Remove rule on quantity of drugs per prescription

Remove limitation on each each prescription to 4 weeks supply of drugs. At the moment every four weeks I have to submit a repeat prescription request for my Thyroxine even though I only need a blood test every 6 to 12 months. For for all the other repeat prescription the Doctor adds no useful value they just automatically sign the form

Why is this idea important?

Remove limitation on each each prescription to 4 weeks supply of drugs. At the moment every four weeks I have to submit a repeat prescription request for my Thyroxine even though I only need a blood test every 6 to 12 months. For for all the other repeat prescription the Doctor adds no useful value they just automatically sign the form

Reducing unnecessary spend in the NHS

Why does the NHS still pay thousands if not millions in additional payments for NHS staff unnecessarily.  This relates to doctors in particular.  There seems to be totally separate payments methods for doctors than there are for all other staff groups within the NHS.  I realise this will probably date back to the beginnings of the NHS when doctors had the power to stipulate extra payments for everything they do, but in this day and age, this is wrong.  Doctors aren't the only staff group in the NHS and not the most important staff group either – they wouldn't be able to do their role without other staff groups – every staff group is of equal importance.

 

Although I along with the rest of the general public believe in the NHS and what it stands for, I think the general public are not aware that there are millions of pounds being given to doctors every week to undertake additional tasks, whereas the rest of the NHS population have to incorporate additional tasks into their current job roles without additional payment – this is after all the NHS.

I would like to see a change in the following;

Banding supplements for junior doctors:

Why do junior doctors have additional pay banding supplements for their intensity of work  and have their working hours and rest monitored twice yearly, so that when they fail to comply with New Deal regulations, they can receive up to 50% of their salary again!!!!! – Simply for doing the work that is expected and chose to do as a profession!!!!.  Other staff groups that work additional hours in the NHS for example nursing staff have a set rate for enhancements for the out of hours/nights work.  Admin and clerical staff generally work additional duties often without claim for additional pay as this is not an option for them.  In both these cases if those staff groups do not take their minimum 20 minute break as stated under EWTD – they are told that they have not managed their time appropriately and it is their bad time management, however for doctors, if they don't have their 20 break they can claim up to the 50% banding supplement!!  Seems totally madness to me, they are supposed to be clever people who can time mange.

 

Locum Rates for junior doctors:

There seems to be this play off with doctors that they know Trusts are struggling to fill gaps on rotas and that there is a shortage of doctors in the UK, therefore they ask for ridiculous hourly rates of payment to cover those shifts sometimes up to £75 per hour!!!  Consultants in comparison may only get about £50 per hour for addition shifts.  It seems to me that there should be a national standard that cannot be altered locally by Trusts. 

In addition, doctors also request locums to cover for annual leave and study leave of their colleagues??!! Why?  Again every other staff group cover for colleague absences and only in exceptional circumstances are agency staff allowed to provide cover.  These types of leave should be factored in and planned therefore there shouldn’t be the need to obtain agency cover for this type of leave.

 Phone line rental:

Why can consultants still claim for payment of phone line rental?  As I understand it, this was set up years ago prior to mobile phone technology where doctors were required to be contactable from home out of hours, surely in this day and age this should simply be scrapped – I don't think there is a doctor out there that does not have a mobile phone or land line even, so why should they be able to claim for line rental – its madness!!

 

Removal expenses:

Why are doctors and consultants eligible to apply for removal expenses if they move house as a result of a job offer.  Surely it should be the case that if an individual chooses to move miles away from their current location, and that they know where in the country this new location is so they foot the bill for the cost of the move.  Why should the NHS pay for their removal expenses – madness again!!

 

Interview expenses:

This is along the same line as removal expenses above, but why can people claim travel expenses to attend for an interview when they have chosen their career pathway and the location for the roles they apply for?  Surely if they want to work in a particular hospital it is their decision and therefore their responsibility to pay for the travel to that location to ensure they get the job they want.  Again this seems to happen largely with doctors – again they are bleeding the NHS dry! Other staff group on much lower pay have to pay their own travel to interviews so why are doctors any different?

 

Consultant – Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs):

Why is it that consultants can apply locally at their NHS Trust and nationally for CEAs simply for excelling in the roles they are employed to do?  Again, there are many NHS staff from other staff groups that excel over and above their duties, they get possibly a thank you but surely we expect every member of staff to excel so why therefore do we pay consultants thousands for this same type of excellence – again madness springs to mind!!  Recognition is one thing but paying thousands of pounds each year per consultant that receives the award see ridiculous.

