Treat disabled hospital users as children if needed.

Under 18s are not allowed on childrens ward, even if physically and mentally they appear younger than 18. This can cause major issues and is completely pointless red tape in the NHS.

Why is this idea important?

Under 18s are not allowed on childrens ward, even if physically and mentally they appear younger than 18. This can cause major issues and is completely pointless red tape in the NHS.

Freedom to choose male doctor

Currently, where there are group practices, a woman patient can choose to see a woman doctor where the problem is female-only (and sometimes even when it isn't).

But there are also problems that are male-only. Sometimes a male patient would feel more comfortable discussing his issue with a man because a woman — purely because of her female sex and for no other reason — would be out of touch.

This choice should be available to men.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, where there are group practices, a woman patient can choose to see a woman doctor where the problem is female-only (and sometimes even when it isn't).

But there are also problems that are male-only. Sometimes a male patient would feel more comfortable discussing his issue with a man because a woman — purely because of her female sex and for no other reason — would be out of touch.

This choice should be available to men.

Re-instate Cannabis BPC as a licensed medicine!

In 1970, Cannabis BPC tincture was a licensed medicine in the UK.

No discernible benefit has come from its withdrawal. No- one danced in the street when it went.

A great many of the diseases which non- psychoactive cannabinoids have potential threapeutic use have risen sharply since 1970. For no benefit, a great cost has been incurred in human suffering.

To give one example only, the cannabinoid delta9-THCV,  is effective in reducing appetite in mice. We have a problem with obesity, which contues to escalate.

Those who approve of prohibition, endorse the denial of something that could help the obese.

Why is this idea important?

In 1970, Cannabis BPC tincture was a licensed medicine in the UK.

No discernible benefit has come from its withdrawal. No- one danced in the street when it went.

A great many of the diseases which non- psychoactive cannabinoids have potential threapeutic use have risen sharply since 1970. For no benefit, a great cost has been incurred in human suffering.

To give one example only, the cannabinoid delta9-THCV,  is effective in reducing appetite in mice. We have a problem with obesity, which contues to escalate.

Those who approve of prohibition, endorse the denial of something that could help the obese.

Prevent the creation of the Health Act 2010

The planned Health Act 2010 will de-nationalise the NHS and will give the EU control over healthcare  provision in the UK. Section 4.27 says that NHS providers (that is, NHS hospitals) will be subject to competition law and the Office of Fair Trading and Monitor will enforce this. The effect of this will make hospitals subject to EU competiton laws and hence the EU Commissioner for Competition (Joaquín Almunia) will have the powers over healthcare provision and will be able to close your local NHS hospital.

Why is this idea important?

The planned Health Act 2010 will de-nationalise the NHS and will give the EU control over healthcare  provision in the UK. Section 4.27 says that NHS providers (that is, NHS hospitals) will be subject to competition law and the Office of Fair Trading and Monitor will enforce this. The effect of this will make hospitals subject to EU competiton laws and hence the EU Commissioner for Competition (Joaquín Almunia) will have the powers over healthcare provision and will be able to close your local NHS hospital.

Devolve funding of all drugs work to GPs

At present, the Department of Health holds the budget for Drug Action Teams, and ring- fences it for work with users of "controlled" drugs.

The result is an inequality of healthcare provision. A problem user of "controlled" drugs has a 1 in 2 chance of getting medical help, but the chance for an alcoholic is ten times worse.

 Once again, we can clearly see the political prejudices against "controlled" drugs working against the interests of public health. 1 in 13 UK adults is alcohol- dependent. This is a very seious problem for a very large number of people.

As Andrew Lansley devolves commissioning of services to GPs, he should include in this full responsibility for all the work Drug Action Teams currently do. So that the money can finally be dedicated accordfing to clinical need, not political prejudice.

 

Why is this idea important?

At present, the Department of Health holds the budget for Drug Action Teams, and ring- fences it for work with users of "controlled" drugs.

The result is an inequality of healthcare provision. A problem user of "controlled" drugs has a 1 in 2 chance of getting medical help, but the chance for an alcoholic is ten times worse.

 Once again, we can clearly see the political prejudices against "controlled" drugs working against the interests of public health. 1 in 13 UK adults is alcohol- dependent. This is a very seious problem for a very large number of people.

As Andrew Lansley devolves commissioning of services to GPs, he should include in this full responsibility for all the work Drug Action Teams currently do. So that the money can finally be dedicated accordfing to clinical need, not political prejudice.

 

Incidents related to excessive drinking should be charged fees.

