LETTERS ABC
Email your views to
opinion@nationalhealthexecutive.com
From: Chris Bradley, Bradford District Care Trust Topic: NHS Outcomes Frame- work
60 new targets; not bad from the Government that was elected on a promise of no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS. I don’t usually make predictions but this one is too tempting.
Whether the targets achieve anything will be the subject of much debate when the time comes.
The two sides are likely to divide along the lines of whether any improvements are a result of the targets or despite them. Some past targets of course were achieved before they were set and others were achievable by doing nothing as the trend was set toward it by current practice.
Massive amounts of money are spent devising these plans, or looking at ways to improve; huge pieces of work like the Wanless re- port that highlighted the financial (what else from a banker?) value of prevention rather than cure, un- usually full of common sense but conveniently watered down when short term financial targets are threatened.
Locally we have recently lost enough people from the public health sectors of our organisation (by redundancy and internal ma- neuvers) to be in no doubt that yet another expensive report is finally shelved when it becomes inconve- nient or fails to meet central short term targets.
Every time I see further interfer- ence from non-clinically focused management and Government, neither of whom seem grounded in the realities of providing servic- es according to need rather than to meet short term goals, stay within budgets or satisfy party politics we cringe yet again as the focus moves ever further from the patients as real people – and makes them units of cost.
as we can see is rapidly becoming a major problem as the bite of the economic downturn becomes real- ity. A service like ours is classed as expensive – it is when you consid- er the major health problems these people have.
From: Valerie John-Charles Topic: Homelessness
I work with homeless persons at the Greenhouse in Hackney – a service developed in collaboration with Thamesreach and St Mungo’s to care for the needs of homeless people holistically. Homelessness is not a new problem and as far
We see, and care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society – those abused, released from prison; released from care; street sex workers; victims of domestic violence; products of family breakup; refugees and asylum seekers; victims of the economic climate; those with no recourse to public funds; Eastern Europeans; substance misusers;
alcoholics; people suffering with enduring mental health. These are just a few that come through our door – many of whom lead very chaotic lives with no order.
This group of people will have an enormous effect on the economy in years to come; we know this and yet we ignore them. Government after government has failed to tackle the issue or allow practices like ours to further develop our services to offer more in-depth work with this group. They all want to be productive members of society but are knocked back and failed by our systems each time they try to make changes. They may fall when reaching the first hurdle time and time again but eventually they will make changes with the commitment and input from a team like ours.
I was involved in the round table that produced the Health Inclu- sion document, but who is over- seeing the commissioners, ensur- ing they provide appropriate ser- vices for this group? True, general practice can provide care for these patients, but they need more in- tense continuing care, which in- volves health and social care work- ing in partnership. I plead with the DH not to allow practices like us to disappear – the results will be ter- rible not just for the most vulner- able but for society at large.
From: T. Sykes Topic: Online access to medical records for patients
This is exactly the right approach in all respects and where any (catastrophic) attempt to ‘share’ patients’ data should have started in the first place. It is essential that the initiative is not emasculated by resistance from the medical pro- fession. Best of luck.
I find it odd though that a forum designed to extend a ‘listening exercise’ does not make available contact details so patients can spell out their views directly. Or have I missed something?
national health executive Jan/Feb 12 | 15
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