10% Staff Cuts In Nhs

[interestrateripoff]

It is funny that the government / department of health paid Mckinsey, presumably a lot of money, only to then reject their conclusions out of hand!

No money we'll spent, it lined someone's pocket at taxpayers expense.

The govt can now order another report produced by someone more "knowledgeable" to refute this reports findings blowing yet more money on pointless reports.

Taxpayer money is just there to be wasted.

[1929crash]

Yep, pointless expense.

The NHS is overloaded with managers who's sole job it appears is to produce as much paperwork as possible and make the entire system so inefficient they need more staff. Thus justifying there own positions and allowing them to create little empires.

We are currently morphing into something else and the management layer is ridiculous there's about 6 sh1t shovellers doing core work managed by about 10+ people. I'm not saying that these people aren't all doing something important but they are in a clearly defined management structure which makes no sense nor appears efficient at communicating up the chain of command. Chinese whispers it appears to have been designed around.

Anyone starting on a higher grade just gets shoved into the management structure to justify the higher grade.

I agree with much of what you say IRRO, but as I understand it, the report called for cuts in clinical staff too.

[VeryMeanReversion]

It is funny that the government / department of health paid Mckinsey, presumably a lot of money, only to then reject their conclusions out of hand!

That's the only announcement they can make before an election. In the unlikely event that they get back in, they can say "Sorry voters, we have to follow advice, not our fault you know, its global and the right thing to do".

VMR.

[SarahBell]

Given that only 8% of employees of the NHS are doctors I think you're jumping the gun a bit there....

Is there a breakdown by % for all staff types?

That'd be very interesting.

[Guest eight]

The NHS is overloaded with managers who's sole job it appears is to produce as much paperwork as possible and make the entire system so inefficient they need more staff. Thus justifying there own positions and allowing them to create little empires.

The NHS isn't the half of it. Mrs. Eight works in children's services, and some of the freeloading there has to be seen to be believed. For instance, do you know what a parental engagement officer is, or does? How about an early years compliance officer?

Obviously I'm a bit ambivalent about some of this as, on the one hand, the whole show supports my family financially; however, on the other hand, it's all ********.

eight

[1929crash]

The NHS isn't the half of it. Mrs. Eight works in children's services, and some of the freeloading there has to be seen to be believed. For instance, do you know what a parental engagement officer is, or does? How about an early years compliance officer?

Obviously I'm a bit ambivalent about some of this as, on the one hand, the whole show supports my family financially; however, on the other hand, it's all ********.

eight

I know what you mean, eight.

Most of us, I suspect, are complict in this sort of thing.

[Ethel]

It is funny that the government / department of health paid Mckinsey, presumably a lot of money, only to then reject their conclusions out of hand!

Of course. Typical Nu Labour behaviour.

[Shmoo]

Before we even consider cutting costs in the NHS, we should talk a look at how much our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is costing us.

God knows why we are there. Pull the troops out. I bet that would save the £12 billion.

[Minos]

Why pick on the NHS solely. How about 10%+ cuts in all government departments / welfare.

[1929crash]

Why pick on the NHS solely. How about 10%+ cuts in all government departments / welfare.

Defence. Cut defence. Raise the benefits paid to the jobless.

[Phil S]

When the tories get elected there won't be an NHS to worry about cutting!!

[Minos]

When the tories get elected there won't be an NHS to worry about cutting!!

Good job too.

[Minos]

Defence. Cut defence. Raise the benefits paid to the jobless.

No. Bolster defence.

[noodle doodle]

No. Bolster defence.

Defence is a waste of money, more brits are killed by other brits. Give the defence money to the police to do a proper job.

[1929crash]

No. Bolster defence.

Defence these days is war. You want to cut health, but cause more deaths and injuries? Curious set of priorities you have, Minos.

[Minos]

Defence these days is war. You want to cut health, but cause more deaths and injuries? Curious set of priorities you have, Minos.

I said pretty clearly defence. You twisted it into war.

[MrPeregrination]

Weren't they saying not so long ago that babies and mothers were at risk unless more midwives were trained and hired?

And it's true! My wife gave birth three weeks ago and I almost had to deliver the baby myself in a waiting room. There were NO midwives available. NONE. My wife was 9cm dilated before we got any help at all. We need MORE frontline staff and a hell of a lot less management. My wife happens to work in the hospital we went to and the stories I hear of highly paid managers making idiotic decisions makes my blood boil. They could get rid of the top manager without any effect on the hospital and use the money to hire three or four midwives.

It's always the same isn't it? Government asks the managers to cut costs so that they can blame someone else for the cuts and the managers cut the necessary frontline staff while saving their own jobs.

Sickening.

[BlackSwan]

How about changing the relationship between free health care and individual responsibility?

