Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Yet More Trouble For 111 Service
Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse :::
http://
Anybody still think that the Health Service is OK in Tory hands ?
http://
Anybody still think that the Health Service is OK in Tory hands ?
Answers
Anyone interested in some of the backstory to the 111 service might wish to watch Dispatches tonight,8pm C4. The Govt have been repeatedly warned that the 111 service was unfit for purpose and that it should not have rolled it out when it was. It would appear those warnings were prophetic...
13:48 Mon 29th Jul 2013
mikey4444
/// so Labour can hardly be blamed for this current crisis. ///
No but Labour can definitely be blamed for this £12bn fiasco.
http://
/// so Labour can hardly be blamed for this current crisis. ///
No but Labour can definitely be blamed for this £12bn fiasco.
http://
Anyone interested in some of the backstory to the 111 service might wish to watch Dispatches tonight,8pm C4.
The Govt have been repeatedly warned that the 111 service was unfit for purpose and that it should not have rolled it out when it was. It would appear those warnings were prophetic.....
This from a brief article trailing the programme;
http://
And this, talking about warnings to the Govt back in May regarding the 111 rollout;
http://
The Health Select Committee was extremely critical of Health Ministers over the roll-out of the 111 service,launched 1st April this year,
"Earlier this month, the Health Select Committee criticised ministers for the ‘premature’ roll-out of the 111 service.
They said the service was implemented ‘without attempting to interpret the evidence from pilots, which themselves were limited in scale and scope’."
The Govt have been repeatedly warned that the 111 service was unfit for purpose and that it should not have rolled it out when it was. It would appear those warnings were prophetic.....
This from a brief article trailing the programme;
http://
And this, talking about warnings to the Govt back in May regarding the 111 rollout;
http://
The Health Select Committee was extremely critical of Health Ministers over the roll-out of the 111 service,launched 1st April this year,
"Earlier this month, the Health Select Committee criticised ministers for the ‘premature’ roll-out of the 111 service.
They said the service was implemented ‘without attempting to interpret the evidence from pilots, which themselves were limited in scale and scope’."
Sqad. Do you really think that the Tories are not in power ?
Really ?
Its the Tories that hold all the cards, with a few Libs brown-nosing behind, all in junior positions. The only Lib that seems to have any balls whatsoever is Vince Cable. Its a Tory regime in all but name. Anyway, even if you disagree, its not Labour who are to blame for this fiasco with 111. Look at the link.
A major provider of the NHS non-emergency telephone service in England is seeking to pull out of its contracts due to severe problems. NHS Direct initially won 11 of the 46 regional contracts for the service, covering 34% of the population. It has already pulled out of two services, but the remaining nine are now "financially unsustainable".
Fiasco seems to fit the bill nicely.
Really ?
Its the Tories that hold all the cards, with a few Libs brown-nosing behind, all in junior positions. The only Lib that seems to have any balls whatsoever is Vince Cable. Its a Tory regime in all but name. Anyway, even if you disagree, its not Labour who are to blame for this fiasco with 111. Look at the link.
A major provider of the NHS non-emergency telephone service in England is seeking to pull out of its contracts due to severe problems. NHS Direct initially won 11 of the 46 regional contracts for the service, covering 34% of the population. It has already pulled out of two services, but the remaining nine are now "financially unsustainable".
Fiasco seems to fit the bill nicely.
The NHS is a hot political potato, fuelled by people making comments like yours.
For the NHS to work it needs an all-party consensus, it cannot under any circumstances be used to score political points.
And yes, management of the NHS does need to be privatized, run it like PCWorld I think was a comment. I happen to know what the management structure of the NHS is like, yes they are reorganizing but sacking or demoting front line staff and bringing in more managers on 60k plus at what I would consider in business to be very junior positions. This began under Brown and has continued; so all parties are involved.
The 111 service though appears to be a contractual problem. They contracted to do it for x then realized it will cost y and want out.
For the NHS to work it needs an all-party consensus, it cannot under any circumstances be used to score political points.
And yes, management of the NHS does need to be privatized, run it like PCWorld I think was a comment. I happen to know what the management structure of the NHS is like, yes they are reorganizing but sacking or demoting front line staff and bringing in more managers on 60k plus at what I would consider in business to be very junior positions. This began under Brown and has continued; so all parties are involved.