 

Signing death certificates:

How is it that doctors can claim for additional payments for signing death certificates?  I understand again from times past that this relates to their accountability as a doctor, but surely they are paid their salary to incorporate this type of work.  For example as a comparison, when a GP signs a sick note or a prescription, that is part of their role in caring for their patient, surely to sign a death certificate has the same principle in ending that care of the patient, therefore why is there a £50 cost to this for each signature?? 

Why is this idea important?

Why does the NHS still pay thousands if not millions in additional payments for NHS staff unnecessarily.  This relates to doctors in particular.  There seems to be totally separate payments methods for doctors than there are for all other staff groups within the NHS.  I realise this will probably date back to the beginnings of the NHS when doctors had the power to stipulate extra payments for everything they do, but in this day and age, this is wrong.  Doctors aren't the only staff group in the NHS and not the most important staff group either – they wouldn't be able to do their role without other staff groups – every staff group is of equal importance.

 

Although I along with the rest of the general public believe in the NHS and what it stands for, I think the general public are not aware that there are millions of pounds being given to doctors every week to undertake additional tasks, whereas the rest of the NHS population have to incorporate additional tasks into their current job roles without additional payment – this is after all the NHS.

I would like to see a change in the following;

Banding supplements for junior doctors:

Why do junior doctors have additional pay banding supplements for their intensity of work  and have their working hours and rest monitored twice yearly, so that when they fail to comply with New Deal regulations, they can receive up to 50% of their salary again!!!!! – Simply for doing the work that is expected and chose to do as a profession!!!!.  Other staff groups that work additional hours in the NHS for example nursing staff have a set rate for enhancements for the out of hours/nights work.  Admin and clerical staff generally work additional duties often without claim for additional pay as this is not an option for them.  In both these cases if those staff groups do not take their minimum 20 minute break as stated under EWTD – they are told that they have not managed their time appropriately and it is their bad time management, however for doctors, if they don't have their 20 break they can claim up to the 50% banding supplement!!  Seems totally madness to me, they are supposed to be clever people who can time mange.

 

Locum Rates for junior doctors:

There seems to be this play off with doctors that they know Trusts are struggling to fill gaps on rotas and that there is a shortage of doctors in the UK, therefore they ask for ridiculous hourly rates of payment to cover those shifts sometimes up to £75 per hour!!!  Consultants in comparison may only get about £50 per hour for addition shifts.  It seems to me that there should be a national standard that cannot be altered locally by Trusts. 

In addition, doctors also request locums to cover for annual leave and study leave of their colleagues??!! Why?  Again every other staff group cover for colleague absences and only in exceptional circumstances are agency staff allowed to provide cover.  These types of leave should be factored in and planned therefore there shouldn’t be the need to obtain agency cover for this type of leave.

 Phone line rental:

Why can consultants still claim for payment of phone line rental?  As I understand it, this was set up years ago prior to mobile phone technology where doctors were required to be contactable from home out of hours, surely in this day and age this should simply be scrapped – I don't think there is a doctor out there that does not have a mobile phone or land line even, so why should they be able to claim for line rental – its madness!!

 

Removal expenses:

Why are doctors and consultants eligible to apply for removal expenses if they move house as a result of a job offer.  Surely it should be the case that if an individual chooses to move miles away from their current location, and that they know where in the country this new location is so they foot the bill for the cost of the move.  Why should the NHS pay for their removal expenses – madness again!!

 

Interview expenses:

This is along the same line as removal expenses above, but why can people claim travel expenses to attend for an interview when they have chosen their career pathway and the location for the roles they apply for?  Surely if they want to work in a particular hospital it is their decision and therefore their responsibility to pay for the travel to that location to ensure they get the job they want.  Again this seems to happen largely with doctors – again they are bleeding the NHS dry! Other staff group on much lower pay have to pay their own travel to interviews so why are doctors any different?

 

Consultant – Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs):

Why is it that consultants can apply locally at their NHS Trust and nationally for CEAs simply for excelling in the roles they are employed to do?  Again, there are many NHS staff from other staff groups that excel over and above their duties, they get possibly a thank you but surely we expect every member of staff to excel so why therefore do we pay consultants thousands for this same type of excellence – again madness springs to mind!!  Recognition is one thing but paying thousands of pounds each year per consultant that receives the award see ridiculous.

 

Signing death certificates:

How is it that doctors can claim for additional payments for signing death certificates?  I understand again from times past that this relates to their accountability as a doctor, but surely they are paid their salary to incorporate this type of work.  For example as a comparison, when a GP signs a sick note or a prescription, that is part of their role in caring for their patient, surely to sign a death certificate has the same principle in ending that care of the patient, therefore why is there a £50 cost to this for each signature?? 

