Conversation In The Office

[Zaranna]

hang on a minute, the NHS is bigger than the Chinese army.

GPs make an average £100K each, I can't remember seeing a surgeon or an anaesthetist or any proper surgical nurse begging outside Tesco..... the above is a bit emotive - we could easily get those medical staff, the same way as we do already, we take them from somewhere else in the world by offering them more money, please tell me why it's different for us to do it than the Americans to poach ours......

We DO - we run a good portion of the NHS on overseas labour. There are govt quotas for medical students, and the slack is taken up by poaching doctors from Eastern Europe, India or Africa. Which is one reason why it is so hard to keep trained doctors and nurses in the third world. We run our healthcare only by stealing labour from other countries. (I don't like that either.) But they will also go elsewhere if the UK is no longer an attractive place to be.

Zaranna

Still here then?

Why?

I'd only be marking projects. It's more entertaining here You gotta feed the occasional troll.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Zaranna

[winkie]

spot on, why is academic success a guarantee of anything - far far better for most people to forego years of study and debt and get on with life and earning. But they think they are entitled to a good job just because they spent three years 'studying' - which is harsh on the ones who are good enough but get caught up in the hundreds of thousands who are not..... [sorry to a lot of people, but it's about true, the overall quality of what goes in (on an 'smartness' level rather than simple grades (because these have been diluted too)) has fallen as the volumes went up, so the overall calibre of graduate falls to, devaluing a degree because everyone's got one.....]

Quite- Not having a degree has been no disadvantage to me.

Some graduates will do well, some won't. Some who leave school at 16 will do well, some won't, it's all down to the individual their determination social and financial skills-anyway who says you can't study whilst working- I do.

[Idon'tbelieveit]

Actually, you have needed a degree in Pharmacy since the 1960's!!

Edited May 29, 2006 by Idon'tbelieveit

[Rachman]

For example: the job spec of a nurse or a social worker is very different today than even 15 years ago. Social workers now need to have a much more complex knowledge of legal procedure, for example, and nursing is vastly more technologised than it was, and has much more of a variety of different roles than it did (what about nurse practitioners, or specialised intensive care nurses)? Pharmacy, for example, is another industry which has gone from being a non-degree career to a graduate career over the past 20 years; partly due to the increasing body of scientific knowledge required.

But Zaranna, for 99% of the work they do, they did not used to be educated to (or need to be educated to) degree level, it's just that someone has decided you need a degree to do them. You mention new positions, that's fine, but the vast majority don't, With respect, I suggest that getting in on the ground, starting off as an apprentice and learning the skills on the job would be a far better way for most of them to learn a) basic nursing and social work and to be in a position to add extra skills by vocational learning when they are earning money, not by spending three years messing about and going into debt. And I guess if you asked the ones with a mature outlook, they would say the same thing.

Serious question, preciely what extra scientific knowledge is required to be a pharmacist now - surely the majority of the work is still playing tiddlywinks with tablets to written down instructions, plus common sense advice to people (i.e. learn the warning labels on the products). OK, there are more products now, but surely it's a memory game (though clearly I may be underestimating what the people in Vanguard actually do all day).

[Idon'tbelieveit]

People often underestimate and undervalue the work done by Pharmacists. Mistakes are often made in prescribing (wrong dose, interactions etc) particularly by Junior doctors in Hospitals and it is the pharmacist who will often correct these errors (if missed they share the same or greater responsibility as the doctor). Both Junior and Senior doctors will also request the advice of a pharmacist when choosing what treatment to prescribe. However, joe-public still believes that all this knowledge has come directly from the doctor themselves (maybe because they what to believe "dr knows best").

[Its time to buy]

not another MPharmS!

Edited May 29, 2006 by notanewmember

[Idon'tbelieveit]

......despite having the same responsibility has a doctor if a medication error is missed. The starting salery for pharmacists in Hospitals is approx £21k PA rising to the national average of £26k after approx 3-5 years and to £35K after about 15-20 years. It's not only nurses that get crap wages!!!!. But then again only nurses and doctors work for the NHS...don't they??????

Why..are you one???

[Chrysalis]

if 21k is considered poor I dread to think what you think of 12k

I think 21k is above the REAL average.

[OzzMosiz]

if 21k is considered poor I dread to think what you think of 12k

I think 21k is above the REAL average.

I agree, the select few who earn over 100K (and in terms of workforce percentage - there ain't that many) skew

the averages.

[Idon'tbelieveit]

I don't think it's much after 5 years of study and the responsibility that goes with it!!!!.

[heather5]

Sorry - it's late - I haven't read all this thread but....

The labour govt - in the last few months - after recruiting loads of Indian nationals to train here in the UK on the promise of jobs - at only a few months notice, told them to leave as there would be no jobs available to them in the future, after all the hype.

These were primarily doctors - who had, some of them, already PAID as overseas students - for over 6 years - and about to qualify with legit UK quals as doctors - and they are given two months notice to quit!

This was in the news awhile back but not taken up as it was just before all the redundancies were in the headlines.

I was a temp working for a Chief Exec - ex surgeon - pursuaded out - by Labour - to do their research into recruiting doctors for the future in the UK - it was now some 5 years ago - and there was a shortage - and he predicted more of a shortage with the new doctors' hours being introduced but that the saving grace was the labour had recruited overseas students - still to pay here for their education - on the promise (?) of a job in the UK.

So now - they've been trained here - and paid from their own accounts - and the hoped for jobs are not there so they are now sent back ...

Ok .. economies change ... but we're still short of NHS staff at every level!!!!

Why is it that some-how this govt have persuaded their newly created PCTs that they way to go is get rid of what we're short of ... doctors and nurses.

Worse still, some of those guys have gone through 6 years of general and were about to specialise - again at their own countries cost to benefit us at next to nothing!

Sorry, I don't do political often .. but they have so lost the plot ....

What a great deal - have trained doctors - qualified - even specialised - at another country's expense - even a developing country - and just let them live here and practice when we're so short staffed - crumbs - what a great deal.

And what does Blair do - send them all home as illegal immigrants!!!!

Crips, if the developing nations refuse to send their best people here in the next few years at their expense - can we take Tony to court for breach of contract? Apparently, they themselves can not!

Duh..... mind boggling in ineptidude.