You should be required to have an annual medical and your entitlement to healthcare will be determined by how well you take care of your body.

Overweight people and smokers should have to pay insurance to cover treatemnt for diabetes or cancer for example.

I think it is naive to think that we can continue to provide healthcare without people taking more responsibility for their own health.

[dude]

Of course we can't afford this level of public spending if we don't get billions of tax off the banks. It's not exactly news is it?

Err, aren't we *giving* billings to the banks? So there's not enough left to go into the NHS?

[Minos]

And it's true! My wife gave birth three weeks ago and I almost had to deliver the baby myself in a waiting room. There were NO midwives available. NONE. My wife was 9cm dilated before we got any help at all. We need MORE frontline staff and a hell of a lot less management. My wife happens to work in the hospital we went to and the stories I hear of highly paid managers making idiotic decisions makes my blood boil. They could get rid of the top manager without any effect on the hospital and use the money to hire three or four midwives.

It's always the same isn't it? Government asks the managers to cut costs so that they can blame someone else for the cuts and the managers cut the necessary frontline staff while saving their own jobs.

Sickening.

What you need is private medicine. If you didn't have to support every man and his dog through taxation you'd be able to afford it too.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Goodbye all, I'm sure I'm going to be ditched for being a 37 year old man who thinks he shouldn't have to waste his own time preparing a list showing his homework every year, or describe his probity in a country which will allow moat cleaning on expenses, and cover up the cause of death of a newspaper seller.

Edited September 3, 2009 by DissipatedYouthIsValuable

[Minos]

Goodbye all, I'm sure I'm going to be ditched for being a 37 year old man who thinks he shouldn't have to waste his own time preparing a list showing his homework every year, or describe his probity in a country which will allow moat cleaning on expenses, and cover up the cause of death of a newspaper seller.

You're one of the good guys - although misguided.

[Limpet]

I make that somewhere between 1:6 and 1:4, admin:clinical although the Daily Mail reader "knows" there are more administrators than nurses (although I make it about 1:3). Somehow. According to a thing I read in Hansard in the 70s it was about 1:8 or 1:7 in hospitals, which would presumably exclude central services, ambulance dispatchers and that kind of stuff. I also seem to recall the private sector average in the US and UK was actually worse than this although I suppose selling generates its own administrative volume in addition to that incurred doing whatever it is you actually do. Its interesting how the pendulum swings back and forth, in the 80s they used to say the NHS was so wasteful and inefficient because, being a useless public sector org riven with socialism, it refused to hire sufficient managers.

Consultants

5,754

All general medical practitioners (excluding retainers)

34,085

Total qualified nursing staff

397,515

Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

375,371

General practitioner practice nurses

22,144

Support to clinical staff

368,285

Healthcare assistants and support staff

223,526

Other support to clinical staff

30,086

Administrative support to clinical staff

14,673

Administrative staff

137,557

Central functions

99,831

Manager and senior manager

37,726

Thanks for that.

Interesting and plenty to mull over.

I may have added this up wrong I keep getting interrupted.

It seems that it come to

Purely clinical 834869

Admin and support 543399

[Ethel]

How about changing the relationship between free health care and individual responsibility?

You should be required to have an annual medical and your entitlement to healthcare will be determined by how well you take care of your body.

Overweight people and smokers should have to pay insurance to cover treatemnt for diabetes or cancer for example.

I think it is naive to think that we can continue to provide healthcare without people taking more responsibility for their own health.

I understand your argument but where do you draw the line? Are sportsmen responsible for their injuries? What about people who catch STI's through their own irresponsible behaviour? And people who get cancer because they ate bacon (as per a recent news story)?

A very large proportion of the things that we need medical treatment for are avoidable if you change your behaviour, but we all have our vices.

By the way I'd just like to say that despite this comment I'm neither overweight nor a smoker! Lol.

[MrPeregrination]

What you need is private medicine. If you didn't have to support every man and his dog through taxation you'd be able to afford it too.

Absolutely not. If we had been in a country like the USA where everything is privatised I likely wouldn't have been able to afford the care we got. Once a midwife became free the care was brilliant. We just need more staff. If you think the way to solve health care problems in this country is through privatisation you are nuts. I happen to have private insurance through my company (which I don't want but am forced to have) and I spent two hours and about 6 phonecalls (hung up on 5 times) trying to get them to pay out the 100 quid the policy gives to new parents. I want to be able to walk in to a hospital and be fixed. I don't want to have to spend hours/weeks/months arguing with some petty andministrator over whether my policy covers the care I need.

The health service needs reform but privatisation would just result in the countries jewels being sold to a bunch of rich arseholes so they could create a system to deny coverage whenever possible to improve their profit margins. The free market works for may thing, but healthcare isn't one of them.