Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[Minimeister]

Bank nurses are effectively zero hour employees though so presumably they'll be banned if Labour get in?

Whenever zero hour contracts are mentioned I do think about nurses on the NHS banks. I presume though that as they usually have a substantive post with the Trust that they're not being taken advantage of as others might be.

 

[harris78]

Found it very telling in tonight's TV questions, every time Theresa May spoke it was 'i will' i have' where as Jeremy Corbyn always answered 'we will' 'we have' etc. Theresa May in my opinion does not come off at all well in TV Q and A's, i can see why she has not wanted to take part in tv debates.

This election is going to be a lot closer than the Tories thought it would be....

 

[Brennan]

The NHS were horrific at wasting money years ago. They would happily pay an agency nurse double to cover a shift because there were no cost pressures. In the last few years and the saving pressure the NHS are under they created their own banks to fill as many of the shifts as possible. I can't understand how you think any service in the NHS would deliberately understaff itself to spend this money on external people? Wards have to be fully staffed since the Francis report and unscrupulous agencies will always try and take advantage of that. It's not deliberate mate, they have to do it to comply with the laws because if something goes wrong then everyone pays.

I know somebody who is currently a nurse who sees agency staff being paid far more and refusing to perform certain vital nurse roles due to H&S restrictions imposed by their employer.

Also, with regard to understaffing, I know another nurse who works in Wythenshawe hospital, she is on a ward which can hold up to 21 patients and she covers that ward with one other nurse. It is a high dependency unit with patients who are often in a very bad way. They work 12 hour shifts.

That does not strike me as 'safe', and is the reason she is moving to another position.

 

[zzr45]

The NHS were horrific at wasting money years ago. They would happily pay an agency nurse double to cover a shift because there were no cost pressures. In the last few years and the saving pressure the NHS are under they created their own banks to fill as many of the shifts as possible. I can't understand how you think any service in the NHS would deliberately understaff itself to spend this money on external people? Wards have to be fully staffed since the Francis report and unscrupulous agencies will always try and take advantage of that. It's not deliberate mate, they have to do it to comply with the laws because if something goes wrong then everyone pays.

But it clearly is understaffing itself to need to bring in agency workers. Due to cost cutting there are 'budgets' that exist that will claim that the wage budget is 'x' for the year, which is done by fiddling the books (more part time nurses etc.) to an extent so the budget gets passed. Of course when it transpires that the current staff level can't cope it's seen as an 'emergency' and these more expensive staff are brought in and the 'overspend' is pardoned. It's an absolutely ridiculous situation.

There needs to be more honesty with regards to the NHS in that its become a bloated, run by committee mess. The savings are there to be made by allowing staff budgets to reflect reality and get the true number of people needed in. Whoever gets in, personally I think giving the NHS a massive shake up is a must.

 

[Minimeister]

I know somebody who is currently a nurse who sees agency staff being paid far more and refusing to perform certain vital nurse roles due to H&S restrictions imposed by their employer.

Also, with regard to understaffing, I know another nurse who works in Wythenshawe hospital, she is on a ward which can hold up to 21 patients and she covers that ward with one other nurse. It is a high dependency unit with patients who are often in a very bad way. They work 12 hour shifts.

That does not strike me as 'safe', and is the reason she is moving to another position.

I would say that Trust is taking a risk by running a ward understaffed to save money mate and she's better off out of it.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Apologies then, I've got my terms mixed up. The point remains though that surely if the NHS was actually staffed properly (in that it had internal cover for the gaps that open up) then it would reduce the huge amounts being paid out to external companies? And that money could actually be spent on better care?

To talk of the above which I have set in bold, one has to understand the terms and conditions under which they are employed, and if those terms and conditions are:
1. Good enough to retain existing staff; and
2. Good enough to be attractive to new staff.

It would appear that by all we have seen in the media in recent months that the Tory Government is hell-bent on provoking NHS staff with regard to terms and conditions (Hunt, anyone?) and May's pronouncement in recent hours, rather than being conciliatory and working out the best for the people of this country.