 

I propose that anyone who needs medical attention due to excessive (binge) drinking should be charged for treatment. I’m not suggesting that there is profit made, just enough to cover costs. This may include any medical equipment used, and staff’s time. Binge drinking isn’t compulsory, and if the NHS started charging for drink-related accidents I’m sure not as much alcohol would be abused.

This idea could possibly extend to harmful-drug use.

Why is this idea important?

 

I propose that anyone who needs medical attention due to excessive (binge) drinking should be charged for treatment. I’m not suggesting that there is profit made, just enough to cover costs. This may include any medical equipment used, and staff’s time. Binge drinking isn’t compulsory, and if the NHS started charging for drink-related accidents I’m sure not as much alcohol would be abused.

This idea could possibly extend to harmful-drug use.

NHS (Manual Handling)

Repeal legislation (if actual legislation there is)  preventing NHS staff getting patients under the arms (oxters) in order to help them move.  Their job is made ridiculous by this.  Staff have not to be rough, but it is more-or-less ridiculous to try and move patients, which is what staff have to do, without frequently getting them under the arms.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal legislation (if actual legislation there is)  preventing NHS staff getting patients under the arms (oxters) in order to help them move.  Their job is made ridiculous by this.  Staff have not to be rough, but it is more-or-less ridiculous to try and move patients, which is what staff have to do, without frequently getting them under the arms.

Reverse the decision that all new nurses will be required to have degrees

The basic requirement for being a good nurse is surely to have a kind, caring personality, not an ability to write a good essay.  It is therefore hugely worrying that entirely uncaring, but academic people could soon qualify as nurses at the expense of those who are very caring and attentive, but do not have an aptitude for academic study. 

What is more, there is a very real possibility that some of those who get degrees will become ‘too posh to wash’ and think the traditional duties of a nurse below them.  This will do nobody any favours. 

On top of this, has any thought been given to how this ludicrous proposal will be funded?  There are surely only three possibilities, all of which are unpalatable:

  1. The government will fund this unnecessary extra education, through grants and subsidies, increasing the already gargantuan budget deficit, thus further exacerbating the economic woes of this country.  
  2. Nursing will become a career option which is only available to the wealthy, as they will be the only ones who can afford the training.
  3. Trainee nurses will be required to take out large loans, saddling them with huge debts that they may never pay off.

Clearly none of the above, or any combination of them, is in the slightest bit desirable from the point of view either of potential nurses or of society as a whole.

Why is this idea important?

The basic requirement for being a good nurse is surely to have a kind, caring personality, not an ability to write a good essay.  It is therefore hugely worrying that entirely uncaring, but academic people could soon qualify as nurses at the expense of those who are very caring and attentive, but do not have an aptitude for academic study. 

What is more, there is a very real possibility that some of those who get degrees will become ‘too posh to wash’ and think the traditional duties of a nurse below them.  This will do nobody any favours. 

On top of this, has any thought been given to how this ludicrous proposal will be funded?  There are surely only three possibilities, all of which are unpalatable:

  1. The government will fund this unnecessary extra education, through grants and subsidies, increasing the already gargantuan budget deficit, thus further exacerbating the economic woes of this country.  
  2. Nursing will become a career option which is only available to the wealthy, as they will be the only ones who can afford the training.
  3. Trainee nurses will be required to take out large loans, saddling them with huge debts that they may never pay off.

Clearly none of the above, or any combination of them, is in the slightest bit desirable from the point of view either of potential nurses or of society as a whole.

Smoking ban ( enforcement)

We have a law relating to smoking in enclosed,( or partially enclosed ) places, workplaces etc.

What we do not have is proper enforcement of the existing law, this government, should ensure that local councils, be made to take the law seriously, and enforce the law, or be fined themselves.

The law should be tied in with the litter laws, when the enforcement of ,"one" will be effective,to a great extent on the other.

Why is this idea important?

We have a law relating to smoking in enclosed,( or partially enclosed ) places, workplaces etc.

What we do not have is proper enforcement of the existing law, this government, should ensure that local councils, be made to take the law seriously, and enforce the law, or be fined themselves.

The law should be tied in with the litter laws, when the enforcement of ,"one" will be effective,to a great extent on the other.

Lift off the ‘restriction to work as a doctor in training’ from Tier 1 general visa

I suggest lifting off the 'restriction to work as a doctor in training' from Tier 1 general visa.

NHS is facing a recruitment crisis at the junior doctor's level as there are not enough UK/ EEA candidates to fill the junior posts and we still rely on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to run the service smoothly.

High standards of training was one of the main charms for IMGs to come and work as a doctor in the UK and this attraction is lost now because IMGs are barred from taking up training posts because of the above visa rules. Since overseas doctors do not have the opportunity of training and progression in the UK it has become extremely difficult to attract them, hence accentuating the recruitment crisis. 