Legalise it!

I believe that Cannabis should either be legalised or decriminalised as the benefits to our health, society and world far out way the negative factors, which in comparison to a lot of other legal drugs (including our much loved alcohol) does significantly and almost minimal harm to the user and those around them. 

In America we're already seeing states taking the initiative to legalise Marijuana, at least for medical purposes, so why do we not see the same type of progressive thinking here? If Cannabis is so deadly, so harmful to our mental health, then where's the abundance of evidence to prove so? Cannabis isn't a new thing. In fact, it's cultivation and use dates back 10,000 years – a figure in which many historians agree to be accurate – so if anything negative was going to show up, it would've already done so by now. 

This isn't radical thinking: it's called being progressive. We all want to live in a fairer, greener world, and with the help of Cannabis and Hemp, we're able to do so. It's time to do the research, educate the public and stop the ignorance.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that Cannabis should either be legalised or decriminalised as the benefits to our health, society and world far out way the negative factors, which in comparison to a lot of other legal drugs (including our much loved alcohol) does significantly and almost minimal harm to the user and those around them. 

In America we're already seeing states taking the initiative to legalise Marijuana, at least for medical purposes, so why do we not see the same type of progressive thinking here? If Cannabis is so deadly, so harmful to our mental health, then where's the abundance of evidence to prove so? Cannabis isn't a new thing. In fact, it's cultivation and use dates back 10,000 years – a figure in which many historians agree to be accurate – so if anything negative was going to show up, it would've already done so by now. 

This isn't radical thinking: it's called being progressive. We all want to live in a fairer, greener world, and with the help of Cannabis and Hemp, we're able to do so. It's time to do the research, educate the public and stop the ignorance.

WHY DO WE WASTE REGISTERED NURSES EXPERTISE.

NURSES ONCE QUALIFIED HAVE TO REGISTER EVERY YEAR WITH AN UPDATE OF THEIR

TRAINING,COURSES AND EXPERIENCE.

IF A NURSE TAKES A CAREER BREAK TO HAVE A FAMILY OR A FAMILY CARER SHE

IMMEDIATELY RISKS BEING REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER.

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF ALL THE MONEY USED TO TRAIN THESE NURSES.

I TRAINED AS A STATE REGISTERED NURSE IN THE LATE 60S AND HAD A THREE  YEAR

CAREER BREAK. UPON RETURNING TO THE HOSPITAL AS A STAFF NURSE I WAS STILL

VERY COMPETENT AT MY JOB AND ONLY NEEDED A SMALL AMOUNT OF REFRESHER

COURSES TO BE UP TO A VERT HIGH STANDARD.

I WAS APPALLED TO READ ABOUT A REGISTERED NURSE WHO HAD

WRITTEN TO A NURSING MAGAZINE THAT SHE HAD  RETURNED TO  WORK AT  THE

HOSPITAL AS A NURSING ASSISTANT THATS THE BEST SHE COULD GET.!!!

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF ALL THAT INTENSIVE TRAINING.

Why is this idea important?

NURSES ONCE QUALIFIED HAVE TO REGISTER EVERY YEAR WITH AN UPDATE OF THEIR

TRAINING,COURSES AND EXPERIENCE.

IF A NURSE TAKES A CAREER BREAK TO HAVE A FAMILY OR A FAMILY CARER SHE

IMMEDIATELY RISKS BEING REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER.

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF ALL THE MONEY USED TO TRAIN THESE NURSES.

I TRAINED AS A STATE REGISTERED NURSE IN THE LATE 60S AND HAD A THREE  YEAR

CAREER BREAK. UPON RETURNING TO THE HOSPITAL AS A STAFF NURSE I WAS STILL

VERY COMPETENT AT MY JOB AND ONLY NEEDED A SMALL AMOUNT OF REFRESHER

COURSES TO BE UP TO A VERT HIGH STANDARD.

I WAS APPALLED TO READ ABOUT A REGISTERED NURSE WHO HAD

WRITTEN TO A NURSING MAGAZINE THAT SHE HAD  RETURNED TO  WORK AT  THE

HOSPITAL AS A NURSING ASSISTANT THATS THE BEST SHE COULD GET.!!!

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF ALL THAT INTENSIVE TRAINING.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Medical privacy

I don't know what law implies that the state has the right to request information that should remain between yourself and your doctor, but whatever it is needs changing.

 

When attempting to sign on for JSA I do NOT expect to be asked what, if any, medication I am on.  That's between me and my GP, not me and the state.

