Sherwick

It occured to me that it cannot be acceptable for healthcare employees to go through the formal channels of complaint. This is because the abuse that happens is a failure of leadership and of management, so following an official route to complain to that same leadership or management is likely to lead to delays, obfuscation and even coverup. Just like not auditing your own work, or the Chinese walls in investment banking between analysis and advice, there needs to be an 'external' channel imho. For what it's worth, I think antijen brought up Nuremburg not because there was a similar case of confidentiality breaching there, but because of the 'we were only obeying orders' claims made there. I.e. in this case, the nurse was struck off for 'not following due process, which is there for a reason'.

annaj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sherwick, of course patient care is vitally > important and of course any of us would want to > know and take action if a relative of ours was > being abused or not recieving the care they > should, but you simply can't dismiss > confidentiality as unimportant or trivial. > > The message, to my mind, is not "shut up", but > report failures of care through the process of > adverse incident reporting, the due process that > you are so scathing of, which in many places is > actually quite effective, but sadly underused, > because people share your belief that it'll be > ineffective. I don't think you understand me. Patient care is not "vitally" important. It is of PARAMOUNT importance. Going through the formal process whilst people are being abused is not satisfactory. As Ted pointed out above: "Before the film went out, Panorama obtained the retrospective permission of every patient - or their relative - whose cases were featured.". I really cannot believe some on here are defending the panel that struck her off.

I'll just add that my gran is in a care home. If she was being abused I would want to learn about it asap from any possible outlet. I wouldn't give a rat's ar*e about her 'patient confidentiality' or 'due process', which could mean that I would only find out when she's dead.

The need for confidentiality is paramount in healthcare? No it isn't. The need for healthcare is paramount in healthcare. Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern said: "This just demonstrates the priorities of the regulators - rules come before patients every time. The message that goes out to nurses is: however badly you see patients treated, keep your face shut. "This makes total nonsense of all the talk about openness and transparency in the NHS. Cover-up is the order of the game." Ms Haywood's actions were also defended by Gary Fitzgerald, chief executive of Action on Elder Abuse. He said: "We know that we're seeing older people suffering the most appalling care and neglect too often in our care environments. "In that context I believe what Margaret Haywood did and what Panorama did was right and proper." Elizabeth Bloor, the BBC programme's producer, told the hearing there had been "an over-arching public interest" to produce the Undercover Nurse documentary because Panorama had received up to 5,000 complaints about conditions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8002559.stm

looks like it to me Sean. It's so easy to get the masses riled up about these 'PC' stories these days.

traitor

So we've got the motto for Nunhead: "Nunhead - the place to be when you're dead"

done

So Nunhead is a bit like the restaurant at the end of the universe then?

Where is Nunhead? Is it in London?

Totally agree with the following comment: "This shows the weak management of the BBC. Paying ?92K to a very average presenter of a low audience channel shows a total lack of fiscal responsibility."

:(

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The BBC have to pay presenters in line with > competitors No they don't. > for obvious reasons. What reasons? That the best will leave? Do all NHS doctors become private ones? Do they all try to leave Blighty and fly to the USA to become Hollywood plastic surgeons? The best may well leave Aunty, but others will take their places. I've never even seen this woman who earns ?92k!

So you don't like him then?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Believe me, I have looked at ED, and it is in most > ways lots better than Woolwich, which is a place I > generally don't like, having worked there for 7 > years. However, East Dulwich is not a beautiful > area, however much it might make you feel good > about yourself, to claim it is. It is a nice area > made up of victorian terraces, with some grim 20th > century buildings thrown in. Woolwich does have a > great waterfront, recently done up. It has all the > old military buildings and grounds, horrid as it > may be, it has more interesting and attractive > stuff to look at than ED. However, if some bloke > on the radio disagrees, then I must be wrong. Some bloke??!?!? This is Nick Ferrari, the de facto spokesman for all of London, you and I included!

Just heard Nick Ferrari describe Woolwich as "one of the more grim and miserable parts of London even though it has a waterfront". He then spent a couple of minutes railing on about how bad Woolwich is. I think we all agree that East Dulwich is far better than that (in every way possible)! Keef, I suggest you take your grime tinted specs off next time you look at East Dulwich! :)

Sexy Eyes - Dr Hook.

do we have an 'ED Bizarre Thread' forum?

Nero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sherwick, > What do you think bleating on a web page is going > to do, apart from momentarily vent your anger? > Write to your MP. (I have a hunch there'll be more > willing than ever to help you), and copy it to the > bus operator in question. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. The worm has turned. Sherwick.

I've only been taking the bus from Lordship Lane to Denmark Hill station this last week, but have noticed that the buses are packed and quite often don't stop at bus stops. This is because they are so full already. Meanwhile dozens of people are left waiting at the bus stops for the next bus (which is probably just as full). Also, there seems to be a long waiting time between buses, sometimes up to 10 minutes between (and this is during the 7 to 9 am rush hour) With the 185, 176 and 40 buses, surely the wait between buses in rush hour should only be 2 or 3 minutes? I think this is completely unacceptable! Sherwick

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AllforNun Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why would they open a poundstretcher on Nunhead > Lane Keef...... ? > > Phase two of the regeneration? (phase one was a > lamp-post). Third and final Nunhead Regeneration Phase is a waste bin?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sherwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I hope you're not comparing the beautiful East > Dulwich to Woolwich... > > > Well, no I wasn't. But since you mention it, I > wouldn't call ED "beautiful" at all, whilst > Woolwich has a great waterfront, and some amazing > old buildings. Guessing your tongue was in your > cheek though. No it wasn't.

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What thread? Dunno, can't remember. What's a thread?

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is an M&S in Woolwich, so not always in the > best areas. That said, there are lots of council > workers there needing lunch, so guess it makes > sense. I hope you're not comparing the beautiful East Dulwich to Woolwich...

Can this thread be used as evidence in a Court of Law? Just wondering... ::o