In order to meet the demand NHS trusts are having to sponsor work permits to recruit doctors in training jobs . This makes the recruitment process more complicated and expensive taking into account the cost of repeatedly advertising the posts to prove that the resident labour market test has been applied, organising several rounds of recruitment and finally the cost of sponsoring the visa. Whereas if the restriction from Tier1 visa is lifted off a reasonable number of doctors will be able to apply under this category without jeopardising their progression and they will pay for their own visas with no need for their employer (NHS) to waste money on sponsoring and arranging a visa.

With the introduction of a cap on immigration, recruiting doctors on short term work permits may mean a very unstable medical workforce in the country. And  if doctors are needed in the country whether they are on a work permit or Tier 1 does not alter the number of immigrants by any means.

I would like to site my example to prove the above, I was appointed as a junior doctor on the PMETB approved core medical training programme in Sheffield in August 2009 on a work permit for 2 years to cover the 2 year duration of my core medical training. At the end of these 2 years, I need to reapply for further 5 years of training to become a specialist. I am eligible for a Tier 1 visa but if I take this type of visa I will not be able to continue my training. If I do not apply for this visa I will not be eligible to apply for the first round of training recruitment despite of my knowledge and skills which make me a highly appointable candidate. I will have to wait for an employer to prove that I have passed the resident labour market test and then sponsor my visa. This may lead to a gap or perhaps discontinuation of my training in the UK, forcing me to leave and continue my training in another country. It also brings in a lot of uncertainty about my leave to remain in the UK in case I do not find an employer to sponsor me. 

Having completed the United States Medical Licensing Exam, I would rather apply for a training job in The States than go through the stress of uncertainities about my future in the UK. Most of the doctors in my situation feel the same way and this is how UK is losing its medical workforce to The States or to Australia and Newzealand.

Had there not been the restriction on Tier 1 visa preventing doctors to work in training posts, I would have been able to shape my future in the UK and have the privilege of staying close to my siblings who are doctors on the old unrestricted HSMP visa!

Why is this idea important?

I suggest lifting off the 'restriction to work as a doctor in training' from Tier 1 general visa.

NHS is facing a recruitment crisis at the junior doctor's level as there are not enough UK/ EEA candidates to fill the junior posts and we still rely on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to run the service smoothly.

High standards of training was one of the main charms for IMGs to come and work as a doctor in the UK and this attraction is lost now because IMGs are barred from taking up training posts because of the above visa rules. Since overseas doctors do not have the opportunity of training and progression in the UK it has become extremely difficult to attract them, hence accentuating the recruitment crisis. 

In order to meet the demand NHS trusts are having to sponsor work permits to recruit doctors in training jobs . This makes the recruitment process more complicated and expensive taking into account the cost of repeatedly advertising the posts to prove that the resident labour market test has been applied, organising several rounds of recruitment and finally the cost of sponsoring the visa. Whereas if the restriction from Tier1 visa is lifted off a reasonable number of doctors will be able to apply under this category without jeopardising their progression and they will pay for their own visas with no need for their employer (NHS) to waste money on sponsoring and arranging a visa.

With the introduction of a cap on immigration, recruiting doctors on short term work permits may mean a very unstable medical workforce in the country. And  if doctors are needed in the country whether they are on a work permit or Tier 1 does not alter the number of immigrants by any means.

I would like to site my example to prove the above, I was appointed as a junior doctor on the PMETB approved core medical training programme in Sheffield in August 2009 on a work permit for 2 years to cover the 2 year duration of my core medical training. At the end of these 2 years, I need to reapply for further 5 years of training to become a specialist. I am eligible for a Tier 1 visa but if I take this type of visa I will not be able to continue my training. If I do not apply for this visa I will not be eligible to apply for the first round of training recruitment despite of my knowledge and skills which make me a highly appointable candidate. I will have to wait for an employer to prove that I have passed the resident labour market test and then sponsor my visa. This may lead to a gap or perhaps discontinuation of my training in the UK, forcing me to leave and continue my training in another country. It also brings in a lot of uncertainty about my leave to remain in the UK in case I do not find an employer to sponsor me. 

Having completed the United States Medical Licensing Exam, I would rather apply for a training job in The States than go through the stress of uncertainities about my future in the UK. Most of the doctors in my situation feel the same way and this is how UK is losing its medical workforce to The States or to Australia and Newzealand.