 

If I have an employer, it's between me and them.  Not me and the state.  So, stop the DWP asking questions they have no right to ask.

Why is this idea important?

I don't know what law implies that the state has the right to request information that should remain between yourself and your doctor, but whatever it is needs changing.

 

When attempting to sign on for JSA I do NOT expect to be asked what, if any, medication I am on.  That's between me and my GP, not me and the state.

 

If I have an employer, it's between me and them.  Not me and the state.  So, stop the DWP asking questions they have no right to ask.

Give each individual a memory stick with their NHS records on

The idea of a centralised NHS database of everyone's personal records is proving to be unpopular, difficult to implement & riven with security issues.  Rather than continue down this route, why not issue each member of the public with their own password protected jumpdrive / memory stick (with a key ring perhaps for ease of carriage) containing their health records.  It would then be up to the individual to look after them & take them along to appointments, where it could be plugged into the GP's / hospital's computer and viewed / updated accordingly.  If the patient wished for their GP to keep a copy then it would be up to them.

This is a similar / neater (electronic) version of the current (paper based) system used for pregnant women.  Then people will be in control of their own records & have them with them most of the time.  Each memory stick would need to be password protected & have a unique identifier printed on the outside – then all you would need is a freepost address for the return of lost sticks and a (relatively small) database with the ID No & the address of it's owner but no other records.

Why is this idea important?

The idea of a centralised NHS database of everyone's personal records is proving to be unpopular, difficult to implement & riven with security issues.  Rather than continue down this route, why not issue each member of the public with their own password protected jumpdrive / memory stick (with a key ring perhaps for ease of carriage) containing their health records.  It would then be up to the individual to look after them & take them along to appointments, where it could be plugged into the GP's / hospital's computer and viewed / updated accordingly.  If the patient wished for their GP to keep a copy then it would be up to them.

This is a similar / neater (electronic) version of the current (paper based) system used for pregnant women.  Then people will be in control of their own records & have them with them most of the time.  Each memory stick would need to be password protected & have a unique identifier printed on the outside – then all you would need is a freepost address for the return of lost sticks and a (relatively small) database with the ID No & the address of it's owner but no other records.

Hospital Car Parking

Please, please look into this unjust punishment for anyone who is unfortunate enough to have to visit  a hospital for any reason.  Staff, visitor, or the patient.  Car parking at hospitals is the most unjustified punishment for those already in need of treatment/ friends or family of those receiving treatment.

No one, but no one, chooses to go to hospital – its a need or a must.

Staff are punished and fined for overrunning or omitting to show the latest parking ticket, even though the money is deducted directly from salary – so the hospital know in advance that those staff have paid.  I have been told that even in these circumstances, they are forced to pay a fine if the appropriate piece of evidence is not on view.

All car parking charges at hospitals are unfair and unjustified – please take it on board.

 

Why is this idea important?

Please, please look into this unjust punishment for anyone who is unfortunate enough to have to visit  a hospital for any reason.  Staff, visitor, or the patient.  Car parking at hospitals is the most unjustified punishment for those already in need of treatment/ friends or family of those receiving treatment.

No one, but no one, chooses to go to hospital – its a need or a must.

Staff are punished and fined for overrunning or omitting to show the latest parking ticket, even though the money is deducted directly from salary – so the hospital know in advance that those staff have paid.  I have been told that even in these circumstances, they are forced to pay a fine if the appropriate piece of evidence is not on view.

All car parking charges at hospitals are unfair and unjustified – please take it on board.

 