The 111 service though appears to be a contractual problem. They contracted to do it for x then realized it will cost y and want out.
please will governments stop treating the NHS like a big company, we do not require managers who have experience in the private sector, its called the national health SERVICE. and throwing money into it is not going to solve the problem, we have doctors who don't even know how to relate to patients and nurses , whos only ambition is to be a manager ( not all nurses ) I despair,!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe that what is happening is that in order to save money the government is seeking contractors willing to take on contracts with very slim profit margins.
The consequence of this is overly optimistic organisations are being awarded contracts which they cannot fullfill
This is just one example.
We saw the same thing with the West Coast Mail Line deal - until Vigin kicked up about it 'significant technical flaws in the bidding process' is how it was dubbed.
Security contract for the Olympics was another.
What is happening is the Civil service is not rejecting such over-optimistic low bids and when it all falls apart instead of the companies honoring the bids at a loss for them they are walking away and we end up picking up the pieces.
Now the Big Question!
Is this due to ministerial pressure to take the cheapest option or just bad management in the civil service.
To me there seems too many such cases for the latter but you might think differently
The consequence of this is overly optimistic organisations are being awarded contracts which they cannot fullfill
This is just one example.
We saw the same thing with the West Coast Mail Line deal - until Vigin kicked up about it 'significant technical flaws in the bidding process' is how it was dubbed.
Security contract for the Olympics was another.
What is happening is the Civil service is not rejecting such over-optimistic low bids and when it all falls apart instead of the companies honoring the bids at a loss for them they are walking away and we end up picking up the pieces.
Now the Big Question!
Is this due to ministerial pressure to take the cheapest option or just bad management in the civil service.
To me there seems too many such cases for the latter but you might think differently
The idea of the NHS is a wonderful concept, cradle to grave and all that, I agree 100%, just look at the barbarity of health care in most of the rest of the world. The problem is though, that it needs to be public sector run with private sector techniques. Since inception it's been infilitrated by socialist principles of over manning in the wrong areas. We have to clear out the tiers of useless management and transform it into an organisation that's primary function is health care not jobs for empire building civil servants.
LazyGUN.....in our NHS the patient has the following portals of medical care:
1) the GP
2) A&E
3 ) Walk in centres
4) NHS 24 or now NHS 111
This is totally unreasonable, unacceptable and affordable........and in private ALL Political Parties would agree.
2007 the GP's were given more money, less work and weekend calls and night calls abolished.......madness.....done for political gain....even the BMA was astonished at the deal.
No other country has followed the patter of the NHS.
Although there are many pluses, the negative part of State medicine is political expedience to satisfy and placate the electorate.
What can be done now? I have no idea, but blaming the situation on one Political Party is missing the whole point.
1) the GP
2) A&E
3 ) Walk in centres
4) NHS 24 or now NHS 111
This is totally unreasonable, unacceptable and affordable........and in private ALL Political Parties would agree.
2007 the GP's were given more money, less work and weekend calls and night calls abolished.......madness.....done for political gain....even the BMA was astonished at the deal.
No other country has followed the patter of the NHS.
Although there are many pluses, the negative part of State medicine is political expedience to satisfy and placate the electorate.
What can be done now? I have no idea, but blaming the situation on one Political Party is missing the whole point.
mikey4444
/// AOG...interesting post but off-topic. ///
Not so mikey, you were criticising the Tories for making a hash of a NHS service, so I was merely counter criticising for Labour wasting 312bn on a similar problematic NHS venture.
/// reported earlier this month showed NHS Direct had lost £2.8m since April and was "heading for a deficit of £26m if we continue to run the same volume of 111 services until the end of this financial year". ///
Even that is chicken feed when compared to the £312bn that Labour wasted on theirs.
/// AOG...interesting post but off-topic. ///
Not so mikey, you were criticising the Tories for making a hash of a NHS service, so I was merely counter criticising for Labour wasting 312bn on a similar problematic NHS venture.
/// reported earlier this month showed NHS Direct had lost £2.8m since April and was "heading for a deficit of £26m if we continue to run the same volume of 111 services until the end of this financial year". ///
Even that is chicken feed when compared to the £312bn that Labour wasted on theirs.