Had there not been the restriction on Tier 1 visa preventing doctors to work in training posts, I would have been able to shape my future in the UK and have the privilege of staying close to my siblings who are doctors on the old unrestricted HSMP visa!

BBC News just quoted that 40% of NHS A&E is taken up by alcohol abusers. LEGALISE CANNABIS NOW!

So many adults are forced to drink as their only legal high and form of rest and relaxation. It’s so unethical and irresponsible a policy, just look at the BBC News statistic that states 40% of A&E is taken up by alcoholic issues. Legalise cannabis and free adult citizens to at least have a choice as to what drug they wish to relax with.

Why is this idea important?

So many adults are forced to drink as their only legal high and form of rest and relaxation. It’s so unethical and irresponsible a policy, just look at the BBC News statistic that states 40% of A&E is taken up by alcoholic issues. Legalise cannabis and free adult citizens to at least have a choice as to what drug they wish to relax with.

Cut the amount of managers in the N.H.S

Management in the N.H.S as a level that is no longer sustainable or needed, I work in  a large hospital and our department has 54 employees, to control our department there are no fewer than 4 supervisors, 2 managers, 2 higher managers and 1 controlling manager, why, our department runs itself wheather they are there or not so whay this waste of public money, we also have a smoking cessation manager whose job it is to convince people to stop smoking, thats all he does, and his wage for this £39,000 per year absolute waste of money.

The N.H.S is top heavy with penpushers costing hundreds of thousands of pounds per year, if cut backs are needed this is where to start. 

Why is this idea important?

Management in the N.H.S as a level that is no longer sustainable or needed, I work in  a large hospital and our department has 54 employees, to control our department there are no fewer than 4 supervisors, 2 managers, 2 higher managers and 1 controlling manager, why, our department runs itself wheather they are there or not so whay this waste of public money, we also have a smoking cessation manager whose job it is to convince people to stop smoking, thats all he does, and his wage for this £39,000 per year absolute waste of money.

The N.H.S is top heavy with penpushers costing hundreds of thousands of pounds per year, if cut backs are needed this is where to start. 

too much cultural sensitivity

I notice that remote hospitals and care homes, there aer sometimes requests for halal or Cosha. This can be at great time or expense to the orgainistation. The NHS and social services should only offer standard healthy food including vegetarian options only.

Why is this idea important?

I notice that remote hospitals and care homes, there aer sometimes requests for halal or Cosha. This can be at great time or expense to the orgainistation. The NHS and social services should only offer standard healthy food including vegetarian options only.

Prohibition of drugs causes crime, de-criminalise them!

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

N.H.S filling local needs and Asperations

I heard recently that the local control of GP surgeries is to be taken from the quango style currant bureaucratic control and placed in the hands of the GP's themselves.

Take this a whole stage further and put local people in charge of NHS trust areas, who working with doctors and nurses would manage the trusts for the benefit of local people

 

Remove all the senior bureaucratic management teams and replace them with locally elected clinical and local people committees

You don't need to pay some pen pusher £250,000 to hide behind closed doors and make decisions which are not wanted or needed by local people- remove them NOW, and use that money to employ more nurses , doctors , buy scanners , open up wards , buy better and more food for patients , etc…..

If there was only one of these bureaucrats in each hospital it would be bad enough ,, but behind the doors of every hospital they are legion

 

Give the National Health Service back to the Nation

Why is this idea important?

I heard recently that the local control of GP surgeries is to be taken from the quango style currant bureaucratic control and placed in the hands of the GP's themselves.

Take this a whole stage further and put local people in charge of NHS trust areas, who working with doctors and nurses would manage the trusts for the benefit of local people

 

Remove all the senior bureaucratic management teams and replace them with locally elected clinical and local people committees

You don't need to pay some pen pusher £250,000 to hide behind closed doors and make decisions which are not wanted or needed by local people- remove them NOW, and use that money to employ more nurses , doctors , buy scanners , open up wards , buy better and more food for patients , etc…..

If there was only one of these bureaucrats in each hospital it would be bad enough ,, but behind the doors of every hospital they are legion

 

Give the National Health Service back to the Nation

Ban patents on medical equipment, treatments and drugs.

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

Why is this idea important?

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

NHS Compensation

The suing of doctors and NHS Trusts should be stopped. The country would save billions in insurance payments. The system is being abused and trusts are paying out to save litigation costs. The few genuine really serious complaints that do require compensation should be able to apply via an ombudsman to a Government Fund which would only need to be a fraction of the current cost to the tax-payer.

This idea came from the US and would not have been passed into English law if common sense had prevailed. One can't help feeling that the fact that many MPs are also working in the law may have something to do with it.

Solicitors should also be prevented from placing adverts that encourage the public to complain.

