An unusual letter from King's College Hospital

[expat]

>Kind of sums this thread up for me. Everybody wants something but really can't be arsed to do or pay anything for it.(and >don't start on the "I pay MY tax cobblers, would you pay more?)

If I went on the NHS etc. I would pay more tax yes.

[Brendan]

Yeah because you can afford money and time to be high and mighty everyone else can?

Are you really that blind to the realities of people's lives?

But you know, what are people complaining about, they have schools and water and it is so inconvenient and annoying for people to suggest that I should try to empathise.

Let them eat cake 'ey.

[sofaRunner]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly Mac.....there are areas that could be

> trimmed without having to beg from the public or

> to cut front line services.

really? what do you think could be cut??? nurses - no you won;t mean them..... doctors.... nah. ah! those who book your appointments maybe? or the clerks who pull your notes? maybe the pharmacists? cleaners - oopps, contraversal again. what about x-ray people? receptionists? blood takers? I expect you mean the managers - those who organise the clinics to try to keep them to time, those who make sure that all resources are used properly, operating theatres full.........

[Keef]

And still no-one gives a toss for those that don't want to receive such a letter...sigh......

FFS, it's not about giving a toss or not, obviously it's not ideal if someone doesn't want to get the letter, and feels uncomfortable about it. Frankly though, I think in the grand scheme of things, a few people being a bit upset really doesn't bloody matter that much!

Sorry if that makes me evil or something, I'm sure yourself, LM & Mick are enjoying your high horses at the moment, but I think it is actually you guys who are missing the point, and just refusing to look at the bigger picture.

[intexasatthe moment]

well - how about reducing the time ( 6 hours from arrival to x ray and diagnosis )for a 90 year old attending A and E with a fractured femur ,then the degraded skin and dehydration they develop during the wait won't also require treatment

- how about not insisting that people whose opticians have diagnosed macular degeneration attend a clinic at Kings so that macular degeneration can be confirmed in order for the patient to access other services

- how about not loosing ( 3 times ) the patients medecines that they have dutifully brought in from home when admitted as an inpatient so that more have to be issued

- how about not insisting " we don't treat patients holistically on this ward " so that patient has problem they were admitted with attended to and then discharged with deteriotation in other conditions so that patient readmitted 3 weeks later

- how about not ordering diagnostic tests for inpatients and then loosing the results so that they have to be repeated /aren't held on file and can't be compared with further ones

- how about thinking of a way in which porters delivering a patient to a ward could then take someone waiting to leave that ward ,rather than a second porter having to be called

And if we were to think of NHS expenditure in the community - the overordering of dressings and related items ( dressit packs ,manuka honey ,sterile water ,etc ) has lots of potential .

[Huguenot]

I don't think you've really made any sense there itatm, but I do think you've given your own game away...

Let's just get it out there? You don't think your mum had great service from the NHS, so now you're out to get them. You don't really mind how you get them, and you don't mind how many other people you hurt to achieve this. You don't care if you reduce the quality of service, because you want to make them pay for their perceived crimes?

Most of the problems you've described can only be achieved by spending more money, not less:

The only way to solve a 'capacity' problem is by ordering more equipment, pay for more skilled staff, and having them sit unused most of the time. You'd probably throw a bonkers fit over that too.

The only way you can accommodate unique requirements is by reducing checks and balances. You'd not be happy about that either.

As for treating patients with the tablets they've brought in with them, that's a recipe for a disaster unless you can absolutely guarantee what's in the bottle, which you can't unless it came from your own dispensary.

As for the rest of the aggro, I suspect you'll find that the people who work at the NHS are just as human as you.

I'm sorry you're unhappy, but trying to take down the NHS for revenge is not the answer.

[Mick Mac]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Sorry if that makes me evil or something, I'm sure

> yourself, LM & Mick are enjoying your high horses

> at the moment, but I think it is actually you guys

> who are missing the point, and just refusing to

> look at the bigger picture.

I think it is you who could be considered to be on the high horse Keef with the "holier than thou" attitude - "lets support the NHS whatever it costs and however it wants to achieve its funding this will always be ok".

The NHS writes to former patients with an implied plea for charitable donations whilst 6000 of its personnel earn more than the Prime Minister.

Get off your high horse matey.

