Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

'Take a stand against violent behaviour in A&E'

Comment

Anonymous | 23-Nov-2011 5:41 pm I have also sent, having heard this chap yesterday, the following to my 'e-mail discussion partners' today: 'Apparently PM has had ‘hundreds’ of e-mails, and it will be mentioning them on Friday – I think it said about 5-45pm. Yesterday, they had a retired consultant on ‘for the other side’s view’. He said that the conversations ‘need approaching gradually’, because people cannot ‘take in’ a really bad diagnosis ‘in one go’. But it did seem, that ‘trying to delay the discussion’ was the reality, of the behaviour he was describing. This chap apparently had a pain in his leg as a teenager, which the NHS sorted out – it was a spinal tumour. But he kept asking ‘what’s wrong with me’ and nobody would ever tell him – they all told him to stop asking. It was years later, when he was a medical student, that he came across someone who had treated him, and finally got the answer ! I also think the fact that NHS care tends to be ‘conveyor belt’ and ‘episodic’ if you are a clinician, but must necessarily be seen in ‘holistic’ terms if you are a patient or relative, is a factor. I think paramedics, if they resuscitated father, would NOT then see the rest of father’s life, be it short in hospital, or longer (and perhaps ‘distressed’). If doctors and nurses annoy you, I think PALS tends to get in the way of what you actually want to do: you probably don’t want to tell PALS your problem, so they can get answers to what they think the problem was – you want the clinicians who you think did something wrong to be placed face-to-face with you, so that you can then say ‘Why did you do …. ?’ And if you have a bad experience, and end up with ‘bereavement services’, again, I’d guess you are not talking to the people who you think caused the distress you think was unnecessary, but instead to someone else. How is the EoLC Strategy, dealing with this ‘you lot see only ‘your individual bits of my experience, but I saw IT ALL’ aspect ?' As for my original piece, about what Nick Clark's widow said, the reply from 'someone who should know' was: 'This is an absolutely central element of the End of Life Care Strategy. Evidence suggests that no-one wants to start the conversation for fear of the other's emotions, but whoever does start it the other is glad and it tends to be productive and positive. This applies to both public and professionals. Dying Matters is doing GP training which finds the same thing. GPs are reluctant at first but when they have the confidence to discuss end of life issues with patients both benefit.'

Posted date

24 November, 2011

Posted time

2:41 pm

required
required
required
required