Why is this idea important?

The suing of doctors and NHS Trusts should be stopped. The country would save billions in insurance payments. The system is being abused and trusts are paying out to save litigation costs. The few genuine really serious complaints that do require compensation should be able to apply via an ombudsman to a Government Fund which would only need to be a fraction of the current cost to the tax-payer.

This idea came from the US and would not have been passed into English law if common sense had prevailed. One can't help feeling that the fact that many MPs are also working in the law may have something to do with it.

Solicitors should also be prevented from placing adverts that encourage the public to complain.

Sort Out and/or Get Rid of/Replace the Current NHS Complaints Procedure, NHS Redress Act 2006, Personal Injury/Medical Negligence Laws etc

The 2006 NHS Redress Act was intended to offer patients a quicker and fairer alternative to expensive and lengthy legal battles.  However the Dept of Health has failed to produce the necessary secondary legislation to make it operational as per newspaper reports in Aug/Sept 2009.  thus the Act is totally unworkable in England, meanwhile in Scotland and Wales they are working hard upon it, it is reported!

Both lawyers, medical professionals, Parliamentary Health Select Committee and patient safety campaigners have severely criticised the failure, some saying they are "dismayed" others describing it as "appalling".

This Act in it's Statement of Policy in 2006 stated:

7.    The key policy drivers for the proposed reforms are:

i)   the current system is perceived to be complex and slow

ii)   the current system is costly both in terms of legal fees and diverting clinical staff  from  clinical care; there is a negative effect on NHS staff morale and on public confidence;

iii)   patients are dissatisfied with the lack of explanations and apologies or reassurance that action has been taken to prevent the same incident happening to another patient; and

iv)   the system is said to encourage defensiveness and secrecty in the NHS, which stands in the way of learning and improvement in the health service.

8.   The NHS Redress Bill took forward recommendation 1 from Making Amends from earlier bills in the early 2000's:

"an NHS Redress "Scheme" should be introduced to provide investigations when things go wrong, remedial treatment, rehabilitation and care when needed; explanations and apologies; and financial compensation in certain circumstances",

9.   The Bill provides for a more consistent and open response to patients when things go wrong with their NHS Hospital care, placing the emphasis on putting things right for them.  It will promote learning and improvement in the NHS, and provide the impetus for wider service improvement.

10.  …….The NHS Redress Scheme will help local organisations to deliver improved response to their patients……Providers will investigate when something may have gone wrong with a patient's care, with a view to both putting things right for that individual patient, and learning from that patient's experience to improve the quality and safety of future care…..

11.   The Bill will provide a genuine alternative to litigation for less severe cases where there is a qualifying liability in tort arising out of hospital treatment, removing the risk and cost of litigation from the patient.  The scheme will aim to address the delays that are inherent in the current system and help reduce the general burden of litigation costs (which cost the NHS nearly half a billion pounds every year)………….

I will not continue to replicate all the 24 pages and points in this policy document and Act – you can look on www.dh.gov.uk www.parliamentuk/publications or www.opsi.gov.uk/acts  for full information.

 

The Redress Act 2006 needs redressing itself.  The routes now for loging a complaint against the NHS are inherently flawed to the advantage of the NHS not the suffering patient.  None of the above has happened.  Due to its ineffectiveness patients are still left to deal with more negative NHS staff who adopt a protectionalist attitude towards colleagues at the slightest indication that something may have gone wrong, and these injured patients are left with no thorough investigations and or treatments and are put at risk.  Patients still not being given an explanation and apologies or reassurance that action will be taken for them or to prevent the same incident happening to others.

The Complaints Procedure does not speed things up, instead creates delays causing medical professionals to effectively down tools upon the care and treatment of a patient. PALS and ICAS those bodies that are available to help patients with their complaints and provide advice how to negotiate the NHS Complaints Procedure are not independent advisors (they are funded by the Department of Health), they also cannot give advise to you but only assist you stating "it is your complaint"?  The main thing anyone in this situation needs is sound advice and help, as you are so ill anyway to be dealing with more stresses and pressures upon you.

The Government needs to go back to the initial piece of legislation raised with regard to time limits upon having to lodge a legal claim in court for Personal Injury and Medical/Clinical Negligence and change it from the current 3 years to at least 8-10 years.  Thus ensuring that both public and private sector organisations cannot continue to procrastinate via a one sided slow inept complaints procedure.  Forcing the NHS to take it's responsibilities of Duty of Care seriously and suffer the consequences for it's negligent acts, preventing them in effect escaping their liability and responsibilities via a Time Loophole in the Law by passing a patient around like a parcel and sending them for irrelevant tests and investigations or none at all! so they can avoid giving the patient a diagnosis never mind a reason for their current problem. As solicitors (that includes no win no fee) will not take on a case of negligence without a diagnosis, therefore, it is obviously in the NHS's favour to not provide one until it is too late for someone to take Legal Action, never mind 3 years of living hell, immense distress and pain to the injured party.