REMOVE THE CHEM TRAILS OVER OUR SKIES

NO BEES THIS YEAR, NOTICE??????  THE HUSH HUSH ON THIS SUBJECT IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO SQUASHED.  PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK CONSTANTLY.  I'VE HAD TWO SINUS INFECTIONS THIS YEAR THAT NEEDED ANTIBIOTICS AND AM FIGHTING A THIRD RIGHT NOW IN THE SUMMER.  THERE ARE NO BEES OUTSIDE.  NEXT YEAR THERE WILL BE NO BIRDS.  CUT THIS SHIT OUT!!!!  ALL THESE FAKE FLAT WHITE CLOUDS THAT ARE NOT REAL.  YOU HAVE MONEY FOR THIS?  YOU HAVE MONEY TO TAKE OUR SUN AWAY (VITAMIN d), THEN STOP THE VITAMIN D INJECTIONS IN  THE WHOLE ENTIRE COUNTRY, THEN PLAN NEXT YEAR TO DO AWAY WITH VITAMINS, SO THAT YOU CAN POISON US ALL FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES???  THIS IS REAL, THERE ARE PHOTOS ALL OVER THE NET UP CLOSE OF WHAT THESE PLANES LOOK LIKE THAT ARE SPRAYING SKIES WITH THE BARIUM ALUMINUM AEROSOL.  THERE ARE MANY ISSUES, BUT CLEAN AIR TO BREATH THAT DO NOT HAVE USA PATENTED POISONS IN THEM TO MAKE US ALL SICK FOR THE PHARMA COMPANIES, AS MONSANTO INVENTS A NEW SEED THAT THESE SPRAYS WILL NOT AFFECT.  LETS START WITH BEING ALIVE AND HEALTHY!  AND BAN AMALGAM FILLINGS!!!!!!!!!!  MORE THINGS KILLING THE BRITS!!!!!!!!  DO YOUR STUDIES LIB DEMS.  GET YOUR NOSE IN SOME SCIENCE BOOKS AND FIND OUT WHO IS BEHIND THE SPRAYING OF OUR SKIES ALL DAY LONG WITH AEROSOL…  AND DON'T SAY THEY ARE FROM COMMERCIAL JETS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!   LETS START HERE, AND MOVE ON TO NORMAL THINGS TO FIGHT FOR!

Why is this idea important?

NO BEES THIS YEAR, NOTICE??????  THE HUSH HUSH ON THIS SUBJECT IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO SQUASHED.  PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK CONSTANTLY.  I'VE HAD TWO SINUS INFECTIONS THIS YEAR THAT NEEDED ANTIBIOTICS AND AM FIGHTING A THIRD RIGHT NOW IN THE SUMMER.  THERE ARE NO BEES OUTSIDE.  NEXT YEAR THERE WILL BE NO BIRDS.  CUT THIS SHIT OUT!!!!  ALL THESE FAKE FLAT WHITE CLOUDS THAT ARE NOT REAL.  YOU HAVE MONEY FOR THIS?  YOU HAVE MONEY TO TAKE OUR SUN AWAY (VITAMIN d), THEN STOP THE VITAMIN D INJECTIONS IN  THE WHOLE ENTIRE COUNTRY, THEN PLAN NEXT YEAR TO DO AWAY WITH VITAMINS, SO THAT YOU CAN POISON US ALL FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES???  THIS IS REAL, THERE ARE PHOTOS ALL OVER THE NET UP CLOSE OF WHAT THESE PLANES LOOK LIKE THAT ARE SPRAYING SKIES WITH THE BARIUM ALUMINUM AEROSOL.  THERE ARE MANY ISSUES, BUT CLEAN AIR TO BREATH THAT DO NOT HAVE USA PATENTED POISONS IN THEM TO MAKE US ALL SICK FOR THE PHARMA COMPANIES, AS MONSANTO INVENTS A NEW SEED THAT THESE SPRAYS WILL NOT AFFECT.  LETS START WITH BEING ALIVE AND HEALTHY!  AND BAN AMALGAM FILLINGS!!!!!!!!!!  MORE THINGS KILLING THE BRITS!!!!!!!!  DO YOUR STUDIES LIB DEMS.  GET YOUR NOSE IN SOME SCIENCE BOOKS AND FIND OUT WHO IS BEHIND THE SPRAYING OF OUR SKIES ALL DAY LONG WITH AEROSOL…  AND DON'T SAY THEY ARE FROM COMMERCIAL JETS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!   LETS START HERE, AND MOVE ON TO NORMAL THINGS TO FIGHT FOR!

Repeal the right of NICE to determine research on ME

The UK medical profession has a low international reputation, due to those with influence over policy choices, being the wrong professionals.

They are also not subjected to any public accountabity for terrible medical mistakes such as BSE, flu jabs and their barbaric approach to M.E,  all the result of using some form of "science" for policial and commercial ends.  There is no pressure or need for them to be responsible at all.

My suggestion: end monopoly of NICE as a body immune from democractic accountability and allow Parliament a veto, to determine where research funding supplied by the public is spent. The public should be able to determine which research into ME is funded. It is their money.

Make medical professionals accountable (called before Paliamentary committees) and only take advice from the best and those free from politics. Make them declare their outside interests and affiliations.

Why is this idea important?

The UK medical profession has a low international reputation, due to those with influence over policy choices, being the wrong professionals.

They are also not subjected to any public accountabity for terrible medical mistakes such as BSE, flu jabs and their barbaric approach to M.E,  all the result of using some form of "science" for policial and commercial ends.  There is no pressure or need for them to be responsible at all.