@Sqad - I am not unfamiliar with the workings of the primary care system in the UK, Sqad :)
There are actually quite a few countries that offer a universal health care service, free at the point of care, paid for via social health insurance, including much of Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and others, but thats not the point.
And I would agree with you that the NHS is used as a political football by both parties - but ducking your head in the sand and ignoring legitimate criticism of one particular aspect of the service or dismissing it as partisan bias does no one any favours either.
On this specific issue - the replacement of NHS Direct with the 111 service - this government has fumbled the ball - badly, and were warned repeatedly that the way they were going about implementing the service was seriously flawed. Now we are starting to see some of the effects of that.
Are we just to ignore the incompetence of the rollout because you deem the criticism too partisan?
There are actually quite a few countries that offer a universal health care service, free at the point of care, paid for via social health insurance, including much of Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and others, but thats not the point.
And I would agree with you that the NHS is used as a political football by both parties - but ducking your head in the sand and ignoring legitimate criticism of one particular aspect of the service or dismissing it as partisan bias does no one any favours either.
On this specific issue - the replacement of NHS Direct with the 111 service - this government has fumbled the ball - badly, and were warned repeatedly that the way they were going about implementing the service was seriously flawed. Now we are starting to see some of the effects of that.
Are we just to ignore the incompetence of the rollout because you deem the criticism too partisan?
LazyGun
\\\\ but ducking your head in the sand and ignoring legitimate criticism of one particular aspect of the service or dismissing it as partisan bias does no one any favours either. \\\\
Quite.......but it is the same old routine that has been going on for decades, with no change....Labour makes a "balls up" and the right wing makes it's criticisms, the Tories make a "balls up" and the lefties wad in (e.g this thread, left wing brings it up and a left of centre supportive post gets best answer)........this is getting the NHS nowhere.
\\\\ but ducking your head in the sand and ignoring legitimate criticism of one particular aspect of the service or dismissing it as partisan bias does no one any favours either. \\\\
Quite.......but it is the same old routine that has been going on for decades, with no change....Labour makes a "balls up" and the right wing makes it's criticisms, the Tories make a "balls up" and the lefties wad in (e.g this thread, left wing brings it up and a left of centre supportive post gets best answer)........this is getting the NHS nowhere.
Again, not to be pedantic Sqad - but in my initial post on this, where is the left wing bias?
I am criticising the management of the roll-out of the service, which was a chaotic cock-up, ignoring the evidence of their own pilot studies, and against the advice of their own expert advisors from the RCGP etc.
How is that left wing bias? And even were it from a left wing perspective, does it actually invalidate the criticism? Come on Sqad, I expect better of you than simple knee-jerk responses....
I am perfectly happy to criticise New Labours record in handling the NHS too - the Universal IT system that AoG alludes to, or, worse, the ridiculous PFI initiatives and outside consultants paid 1000s of pounds daily. The fact that I dislike the ideology that prompted such issues is neither here nor there..
I am criticising the management of the roll-out of the service, which was a chaotic cock-up, ignoring the evidence of their own pilot studies, and against the advice of their own expert advisors from the RCGP etc.
How is that left wing bias? And even were it from a left wing perspective, does it actually invalidate the criticism? Come on Sqad, I expect better of you than simple knee-jerk responses....
I am perfectly happy to criticise New Labours record in handling the NHS too - the Universal IT system that AoG alludes to, or, worse, the ridiculous PFI initiatives and outside consultants paid 1000s of pounds daily. The fact that I dislike the ideology that prompted such issues is neither here nor there..
I have not the slightest problem with being called "left wing". It was the Labour Party and Nye Bevan, a great personal hero of mine, that brought in the NHS in 1948. This was because they won the 1945 General Election with a huge majority, against a Tory party that was led by a great wartime hero, Churchill. But as soon as the British people got a chance, they threw him out of power.
If the Tories had won the 1945 election, it is highly doubtful that we would have had a NHS in the first place. It might not be perfect but its a hell of a lot better than other parts of the world where you are left to suffer and die for lack of money.
If the Tories had won the 1945 election, it is highly doubtful that we would have had a NHS in the first place. It might not be perfect but its a hell of a lot better than other parts of the world where you are left to suffer and die for lack of money.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Strands #269 “Come Fly With...
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
ChatterBank35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Law49 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.