 

Why is this idea important?

The 2006 NHS Redress Act was intended to offer patients a quicker and fairer alternative to expensive and lengthy legal battles.  However the Dept of Health has failed to produce the necessary secondary legislation to make it operational as per newspaper reports in Aug/Sept 2009.  thus the Act is totally unworkable in England, meanwhile in Scotland and Wales they are working hard upon it, it is reported!

Both lawyers, medical professionals, Parliamentary Health Select Committee and patient safety campaigners have severely criticised the failure, some saying they are "dismayed" others describing it as "appalling".

This Act in it's Statement of Policy in 2006 stated:

7.    The key policy drivers for the proposed reforms are:

i)   the current system is perceived to be complex and slow

ii)   the current system is costly both in terms of legal fees and diverting clinical staff  from  clinical care; there is a negative effect on NHS staff morale and on public confidence;

iii)   patients are dissatisfied with the lack of explanations and apologies or reassurance that action has been taken to prevent the same incident happening to another patient; and

iv)   the system is said to encourage defensiveness and secrecty in the NHS, which stands in the way of learning and improvement in the health service.

8.   The NHS Redress Bill took forward recommendation 1 from Making Amends from earlier bills in the early 2000's:

"an NHS Redress "Scheme" should be introduced to provide investigations when things go wrong, remedial treatment, rehabilitation and care when needed; explanations and apologies; and financial compensation in certain circumstances",

9.   The Bill provides for a more consistent and open response to patients when things go wrong with their NHS Hospital care, placing the emphasis on putting things right for them.  It will promote learning and improvement in the NHS, and provide the impetus for wider service improvement.

10.  …….The NHS Redress Scheme will help local organisations to deliver improved response to their patients……Providers will investigate when something may have gone wrong with a patient's care, with a view to both putting things right for that individual patient, and learning from that patient's experience to improve the quality and safety of future care…..

11.   The Bill will provide a genuine alternative to litigation for less severe cases where there is a qualifying liability in tort arising out of hospital treatment, removing the risk and cost of litigation from the patient.  The scheme will aim to address the delays that are inherent in the current system and help reduce the general burden of litigation costs (which cost the NHS nearly half a billion pounds every year)………….

I will not continue to replicate all the 24 pages and points in this policy document and Act – you can look on www.dh.gov.uk www.parliamentuk/publications or www.opsi.gov.uk/acts  for full information.

 

The Redress Act 2006 needs redressing itself.  The routes now for loging a complaint against the NHS are inherently flawed to the advantage of the NHS not the suffering patient.  None of the above has happened.  Due to its ineffectiveness patients are still left to deal with more negative NHS staff who adopt a protectionalist attitude towards colleagues at the slightest indication that something may have gone wrong, and these injured patients are left with no thorough investigations and or treatments and are put at risk.  Patients still not being given an explanation and apologies or reassurance that action will be taken for them or to prevent the same incident happening to others.

The Complaints Procedure does not speed things up, instead creates delays causing medical professionals to effectively down tools upon the care and treatment of a patient. PALS and ICAS those bodies that are available to help patients with their complaints and provide advice how to negotiate the NHS Complaints Procedure are not independent advisors (they are funded by the Department of Health), they also cannot give advise to you but only assist you stating "it is your complaint"?  The main thing anyone in this situation needs is sound advice and help, as you are so ill anyway to be dealing with more stresses and pressures upon you.

The Government needs to go back to the initial piece of legislation raised with regard to time limits upon having to lodge a legal claim in court for Personal Injury and Medical/Clinical Negligence and change it from the current 3 years to at least 8-10 years.  Thus ensuring that both public and private sector organisations cannot continue to procrastinate via a one sided slow inept complaints procedure.  Forcing the NHS to take it's responsibilities of Duty of Care seriously and suffer the consequences for it's negligent acts, preventing them in effect escaping their liability and responsibilities via a Time Loophole in the Law by passing a patient around like a parcel and sending them for irrelevant tests and investigations or none at all! so they can avoid giving the patient a diagnosis never mind a reason for their current problem. As solicitors (that includes no win no fee) will not take on a case of negligence without a diagnosis, therefore, it is obviously in the NHS's favour to not provide one until it is too late for someone to take Legal Action, never mind 3 years of living hell, immense distress and pain to the injured party.

