Anonymous | 15-Apr-2014 2:09 pm 'It is increasingly difficult for teaching to occur with an increasing patient workload and poor staffing levels.' I asked recently, in one of those 'Trust in crisis recruits more nurses' stories, 'where is the money coming from ?'. The King's Fund has just published a report with one possible answer - it seems many hospitals are currently over-spending (compared to their anticipated future budgets) and in a couple of years, lots of them will be in quite serious financial trouble. I'm not happy with this ploy by the current goverment to [effectively] reduce NHS resourcing, so that 'problems can be foreseen', and to also push the decisions AND THE 'BLAME' onto CCGs: especially when politicians, who are no longer so 'hands on' re the NHS, keep saying things like 'we have told them how important it is to sort this problem out' or 'they will cover it by greater efficiency'.
I've got nothing against Lord Willis - I know nothing about him. But I hope this review is as good as the one Robert Francis wrote: in particular, I hope the review is presented in the same way that Francis made his recommendations 'coherent as a whole, and thus difficult to 'cherry pick''. 'Reviews' seems to be a growth sector ?
Comment on: Cochrane review questions benefit of Tamiflu
I'm with Tiger Girl on this: I had very nasty flu when I was younger, and you can be really ill - NOTHING LIKE 'a bad cold'. There was once a campaign on TV, telling people 'to not visit their GP if they only had a cold - only go to the GP if you've got the flu' and I used to feel like throwing something at the TV (when I had the flu, there was no way I could have gone anywhere on my own two feet !). So taking a relatively ineffective medicine that ALSO had side-effects that make you feel even more awful, seems very flawed.
Anonymous | 7-Apr-2014 3:13 pm 'In addition, it is concerning that there is no way to ensure that feedback is sought from the appropriate people.' It isn't easy to select for 'appropriate people' - but you definitely shouldn't have 'selection by the staff' or else they are likely to select people they suspect woudl provide 'positive' feedback. But to an extent, this should be a comparative exercise, anyway: irrespective of how many 'disgruntled moaners' complain, if a ward is getting 4 times as many complaints as the 'national average [for that type of ward]' then you might reasonably conclude it is doing something [differently], that upsets more patients.
'It won’t be standardised (for that read could be fudged) and the public (and staff for that matter) will have no greater understanding of whether the ward is safe on any given day.' Oh Jenni - as a fellow [it seems] cynic, I'm wondering if that 'could be fudged' was a slip-of-the-hand and should have read 'would be fudged [by at least some people]' ! Your 'no greater understanding' point, puts me in mind of the recent NT piece suggesting that nobody actually understands the Family & Friends 'test' (something else that is supposed to improve improve service performance and patient safety). I think - I'm 'analysing this as I type' so I've not really thought about it - that the problem with all of these types of 'measure', is the positioning of them somewhere between 'very simple' and 'very comprehensive'. For staffing, 'very simple' would be to just collect hard patient outcome data, ranking wards in comparison to other clinically-similar wards, and letting the poorer performers get on with improving their performance: presumably, if 'adding more staff' had not been tried and other measures had not improved performance, it would perforce be tried. 'Very comprehensive' would entail full details of staffing numbers/categories 24/7 for every ward in the country, and 'patient outcome data', and then looking at that data set. Somewhere inbetween - 'some counting of staffing numbers, but not standardised and not 'comprehensive' - leaves plenty of room to 'argue over what the data means'. Many (or most) 'data sets' are of the 'somewhere inbetween' variety. Puts me in mind of that old saying about 'A little knowledge is ...'.