LB - Mr Smith's seems to be a prime example of the 'Just get his bed free ASAP!' incentive that currently operates in hospitals.
That's why I say that the incentive has to change from 'get our beds free ASAP!' to 'don't breach the unsafe discharge' rule.
Of course, the underlying problem behind the 'free up a bed ASAP!' imperative currently operating is that there are insufficient hospital beds in the first place!
Overall, the current situation seems to be analogous to a patient 'bleeding out' and medics just rushing around with sticking plasters to try and stem the blood loss....utterly insufficient all round.
I still think the major 'blockage' in reforming the situation (ie, reorganising for maximum efficiency and therefore least waste of money, plus just MORE money scaled to the increasing need building up because of ageing populations, more elderly people surviving with complex health needs, more social isolation etc etc etc etc!), is with the 'top bosses' in the NHS/SS.
When you pay a CEO of a trust, or SS authority, or whatever, a humungous salary (often larger than the Prime Minister's!) you create what I basically a 'traitor' to their own staff. They become the 'stoolies' of the Chancellor/Minister, whatever, and in exchange for their humungous salaries they then 'betray' their own staff, by constantly pressurising their staff to do more with insufficient resources, and they never, ever do what a good manager does when faced with an intractable, underfunded department - ie, push the problem 'up the line' to their own bosses!
It is the CEO's of health trusts and their equivalent in the SS who should be ganging together, and shouting VERY LOUDLY at their own bosses higher up, that they have been given an impossible task with insufficient resources, and demanding more resources to fulfil their tasks, shouting in the press, etc etc etc.
But no, central government simply bribes these individuals to put up and shut up, and pass all the pressure downwards on to the coal-facing staff......
I think, coming back to my point about Cancerworld, the reason the TWW (Two Week Wait) initiative has been so successful, is because it has been imposed from 'beyond' the hospital trusts, via the creation of a Cancer Czar (yes, humoungously, but sigh, that is what such people extract!) (top guys always pay each other loads, because each person on a humoungous salary acts to justify every other person at their level on such salaries!). The Cancer Czar was motivated to achieve their goals (ie, TWW throughout all hospitals), and not to keep the lid on a situation that was bad for patients.
Eun, it is interesting what you say about the motivation of CUK itself. I can't comment, obviously, as I don't know the ins and outs, and even if your comment were true (as I say, I have no knowledge either way!), obviously CUK do hugely good simply by its own existence to provide information for carers, and to host this forum! Could they do more? I don't know.....it would be great it they could! (allowing for resources etc....)
However, your point, for me, references similar organisations in Cancerworld. In Cancerworld there are any number of 'anti-cancer' organisations that are patient-led or patient-focussed, and yes, they do do useful things, and they do provide information and forum facilities and do encourage and facilitate things like greater take up in clinical trials etc etc, so I don't 'diss' them at all ....BUT, they are, mostly, from what I can see, 'on board' with the NHS, and, perhaps, in that unpleasant but perhaps sometimes accurate phrase that I think the Chinese Communists used to use, can possibly be seen as the 'running dogs' of the NHS....
A friend of mine in Cancerworld says the danger of getting involved in such 'patient' organisations is that in the end you 'go native' with the NHS, and cease to be an effective voice to challenge or question. You become a 'tool' of the NHS itself (both in a good way, as I describe above, but also in a bad way because you just become an extension of what the NHS and the medical profession itself want patients to be - ie, docile and obedient!!!)
That's why I say that the incentive has to change from 'get our beds free ASAP!' to 'don't breach the unsafe discharge' rule.
Of course, the underlying problem behind the 'free up a bed ASAP!' imperative currently operating is that there are insufficient hospital beds in the first place!
Overall, the current situation seems to be analogous to a patient 'bleeding out' and medics just rushing around with sticking plasters to try and stem the blood loss....utterly insufficient all round.
I still think the major 'blockage' in reforming the situation (ie, reorganising for maximum efficiency and therefore least waste of money, plus just MORE money scaled to the increasing need building up because of ageing populations, more elderly people surviving with complex health needs, more social isolation etc etc etc etc!), is with the 'top bosses' in the NHS/SS.
When you pay a CEO of a trust, or SS authority, or whatever, a humungous salary (often larger than the Prime Minister's!) you create what I basically a 'traitor' to their own staff. They become the 'stoolies' of the Chancellor/Minister, whatever, and in exchange for their humungous salaries they then 'betray' their own staff, by constantly pressurising their staff to do more with insufficient resources, and they never, ever do what a good manager does when faced with an intractable, underfunded department - ie, push the problem 'up the line' to their own bosses!
It is the CEO's of health trusts and their equivalent in the SS who should be ganging together, and shouting VERY LOUDLY at their own bosses higher up, that they have been given an impossible task with insufficient resources, and demanding more resources to fulfil their tasks, shouting in the press, etc etc etc.
But no, central government simply bribes these individuals to put up and shut up, and pass all the pressure downwards on to the coal-facing staff......
I think, coming back to my point about Cancerworld, the reason the TWW (Two Week Wait) initiative has been so successful, is because it has been imposed from 'beyond' the hospital trusts, via the creation of a Cancer Czar (yes, humoungously, but sigh, that is what such people extract!) (top guys always pay each other loads, because each person on a humoungous salary acts to justify every other person at their level on such salaries!). The Cancer Czar was motivated to achieve their goals (ie, TWW throughout all hospitals), and not to keep the lid on a situation that was bad for patients.
Eun, it is interesting what you say about the motivation of CUK itself. I can't comment, obviously, as I don't know the ins and outs, and even if your comment were true (as I say, I have no knowledge either way!), obviously CUK do hugely good simply by its own existence to provide information for carers, and to host this forum! Could they do more? I don't know.....it would be great it they could! (allowing for resources etc....)
However, your point, for me, references similar organisations in Cancerworld. In Cancerworld there are any number of 'anti-cancer' organisations that are patient-led or patient-focussed, and yes, they do do useful things, and they do provide information and forum facilities and do encourage and facilitate things like greater take up in clinical trials etc etc, so I don't 'diss' them at all ....BUT, they are, mostly, from what I can see, 'on board' with the NHS, and, perhaps, in that unpleasant but perhaps sometimes accurate phrase that I think the Chinese Communists used to use, can possibly be seen as the 'running dogs' of the NHS....
A friend of mine in Cancerworld says the danger of getting involved in such 'patient' organisations is that in the end you 'go native' with the NHS, and cease to be an effective voice to challenge or question. You become a 'tool' of the NHS itself (both in a good way, as I describe above, but also in a bad way because you just become an extension of what the NHS and the medical profession itself want patients to be - ie, docile and obedient!!!)