 

NHS should not be free to health tourists

The NHS is a key and much loved aspect of British life. The aging population, higher population and increasing healthcare expectations mean that NHS costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate.

Improvement in patient outcomes is essential. In too many instances NHS diagnosis and treatment protocols lag behind those in Europe and are far behind global gold standards. The people of this nation deserve better healthcare and the healthcare professionals of this nation deserve the right to be able to implement best practice for their patients. 

Just as there is re-ordering of priorities in welfare, education, housing etc ., there is a need for realigning NHS objectives and consolidating NHS functions for the improved health status of this nation.

A new method of charging health tourists must be implemented. The old system of providing free care (e.g. delivery of babies & extensive maternity care) and then hoping to be paid at a later date is complete nonsense in this day and age. Yes the NHS must be free at point of delivery for those who have a right here. No the NHS must not be free at the point of delivery for people of all other nations. This country and it's tax payers cannot be expected to provide free healthcare to all visitors.

Set up a committee of healthcare workers, accountants and managers to come up with a system that can (i) identify those who should not be due free NHS care, (ii) rules for acute vs chronic vs maternity treatment of those not due free NHS care, (iii)  efficient credit card 'on the spot' payment collection.

Why is this idea important?

The NHS is a key and much loved aspect of British life. The aging population, higher population and increasing healthcare expectations mean that NHS costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate.

Improvement in patient outcomes is essential. In too many instances NHS diagnosis and treatment protocols lag behind those in Europe and are far behind global gold standards. The people of this nation deserve better healthcare and the healthcare professionals of this nation deserve the right to be able to implement best practice for their patients. 

Just as there is re-ordering of priorities in welfare, education, housing etc ., there is a need for realigning NHS objectives and consolidating NHS functions for the improved health status of this nation.

A new method of charging health tourists must be implemented. The old system of providing free care (e.g. delivery of babies & extensive maternity care) and then hoping to be paid at a later date is complete nonsense in this day and age. Yes the NHS must be free at point of delivery for those who have a right here. No the NHS must not be free at the point of delivery for people of all other nations. This country and it's tax payers cannot be expected to provide free healthcare to all visitors.

Set up a committee of healthcare workers, accountants and managers to come up with a system that can (i) identify those who should not be due free NHS care, (ii) rules for acute vs chronic vs maternity treatment of those not due free NHS care, (iii)  efficient credit card 'on the spot' payment collection.

NHS Money Wasting

Please stop wasting money in the NHS on infertility treatments.  Some women have had to forego having children ever since time began and have had to get on with it.  Some adopted other people’s children and others did not.  Women do NOT have a right to have children and the State has no role in trying to help them have them.  If they want to have fertility treatment then they should pay for it.  State intervention by the NHS in this treatment is extremely expensive and not a role of Government.

 

 Similarly, the NHS should stop doing sex change and sex adjustment treatments.  Again if people want it they should pay for it- not the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

Please stop wasting money in the NHS on infertility treatments.  Some women have had to forego having children ever since time began and have had to get on with it.  Some adopted other people’s children and others did not.  Women do NOT have a right to have children and the State has no role in trying to help them have them.  If they want to have fertility treatment then they should pay for it.  State intervention by the NHS in this treatment is extremely expensive and not a role of Government.

 

 Similarly, the NHS should stop doing sex change and sex adjustment treatments.  Again if people want it they should pay for it- not the taxpayer.

NHS treatment for ex-pats

Currently people who work or live abroad for over 3 months lose their right to NHS treatment within the UK. We should ensure that British nationals who have previously lived or worked abroad do not lose the right to this treatment upon their return. 

Why is this idea important?

Currently people who work or live abroad for over 3 months lose their right to NHS treatment within the UK. We should ensure that British nationals who have previously lived or worked abroad do not lose the right to this treatment upon their return. 

Removing Restrictions on Numbers of General Practice Sugeries To Increase Competition

At present the number of NHS general practitioners in any area is limited and controlled by the local PCT.  This regulation is liked by the PCT as it gives them more control and very popular with existing practices as it gives them a local monopoy to supply services.

This anti-competitive regulation gives existing practices an unhealthy level of protection and at best encourages complacency or at worst allows bad practice to continue unchallenged until there is need for a formal complaint.. The threat of another practice opening nearby would make practices much more responsive to patients opinions and needs.

The new regulations allowing parents the freedom to set up their own schools could be mirrored in general practice with groups of patients setting up and running practices with the services that they felt were needed in their area. Putting the patient in charge would revolutionise general practice and vastly improve levels of care. Patients are the best judge of the services they want and the doctors who treat them best.