Words fail me that anyone can lay blame anywhere else than with the Government with their attitude and policy intent towards NHS staff.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[Minimeister]

To talk of the above which I have set in bold, one has to understand the terms and conditions under which they are employed, and if those terms and conditions are:
1. Good enough to retain existing staff; and
2. Godd enough to be attractive to new staff.

It would appear that by all we have seen in the media in recent months that the Tory Government is hell-bent on provoking NHS staff with regard to terms and conditions (Hunt, anyone?) and May's pronouncement in recent hours, rather than being conciliatory and working out the best for the people of this country.

Words fail me that anyone can lay blame anywhere else than with the Government with their attitude and policy intent towards NHS staff.

Hunt! I forgot about him. Do you know in the North West the current fill rate for junior doctors posts is 60%? So that's 40% of new doctors time the NHS having 'deliberately' understaffed itself will have to fund due to having an absolute plum in charge of it for the last 7 years.

 

[Brennan]

I would say that Trust is taking a risk by running a ward understaffed to save money mate and she's better off out of it.

Two different trusts though.

I think you're in denial if you think it's a localised issue.

 

[zzr45]

To talk of the above which I have set in bold, one has to understand the terms and conditions under which they are employed, and if those terms and conditions are:
1. Good enough to retain existing staff; and
2. Good enough to be attractive to new staff.

It would appear that by all we have seen in the media in recent months that the Tory Government is hell-bent on provoking NHS staff with regard to terms and conditions (Hunt, anyone?) and May's pronouncement in recent hours, rather than being conciliatory and working out the best for the people of this country.

Words fail me that anyone can lay blame anywhere else than with the Government with their attitude and policy intent towards NHS staff.

Because it's not a Tory Or Labour issue. The NHS problem has been bubbling away for decades and no-ones dealt with it. Progressive governments have made the situation worse and worse.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Hunt! I forgot about him. Do you know in the North West the current fill rate for junior doctors posts is 60%? So that's 40% of new doctors time the NHS having 'deliberately' understaffed itself will have to fund due to having an absolute plum in charge of it for the last 7 years.

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping the tenor of your post, particularly the bold part, but I will try to answer anyway.

It is deliberate, the understaffing of the NHS? I cannot make complete sense of your last sentence, as 'will have to fund' runs on from the bold part above. Please explain further...

 

[Old Blue 2]

Because it's not a Tory Or Labour issue. The NHS problem has been bubbling away for decades and no-ones dealt with it. Progressive governments have made the situation worse and worse.

But the scenario in recent times has been an absolute disgrace from the Government, regardless of political shade... It is simply shafting the staff in the public gaze, and they care not one whit about it, or how they are seen...

 

[evilwebby]

If you're a geek like me then I would recommend having a read through Nigel Marriot's blog.
Very interesting forecasting model he's built. Maybe as good as any of the large pollsters.
https://marriott-stats.com/nigels-blog

 

[Minimeister]

Two different trusts though.

I think you're in denial if you think it's a localised issue.

Every ward I've ever worked on has two qualified nurses and the rest are HCA's mate. I admit that every Trust I've worked at spends far too much on admin functions but that's because there's so much red tape that they have all these departments ticking boxes instead of spending money on direct patient care.

 

[hullefc]

Are they world wars mate? No. Have world wars been stopped by the existence of nuclear weaponry? Yes. As such, have nuclear weapons saved lives, given more lives were lost in a world war in seven years than regional conflicts over the following fifty-five? It's a yes I'm afraid.

You started by stating that nuclear weapons stopped 'major conflicts', not true. As far as the rant about world wars goes, one side of the world, the US attacked a country on the other side of the world. Move all the goalposts you like there has been millions and millions of deaths due to major conflict since 1945 that weren't stopped because of nuclear weapons.

An absolutely absurd thing to say that 'nuclear weapons have saved lives'. Where? In Asia? No. In Africa? No. In the Middle East? No. In Europe? No. All those continents have had 'major conflicts', that nuclear weapons have not stopped.