I get slightly cross when people say things like 'NHS not fit for purpose' and 'throwing more money at it won't help'.
To put it broadly, we underfund the system, and politicians meddle with it. Most of the 'problems' with the NHS stem from these two points. Nevertheless the NHS is an efficient and effective system compared to many others. We spend the second lowest per person in the G7, so we could probably fix that first, if we want improved outcomes. This could include things like putting more money into training and retaining staff.
@pansyface I would say that the NHS (and indeed the whole welfare state) is an entirely different animal in 1950 compared to now. What is able to offer and our expectations have entirely changed. The first treatment for TB had only just been discovered in 1950.
It was definitely creaky in the 1970's and beyond as well. I always had to wait a minimum of 4 hours with the children in A & A then.
To my mind it has got far too many managers (I worked there for a whole fortnight, saw the sheer inefficiency, total wastage and don't care attitude of the (admin) staff and gave my notice in. They then insisted I attend a whole day Induction course, absolute waste of time and when invited to give them feedback at the end of it I let rip and walked out. Awful job. The rot really set in a few years ago when they insisted all the nurses had to have degrees and got rid of all the experienced mature nurses who hadn't.
too many cooks spoil the broth? too many managers not enough doctors and nurses. chronic under funding by governments and privatisation . and it's funny how so many people seem to think themselves experts on vaccines and people listen to them
As a doctor who was also a manager, I am always fascinated by the allegation that there are too many managers, this was not my experience. The service is totally different to that in the 1970s / 1980s, far more complicated and needs managing.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
I would say that the NHS (and health awareness) has gone from being on the edge of our lives to nearer the centre. Most people in the country are on some kind of medication; We expect to be able to have a GP appointment, antibiotics and health solutions whenever we want them.
I don't think the NHS isn't fit for purpose, but it isn't fit for what are asking from it. The post-war generation would have quite low expectations and would be pretty amazed that they suddenly had 'free' access to heathcare and education for all. As with much, I think we now take it for granted - and so we don't turn up to appointments, don't properly take the medications given, use GPs for "free therapy" and try to sue doctors when things don't go right. It can't be an "on demand" service like Amazon, but I fear that that is the direction of expectation. It is brilliant infrastructure but it can't be all things for all people.
A portion of the Uk seem now to hate the NHS and spend a great deal of time bitching about it. Which is odd as there are not that many countries have 'free universal healthcare" or anything like it. I suspect that charities suffer from the same demands that they should have tiny admin costs or none at all. The NHS started off employing 144 000 people. It now employs 1.3 million people. 116,000 doctors and
286 000 nurses. It's the single biggest employer in the UK. It takes a lot of effcient administration to make it all work..
- - -
People were asking about comparisons of health systems around the world. This article is quite interesting. Countries like Russia supposedly have 'free health care' but the health outcomes are low. The US is a disaster in its health metrics and is far from 'free' on any level.
But utimately whatever side of the fence you come down on, care homes (in this instance) are now even shorter staffed than they were before at, some would argue, a critical moment.
Posts
To put it broadly, we underfund the system, and politicians meddle with it. Most of the 'problems' with the NHS stem from these two points. Nevertheless the NHS is an efficient and effective system compared to many others. We spend the second lowest per person in the G7, so we could probably fix that first, if we want improved outcomes. This could include things like putting more money into training and retaining staff.
Comparing NHS spending today with the NHS 70 years ago doesn't make sense considering our much older population and higher expectations; comparing it to the healthcare systems of equivalent countries is more relevant.
To my mind it has got far too many managers (I worked there for a whole fortnight, saw the sheer inefficiency, total wastage and don't care attitude of the (admin) staff and gave my notice in. They then insisted I attend a whole day Induction course, absolute waste of time and when invited to give them feedback at the end of it I let rip and walked out. Awful job. The rot really set in a few years ago when they insisted all the nurses had to have degrees and got rid of all the experienced mature nurses who hadn't.
The service is totally different to that in the 1970s / 1980s, far more complicated and needs managing.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Forgive me but I'm not sure of your point.
Although...
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/care-worker-sacked-for-refusing-covid-jab-breaks-down-and-says-its-unfair-298709
Sacking the very people you need in a pandemic without any hope of replacing them seems a galactically stupid thing to do IMHO
Always alternative viewpoints tho.. (although the bloke in the yellow jumper made me laugh..)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xni9LE2QcT8
But utimately whatever side of the fence you come down on, care homes (in this instance) are now even shorter staffed than they were before at, some would argue, a critical moment.