LETTERS Inbox
From: Chris Johnson Subject: Patient spirituality
I just want to congratulate you on publishing Richard Harlow’s article on ‘spirituality in healthcare’ entitled Free for all? in the September/ October edition of NHE. It is exceptionally good to see a magazine of your stature having the courage to publish something which is in many hospitals within the NHS a neglected or misunderstood subject.
This is in stark contrast to the countless journal articles and books on the subject (written over the last 20 years) which for the most part are ignored by people working in healthcare. I felt very encouraged by Harlow’s account and by the work done at Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and wish that other trusts would follow suit.
I am currently carrying out a research project here at Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust on the subject of spiritual care assessments working with staff in two clinical areas. The task in part is to encourage better practice in spiritual care and where necessary to adjust practice.
This has meant an in depth look at how staff understand spirituality and what it can mean for good patient care. But it has thrown up other questions. For example, many are confused about what is reflective practice and what is understood as patient centred care. When it comes to spirituality their views are so diverse making it almost impossible to have any coordinated action. Harlow
14 nhe
is surely right when he states ‘although spirituality may be hard to define, we are missing a trick if we exclude or marginalise it’ but until we come up with an agreed definition and practice of spiritual healthcare we are going to make little progress.
Clearly there is much more to be done otherwise spiritual healthcare will become for many something that was talked about but very rarely practised. The need therefore is for more empirical research and for trusts to have the same courage as Sussex!
From: Andrea Baldwin Subject: NHS reforms
Can I echo the concerns with the proposed reforms across the NHS. Like many I’m not opposed to change; in fact, that process makes up a great proportion of my working life where I’m constantly encouraging my NHS colleagues to identify better, more cost effective ways for delivery of quality nursing services. Having worked in the NHS for 30 years I’ve seen my fair share of change and the
apparent disregard government has sometimes that change, especially in such a vast organisation as the NHS, takes time to see the benefits. Working for a clinical network that is 10 years old, I think we can now say we are seeing those benefits. We are one of many who consist of the ‘experts’ from clinical practice: nurses, doctors and allied health professionals who know the pressures faced by colleagues on the shop floor and are dedicated to help both providers and commissioners of services obtain the best for patients. Work that those in ‘practice’ certainly haven’t got the time to do, they need the time to actually care for patients yet all the clinical networks are faced with the prospect of closure.
Where is the reward for our years of dedicated service? Can we afford to lose the vast expertise that exists in networks? I for one certainly hope the government will think long and hard about where cuts have to be made and balance this with their strategies to save money. Networks are proven to work!
Email your views to
opinion@nationalhealthexecutive.com
From: Mike Jackson, UNISON senior national officer for health Re: Social enterprises
The creation of more large scale social enterprises is a leap in the dark for NHS patients and staff. They pave the way for more private healthcare companies to get a stronger foothold into our NHS. And, because social enterprises are private companies, staff will no longer work for the NHS.
This leaves the pay, pensions and conditions of an estimated 25,000 staff in limbo.
UNISON is vigorously opposed to these schemes unless it can be shown that staff truly support them. Where there is doubt, they should be entitled to a free and fair ballot.
Andrew Lansley is wrong when he says that there is enthusiasm for the scheme from staff. All the evidence that UNISON has gathered, points to the decision to become a social enterprise as top-down, management-led. It is usually a coup by senior managers concerned they will lose their jobs.
Given the fragile business model it is also quite possible that, in the future, a multinational might look to break into the market, by taking over a social enterprise.
Given the government’s track record, it is hard to trust their Damascene conversion to co-operatives and social enterprises. This is just another way for them to wash their hands of the responsibility for delivering NHS services and inviting in the private sector.
Nov/Dec 10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100