My suggestion: end monopoly of NICE as a body immune from democractic accountability and allow Parliament a veto, to determine where research funding supplied by the public is spent. The public should be able to determine which research into ME is funded. It is their money.

Make medical professionals accountable (called before Paliamentary committees) and only take advice from the best and those free from politics. Make them declare their outside interests and affiliations.

Amend health service Consultant private practice rules

Hospital Consultants are currently allowed to conduct private practice.  Whilst this is arguably fair, rules should be imposed around this as currently the NHS is being strangled by greedy medics who flout the rules which is on a par with the national MP Expenses scandal.

It is not uncommon for a hospital Consultant to be off-site doing private practice work (earning perhaps £1k for a half day work) whilst they should be on-site in their NHS hospital doing study or admin tasks.  They are therefore being paid by the NHS for time and work that is not being done, meanwhile they are off-site earning private income.  This has the effect of reducing the work the hospital can do (as the medic is not available) and increasing waiting lists … which ironically creates a need for private practice facilities!  Is this fraud?  Arguably so.  Would other NHS staff be allowed to work elsewhere whilst they should be onsite doing their (paid) core NHS role? 

Any NHS Consultant should be restricted to doing private practice to a set % of their NHS contracted time, perhaps 10%.  They should be made to publish in annual accounts copies of their defined NHS work plans (contracts) and be made to submit a monthly timesheet that they sign.  This should be audited and any instance of private practice work being found to occur in NHS time result in disciplinary and fine. 

For info, the bottom of payscale for an NHS consultant is around £80k.  Typically with allowances it is not uncommon for this to be 50% more, ie £120k.  Some are more than this.  This is then topped up by private work too.  Extra work for the NHS (eg on a Saturday AM) is paid at a lump sum of around £650 whereas a nurse would be paid a multiple (time and a half) of their hourly rate.  Why is there a disparity?  This is not equitable.

The taxpayer is unknowingly funding working practices that allow some people to financially gain hugely whilst strangling the ability to deliver healthcare.

Why is this idea important?

Hospital Consultants are currently allowed to conduct private practice.  Whilst this is arguably fair, rules should be imposed around this as currently the NHS is being strangled by greedy medics who flout the rules which is on a par with the national MP Expenses scandal.

It is not uncommon for a hospital Consultant to be off-site doing private practice work (earning perhaps £1k for a half day work) whilst they should be on-site in their NHS hospital doing study or admin tasks.  They are therefore being paid by the NHS for time and work that is not being done, meanwhile they are off-site earning private income.  This has the effect of reducing the work the hospital can do (as the medic is not available) and increasing waiting lists … which ironically creates a need for private practice facilities!  Is this fraud?  Arguably so.  Would other NHS staff be allowed to work elsewhere whilst they should be onsite doing their (paid) core NHS role? 

Any NHS Consultant should be restricted to doing private practice to a set % of their NHS contracted time, perhaps 10%.  They should be made to publish in annual accounts copies of their defined NHS work plans (contracts) and be made to submit a monthly timesheet that they sign.  This should be audited and any instance of private practice work being found to occur in NHS time result in disciplinary and fine. 

For info, the bottom of payscale for an NHS consultant is around £80k.  Typically with allowances it is not uncommon for this to be 50% more, ie £120k.  Some are more than this.  This is then topped up by private work too.  Extra work for the NHS (eg on a Saturday AM) is paid at a lump sum of around £650 whereas a nurse would be paid a multiple (time and a half) of their hourly rate.  Why is there a disparity?  This is not equitable.

The taxpayer is unknowingly funding working practices that allow some people to financially gain hugely whilst strangling the ability to deliver healthcare.

Make the contraceptive Pill available free from pharmacies

To obtain the contraceptive Pill, one must currently have an appointment with the nurse every time it is prescribed (usually every three or six months). The main purpose of this appointment is to check blood pressure, but devices to read blood pressure are already located in many GPs' waiting rooms, and could be installed in all large pharmacies. If the 'morning-after' pill is available from pharmacies, why couldn't more preventative measures also be made available?

I stress that it would have to be decided by health experts whether this should or should not be available for people being prescribed the Pill for the first time, as these women may need to discuss its suitability for them with a nurse. It should certainly be an option for those for whom it was a repeat prescription, and who could provide evidence of this.

Why is this idea important?

To obtain the contraceptive Pill, one must currently have an appointment with the nurse every time it is prescribed (usually every three or six months). The main purpose of this appointment is to check blood pressure, but devices to read blood pressure are already located in many GPs' waiting rooms, and could be installed in all large pharmacies. If the 'morning-after' pill is available from pharmacies, why couldn't more preventative measures also be made available?

