well (I don't the he meant We'll) said Jacob" or were you referring to the grammar?

[MAD_MAGPIE]

In my experience, A&E is the most efficient and effective part of the system, probably because they have to be. Make the wrong decisions or take too long in that part of the system and you've potentially got a death on your hands that is very clearly attributable, so the best staff tend to be funnelled into the A&E teams.

The problems tend to come in the parts of hospitals that deal with the more routine care, especially for older people, where I've seen with my own eyes (and reported) some shocking poor practice and general slackness which had nothing to do with "lack of resources" and everything to do with careless, sloppy attitudes. I've no doubt there are patients deteriorating or dying unnecessarily on some of these wards, but the effect is more gradual and difficult to conclusively trace and prove.

I'd agree with this. Does anyone seriously think that anyone who has a life threatening issue for example is going to be left on a bed or in a waiting both for 4 hours? Plus those patients that make the most noise may not require the most immediate treatment, sometimes it's the quiet silent ones that are in serious need of medical attention.

If you are waiting in A&E for four hours it's highly likely that the symptoms you are presenting when assessed upon arrival do not warrant an urgent response.

I think the A&E system is the jewel in the crown of the NHS. This includes the first responders to accidents along with major trauma teams. They've really shown how great they are this year with the incidents the nation has faced.

You are right as the problems tend to be when patients are in hospital and basic care falls by the wayside.

[i961pie]

I take it to mean that from Jacob's experience, and more likely more generally, A&E are, despite being stretched, quite good at prioritising so the secondary and rather artificial headline target figure that the BBC are obsessing over may well simply mean that more minor and self-inflicted injuries (ever been around town late on a Friday or Saturday?) are being left longer. The BBC could be asking more pointed questions and then we'd know, wouldn't we?

Come on OP it is the BBC we are talking about, they aren't allowed to be positive about anything. Might be something to do with freezing the price of a TV license. They can only afford to send 80 odd people on a jaunt to cover an event now instead of the 150 plus.

[Old_pie]

Might be something to do with freezing the price of a TV license.

Licence please - don't give Sidders opportunities to jump in.

[Elite_Pie]

I'd agree with this. Does anyone seriously think that anyone who has a life threatening issue for example is going to be left on a bed or in a waiting both for 4 hours? Plus those patients that make the most noise may not require the most immediate treatment, sometimes it's the quiet silent ones that are in serious need of medical attention.

Hmmm. I can only go on personal experience, and last year I had my first ever visit to A&E. I'd had a hernia for about 3 years, it only caused me occasional minor discomfort so I ignored it. It began to get a bit more painful so I went to see my GP, who referred me for surgery, where the waiting list was about 20 weeks. A few days later the pain became quite severe. The NHS website listed 4 symptoms where if you had any one of them you should go to A&E - I had 3 of the 4, so off I went to A&E. The Triage nurse was useless, she basically accused me of trying to queue-jump for the op and advised me to go home and take pain killers. I had to argue with her and point out I was in agony until she reluctantly agreed to send me for an assessment at a department next door. It was discovered that the hernia had become incarcerated (possibly life-threatening) and I was immediately admitted and operated on that evening. The rest of the service I received was superb, and I have nothing but praise for the NHS workforce (Triage nurse excepted).

[i961pie]

Licence please - don't give Sidders opportunities to jump in.