[Huguenot]

It's a British conviction hung over from class war that that rank and file are better than the officers. We all believe it, so criticising the salaries is a rather repetitive form of abuse that is unlikely to provied any real solution.

It's a bit tired when many of these leading execs come from very average backgrounds.

I mean, what should the leader of a healthcare trust managing hundreds of millions of pounds earn? The same as a GP who may only be looking after his day surgery for 100k a year? The same as a 26 year old advertising executive?

If you lop 50k off all of those 6,000 salaries, you save 300m quid a year. In total in 2009 the NHS received over 100bn in funding, this means that the cash you could save on these salaries is 0.3% of funding. You would waste many times more money than that by putting well meaning amateurs in charge.

Bob Crow's total salarly package in 2009 was ?145,548 - more than the PM. So much for workers being pure as the driven snow.

The PM, incidentally, is a poor comparison. 100 years ago the PM's salary was around 600,000 per year in today's money.

They aceept this current 140k (comparatively paltry sum) in modern years because after a few years in office they'll be paid 250k a year from 50 different companies to sit on their board as non-exec directors. That and the book advances for words they never wrote etc.

You could probably estimate the PM's real income from the role at over 3m a year for the eight years they may spend in office.

Not many NHS execs on that kind of earning!

[Ladymuck]

Keef Wrote:

---------------------------------------------------

> FFS, it's not about giving a toss or not,

> obviously it's not ideal if someone doesn't want

> to get the letter, and feels uncomfortable about

> it. Frankly though, I think in the grand scheme of

> things, a few people being a bit upset really

> doesn't bloody matter that much!

>

> Sorry if that makes me evil or something, I'm sure

> yourself, LM & Mick are enjoying your high horses

> at the moment, but I think it is actually you guys

> who are missing the point, and just refusing to

> look at the bigger picture.

Keef,

I started this thread because I was unsure of my own reaction to the letter and it was an attempt to seek the views of others. Whilst I hadn't envisaged the depth of feeling as evidenced by the various posts, I am not disappointed in that posters have been forthcoming and honest with their thoughts. I find the differing opinions interesting and (for the most part) helpful which, in turn, make for a readable thread. That is, until Keef the poster comes along, makes negative assumptions about people he may or may not know and/or generally passes unpleasant comments which are hardly conducive to the spirit of this Forum.

Your opinions are as valid as anyone's. However, it you want others to accord them respect then, it is my belief that you should show some courtesy to the sentiments of others without getting personal or creating ill feeling.

[Keef]

"lets support the NHS whatever it costs and however it wants to achieve its funding this will always be ok".

I have no idea how you've gotten that from anything I've said.

Your opinions are as valid as anyone's. However, it you want others to accord them respect then, it is my belief that you should show some courtesy to the sentiments of others without getting personal or creating ill feeling.

LM, I'm sure you have a thicker skin than that. I wasn't getting personal, I was saying that yourself, Mick, and DJKQ, whilst claiming to be interested in other's opinions, are basically taking the p!ss with sILLY remarks such as

And still no-one gives a toss for those that don't want to receive such a letter...sigh......

Some do give a toss, but many of those who don't (and they are entitled to their opinions) appear to be completely missing the point. It's bizarre.

And

Careful with your language now...

The letter wasn't a request for money...remember? :))

Actually, I take Mick's name out of there, as he's not been doing that (sorry Mick), although I still think he is being rather blinkered about this.

['bout now]

Since when did the PM's salary become a benchmark for all that is acceptable in public service pay? There are 31,000 consultants within the NHS each spending up to 12 years of study and hard work to get there, personally I don't begrudge these people earning( and by and large they DO earn their pay)a decent salary, particularly when there is so much money and an easier life to be had in the private health sector.

The NHS is not a bottomless pit, the hospital administrators, doctors and trustees want to improve the service they offer over and above the budget they are given, this comes from charity and benefactors.

The charity has asked former patients if they are interested in donating, in a targeted mailshot to people who have a relationship to the Hospital. It is far more effective and less costly than asking people who have not been there.

I'm not sure what they want to buy, it maybe a second MRI scanner to help people through the hospital without the long waiting list, it maybe something else. In the long term the charitable donations may benefit directly yourselves or someone you know, I doubt it'll be wasted.

If you don't think this is appropriate, how would you go about raising the funds?