I stress that it would have to be decided by health experts whether this should or should not be available for people being prescribed the Pill for the first time, as these women may need to discuss its suitability for them with a nurse. It should certainly be an option for those for whom it was a repeat prescription, and who could provide evidence of this.

Remove catchment areas of GPs

Allow people to register for any GP surgery, rather than a handful within their catchment area.

If this is not possible, then at least make the catchment areas bigger. Eg. to increase to whole london boroughs rather than small areas within.

Why is this idea important?

Allow people to register for any GP surgery, rather than a handful within their catchment area.

If this is not possible, then at least make the catchment areas bigger. Eg. to increase to whole london boroughs rather than small areas within.

Why save money in the NHS if your punished for it?

There are two issues here. The NHS wastes so much of the money it invests because managers and consultants (buisness one's) don't have the relevant backgrounds to understand the 'ethos' of the NHS, they look purely at management styles and techniques inherited from the buisness sector.. Often contracts are agreed that tie the NHS to over inflated contractors who know the NHS 'must' have it, so they inflate the price. I have seen so much wasted investment over the 27yrs I have worked in the NHS in varying fields.

A suggestion I would make is to free up the ability of the ward managers to shop around for goods and services like we can all do. The current system which punishes an underspend at the end of the year is mindless and gives no incentivefor saving or being cost aware i.e Spend anything not spent or it will be deducted from next years money (because it will be seen that you mustn't have needed it to have saved it) is punishing good budgeting.. Allow any savings made to be added to the next years budget, so there's an incentive for the staff to be cost effective. If ward managers where allowed to shop around instead of being tied to NHS logistics etc who inflate costs because the NHS need it is wasteful. An example being.. I ordered a vaccination fridge from our suppliers (cost £600).. the same fridge I could have bought for £200.. 3 x the cost because I wasn't allowed to buy myself.. this is just a tiny example of the waste.. Printing/paper costs are wasteful due to having to scrap all the stock paper because we have to include someone elses logo on the paper, which isn't on the originals.. tons and tons of paper that is of no use.. surely, this corporate driven waste can be managed in another way?

I'm not going to go on because I doubt anything will happen as a result of this.. If you need or want to here more of my ideas then you have my details and I would be delighted to assist if I could.

 

Regards,

 

Joe Muller

Why is this idea important?

There are two issues here. The NHS wastes so much of the money it invests because managers and consultants (buisness one's) don't have the relevant backgrounds to understand the 'ethos' of the NHS, they look purely at management styles and techniques inherited from the buisness sector.. Often contracts are agreed that tie the NHS to over inflated contractors who know the NHS 'must' have it, so they inflate the price. I have seen so much wasted investment over the 27yrs I have worked in the NHS in varying fields.

A suggestion I would make is to free up the ability of the ward managers to shop around for goods and services like we can all do. The current system which punishes an underspend at the end of the year is mindless and gives no incentivefor saving or being cost aware i.e Spend anything not spent or it will be deducted from next years money (because it will be seen that you mustn't have needed it to have saved it) is punishing good budgeting.. Allow any savings made to be added to the next years budget, so there's an incentive for the staff to be cost effective. If ward managers where allowed to shop around instead of being tied to NHS logistics etc who inflate costs because the NHS need it is wasteful. An example being.. I ordered a vaccination fridge from our suppliers (cost £600).. the same fridge I could have bought for £200.. 3 x the cost because I wasn't allowed to buy myself.. this is just a tiny example of the waste.. Printing/paper costs are wasteful due to having to scrap all the stock paper because we have to include someone elses logo on the paper, which isn't on the originals.. tons and tons of paper that is of no use.. surely, this corporate driven waste can be managed in another way?

I'm not going to go on because I doubt anything will happen as a result of this.. If you need or want to here more of my ideas then you have my details and I would be delighted to assist if I could.

 

Regards,

 

Joe Muller

Ensure all trainee GPs are given adequate mental health training

I deliver a basic mental health awareness course and have been shocked recently to find a low level of understanding about mental health amongst trainee GPs who attend. Some may have had 8 weeks working on an acute ward but a lot have taken other options and seem to have had no training in this area whatsoever.

Mental health training should be a compulsory part of their training, as these issues will inevitably be involved in much of their work with patients.

Why is this idea important?

I deliver a basic mental health awareness course and have been shocked recently to find a low level of understanding about mental health amongst trainee GPs who attend. Some may have had 8 weeks working on an acute ward but a lot have taken other options and seem to have had no training in this area whatsoever.

