David Francis Seelig
Originally a medical student back in the Dark Ages (I trained next to Harold Shipman at Leeds); now a - very - mature student at Kingston Uni. In the interim I did many things - including sitting as a Justice of the Peace for 20 years.
Comment on: Osborne reveals NHS pay restraint bombshell
Many pertinent points having been made above, I'd like to add my thoughts.
Regarding restraint: yes, it speaks for itself, 11% for MPs v. 1% for nurses. Restraint used here by politicians is a Humpty-Dumpty word sc. used to mean what they want it to mean. Ergo it has no meaningful significance for nurses.
Strike action: as we all know, politicians have for decades taken advantage of nurses in the full knowledge that they draw the line at striking. The rationale for not striking is manifestly to avoid compromising patient care. What is always overlooked is care of the nurse in terms of stress, exhaustion, financial worries sc. making ends meet, etc.
It can be argued that in all the circumstances there is a cogent case for taking industrial action. The RCN declines to support taking this course and thus, in my view, exposes its fundamental weakness. I was briefly a committee member of the RCN (before illness caused me to have to vacate my seat) and I argued strongly that an associated but separate nursing union needed to be established. It ill behoves a Royal College to be directly involved in industrial action, therefore a nursing union arm is needed to take (IF that is what it takes) strike action. The was some support for my argument but the majority view was that the RCN was stronger if it combined Royal Collegeship with union function. I continue to disagree profoundly with this approach.
In my view, advantage will continue to be taken of nurses for the foreseeable until a realistic union is formed that is prepared to take whatever action - albeit with the support of its membership - is deemed necessary in order to protect the well-being of nurses.
Comment on: Reform of student nurse funding at centre of row
There are cogent and very obvious reasons why nursing students receive a bursary and pay no tuition fees whereas students of all other subjects pay fees and can apply for grants.
If the former (existing) system were to replaced by the latter one, the number of applicants to study nursing would drop precipitously - not to say the number that would leave during the course on account of finding it impossible to make ends meet.
Any politician with a nanogram of common sense can see how ridiculous and damaging such a change would be. Existing nurse shortages would increase enormously within 3 years of such changes being implimented and the health service would implode.
Aside from laptops, tablets and software - which seems to be the pre-occupation above - what about health and safety? I suggest that people bone up on H&S at Work legislation and Employers' Liability legislation.
Employers have a duty of care towards employees and, if they try to wriggle out that duty, they expose themselves either to negligence claims or dereliction of duty.
If they try to take it out on employees, there is other legislation in place to protect those employees.
Well said Phil et al.
Reassuring soundbites from a politician but will Hunt follow this through with all due alacrity - that's the question?
I don't know where he's coming from wrt pilot studies for Physician Associates as the course for this has been up and running for a while at St. George's and other centres - time enough for assessments of effectiveness to have been made by now.
Comment on: 'Does mindfulness have a place in healthcare?'
I imagine that if it works on the mind, the body will follow suit sc. a psychosomatic effect. In any case, it's likely to have a different (if at all) impact on different people experiencing the same level of stress.
There seems to have been very limited research on this topic; given the importance of the effects of stress, surely resources should be hypothecated for a major study into this.