As the new regulations for schools will awaken education, so new practices could lift general practice to much more patient centred services without extra costs.

The following are some examples of incidences where repeal of this regulation would have been much better for patients.

Suffolk.

In a small coastal town a doctor appointed an old college friend as a junior partner. This man was arrogant , had a rude off hand manner that upset patients but rarely justified a formal complaint. There was substantial unrest amongst the patients who tried to set up another doctor in an alternative sugery , but they were prevented by the PCT.

Eventually the doctor concerned refused to visit a child who later died of meningitis . He left the practice after this incident but patients remained upset as they had always realised he was uncaring and probably dangerous.

Hove

In a three doctor practice all the partners are male. Last year when the senior partner retired a large number of patients requested that a woman doctor be appointed. In spite of this a further man was appointed as the partners did not want the bother of a partner who might get pregnant. Had there been the possibility that a woman doctor or two could put up their plates in the locality and start a new practice they would have been very successful. Probably the threat alone woud have been enough to moderate the doctor centred behaviour of the two partners who appointed like for their own comfort.

Camden

A doctor in Camden reported her partners to the PCT for dishonest and dangerous practice. When the complaints went to the GMC one doctor was deemed in need of retraining and the other was suspended for more than two years. The doctor who complained was locked out of the practice by the two doctors at fault and prevented from practising. Patients were distraught at losing their much loved doctor and asked the PCT for permission to set her up in practice in the local muslim community centre. There was adequate funding and enormous patient enthusiasm for this project but the PCT refused and refuse to allow it.

Had the two faiing doctors had the threat that this doctor could open an opposing practice present then they would have modified their behaviour earlier as they were aware that they were not popular with patients.

Why is this idea important?

At present the number of NHS general practitioners in any area is limited and controlled by the local PCT.  This regulation is liked by the PCT as it gives them more control and very popular with existing practices as it gives them a local monopoy to supply services.

This anti-competitive regulation gives existing practices an unhealthy level of protection and at best encourages complacency or at worst allows bad practice to continue unchallenged until there is need for a formal complaint.. The threat of another practice opening nearby would make practices much more responsive to patients opinions and needs.

The new regulations allowing parents the freedom to set up their own schools could be mirrored in general practice with groups of patients setting up and running practices with the services that they felt were needed in their area. Putting the patient in charge would revolutionise general practice and vastly improve levels of care. Patients are the best judge of the services they want and the doctors who treat them best.

As the new regulations for schools will awaken education, so new practices could lift general practice to much more patient centred services without extra costs.

The following are some examples of incidences where repeal of this regulation would have been much better for patients.

Suffolk.

In a small coastal town a doctor appointed an old college friend as a junior partner. This man was arrogant , had a rude off hand manner that upset patients but rarely justified a formal complaint. There was substantial unrest amongst the patients who tried to set up another doctor in an alternative sugery , but they were prevented by the PCT.

Eventually the doctor concerned refused to visit a child who later died of meningitis . He left the practice after this incident but patients remained upset as they had always realised he was uncaring and probably dangerous.

Hove

In a three doctor practice all the partners are male. Last year when the senior partner retired a large number of patients requested that a woman doctor be appointed. In spite of this a further man was appointed as the partners did not want the bother of a partner who might get pregnant. Had there been the possibility that a woman doctor or two could put up their plates in the locality and start a new practice they would have been very successful. Probably the threat alone woud have been enough to moderate the doctor centred behaviour of the two partners who appointed like for their own comfort.

Camden

A doctor in Camden reported her partners to the PCT for dishonest and dangerous practice. When the complaints went to the GMC one doctor was deemed in need of retraining and the other was suspended for more than two years. The doctor who complained was locked out of the practice by the two doctors at fault and prevented from practising. Patients were distraught at losing their much loved doctor and asked the PCT for permission to set her up in practice in the local muslim community centre. There was adequate funding and enormous patient enthusiasm for this project but the PCT refused and refuse to allow it.

Had the two faiing doctors had the threat that this doctor could open an opposing practice present then they would have modified their behaviour earlier as they were aware that they were not popular with patients.

NHS Public Health

Scrap Public Health function in PCTs. They are overpaid and ineffectual.

The money would be better spend on improvements to the parlous state of sewage disposal

The Swine flu hysteria was a classic case of public health hysteria

Why is this idea important?

Scrap Public Health function in PCTs. They are overpaid and ineffectual.

The money would be better spend on improvements to the parlous state of sewage disposal

The Swine flu hysteria was a classic case of public health hysteria