Mental health training should be a compulsory part of their training, as these issues will inevitably be involved in much of their work with patients.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence

NICE should have its wings severely clipped.

It should only advise on NHS drug and treatment availability.

Most of what else it does is replicated elsewhere in the NHS and other goverment departments.

Why is this idea important?

NICE should have its wings severely clipped.

It should only advise on NHS drug and treatment availability.

Most of what else it does is replicated elsewhere in the NHS and other goverment departments.

Compensation culture

Do not allow any compensation to be paid to a person who has been treated by a NHS doctor or nurse .  In return adopt a stringent disciplinary policy to weed out non performing NHS staff.

Why is this idea important?

Do not allow any compensation to be paid to a person who has been treated by a NHS doctor or nurse .  In return adopt a stringent disciplinary policy to weed out non performing NHS staff.

Cancel the NHS project creating centralised patient records

The NHS is busy adding the dat of as many people as possible to a newcentralsied database.

Imn theiry, patients have the right to decline but it is made quite difficult to do so. Uner 16-y-o's cannot decline!

The NHS has an appalling track record of managing large computer projects, confidentiality of patient data.

This database is unwanted, even by many GPs.

Tyhe NHS is wasting £ billions on trhis database – mone which would be better spent on patient care.

Why is this idea important?

The NHS is busy adding the dat of as many people as possible to a newcentralsied database.

Imn theiry, patients have the right to decline but it is made quite difficult to do so. Uner 16-y-o's cannot decline!

The NHS has an appalling track record of managing large computer projects, confidentiality of patient data.

This database is unwanted, even by many GPs.

Tyhe NHS is wasting £ billions on trhis database – mone which would be better spent on patient care.

Bad Social Netowkring sites within NHS

From working in the NHS a large percentage of time is wasted due to social networking sites. Staff are often engaged in sites such as facebook instead of working.

Why is this idea important?

From working in the NHS a large percentage of time is wasted due to social networking sites. Staff are often engaged in sites such as facebook instead of working.

NHS local authority expenditure (saving money)

Call Outs

—————-

Right now the NHS local authorities employee drivers for NHS doctors for call outs. In Herefordshire they have 2 drivers with 2 very nice vehicles on standby all night and drivers are paid £10 per hour, and hardly ever receive a call out. The doctors get paid a stupid amount of money per hour for call outs, something i find disgusting because, as we all know, doctors do everything they can to avoid going out to see a patient anyway, in breach of they moral and ethical standards of which they signed up to be a doctor in the first place.

 

ANSWER: Make doctors drive themselves. Do NOT pay them bonuses for doing overnight work, a GP's job is easy enough as it is and pays well, they do not deserver more.

IT Equipment in local surgeries

——————————————–

In a family members doctor's surgery where they work, the IT equipment is being replaced every couple of months, new monitors and new complete computers when it is clearly not necessary.

ANSWER: Make doctors surgeries pay for their own equipment

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Call Outs

—————-

Right now the NHS local authorities employee drivers for NHS doctors for call outs. In Herefordshire they have 2 drivers with 2 very nice vehicles on standby all night and drivers are paid £10 per hour, and hardly ever receive a call out. The doctors get paid a stupid amount of money per hour for call outs, something i find disgusting because, as we all know, doctors do everything they can to avoid going out to see a patient anyway, in breach of they moral and ethical standards of which they signed up to be a doctor in the first place.

 

ANSWER: Make doctors drive themselves. Do NOT pay them bonuses for doing overnight work, a GP's job is easy enough as it is and pays well, they do not deserver more.

IT Equipment in local surgeries

——————————————–

In a family members doctor's surgery where they work, the IT equipment is being replaced every couple of months, new monitors and new complete computers when it is clearly not necessary.

ANSWER: Make doctors surgeries pay for their own equipment

 

 

 

 

 

Remove ICAS save money

ICAS (Independent Complaints Advocacy Service) was set up to 'help' people who have complains about a particular NHS service. My experience of ICAs when I has a complaint about the Bright NHS Trust was that they basically didn't do very much, making it pretty easy for the Trust director to just bat the problem back and forth without ever reaching resolution.

If this organisation can't add value to the NHS process then it should be disbanded and the money used more appropriately.

Why is this idea important?

ICAS (Independent Complaints Advocacy Service) was set up to 'help' people who have complains about a particular NHS service. My experience of ICAs when I has a complaint about the Bright NHS Trust was that they basically didn't do very much, making it pretty easy for the Trust director to just bat the problem back and forth without ever reaching resolution.

If this organisation can't add value to the NHS process then it should be disbanded and the money used more appropriately.