[Mick Mac]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a British conviction hung over from class war

> that that rank and file are better than the

> officers. We all believe it, so criticising the

> salaries is a rather repetitive form of abuse that

> is unlikely to provied any real solution.

>

Its not an objection to people earning a significant amount (>?150k is considered a lot of money to most people - but possibly not to you...this is implied by your advertising exec comment ??)

My surprise was to the amount of people earning over that threshold - 6000 people !.

And many will no doubt earn greatly in excess of this threshold. One GP earns ?485k apparently.

[Ladymuck]

Can I be bothered to respond (intelligently) to this cut/paste/take out of context exercise?

No.

[Ladymuck]

Sorry - another X-post.

Previous post in response to Keef's last.

[Keef]

How was it out of context? It was entire posts, one in response to another. Not like I snipped a couple of lines out of some 1000 word thesis on modern health care funding.

[Moos]

> My surprise was to the amount of people earning

> over that threshold - 6000 people !.

But over a million people work for the NHS - isn't it the 2nd largest employer in the world after the Chinese army?

Inevitably the no.of top earners will also be a large number.

[Ladymuck]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How was it out of context? It was entire posts,

> one in response to another. Not like I snipped a

> couple of lines out of some 1000 word thesis on

> modern health care funding.

OK, I withdraw the "out of context".

[Ladymuck]

I should have said "lack of relevance".

[DJKillaQueen]

The NHS do have many other sucessful and less intrusive ways of fundrasing. They also carry out private treatment as part of income generation too. Then there is car parking and all the other associated income streams. There is plenty of scope for building on those without the need for direct mailing recent patients.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Ladymuck - your post at 11:46 is well out of order. For someone so keen to accuse Keef of creating ill-feeling, there are enough posts from the people he named over the last couple of pages to create plenty of ill-feeling

Instead of high-horses let's talk about mountains and mole-hills. The few (often hypothetical) negatives people have raised about the letter in question are in effect very small beer compared to the bigger issues. But going around calling people "bizarre" for saying as much isn't likely to engender much good feeling yourself

And as for people according Keef's opinions respect - he and I have often clashed on here, but as he has been here from the year dot, posted more than anyone else, any one of us can get a general vibe of where Keef is coming from, and no matter how many times I clash with him, I respect his opinions regardless. The same can't be said for everyone else

[SeanMacGabhann]

yeah because hospital car parking hasn't generated ANY fuss has it??

I don't see the letter in question hitting nation press like car parking charges

[Earl Aelfheah]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, my suggestion of a part tax payer funded NHS

> supplemented by local fund raising efforts would

> mean that the quality of the local hospital would

> depend upon the quality of local support.

The reality of this model would be poor hospitals in poor areas.

[Huguenot]

Sorry MickMac, I wasn't trying to imply it wasn't a lot of money, it was the comparative attraction of the roles.

A 26 year old exec in the the advertising industry can probably achieve 50k a year including bonuses. This is for for less skill and effort than it takes professional, highly competent, battle hardened execs in the NHS to achieve by the time they're 55.

If you offer both roles the same salaries you're not going to get much talent running hospitals. Who'd bother to go through the pain and the abuse of the general public?

I don't know whether I'm surprised or not, KCH has over 4,000 staff for 200m - that's 0.2% of NHS funding. 0.2% of 6,000 is 12 people.

Do I think it's possible that there would be 12 people from a staff of 4,200 at KCH whose salary is over 140k a year?

No absolutely not. Not surprised at all.

['bout now]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The NHS do have many other sucessful and less

> intrusive ways of fundrasing. They also carry out

> private treatment as part of income generation

> too. Then there is car parking and all the other

> associated income streams. There is plenty of

> scope for building on those without the need for

> direct mailing recent patients.

How is offering private treatment with NHS resources not intrusive?

[Mick Mac]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I don't know whether I'm surprised or not, KCH has

> over 4,000 staff for 200m - that's 0.2% of NHS

> funding. 0.2% of 6,000 is 12 people.

>

> Do I think it's possible that there would be 12

> people from a staff of 4,200 at KCH whose salary

> is over 140k a year?

>

> No absolutely not. Not surprised at all.

That would be fine with me too. Kings is a great hospital. But I guess there are therefore 5988 more to account for. :)