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.

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.

Remove the difficulties in obtaining coproxamol

My doctor will no longer prescribe coproxamol for me, despite having taken it for 35 years, because NICE has decided that it can be used to commit suicide.  Due to medical conditions I cannot take any other painkillers so I just have to "grin and bear it"  I can go to any supermarket and buy paracetamol or aspirin which certainly would kill me, but because my GP is not prepared to take responsibility for writing a prescription saying that "NICE has said no"  I, and countless others, have to suffer.  I have absolutely no intention of taking my life, so please repeal this ruling and allow me to enjoy my life again.

Why is this idea important?

My doctor will no longer prescribe coproxamol for me, despite having taken it for 35 years, because NICE has decided that it can be used to commit suicide.  Due to medical conditions I cannot take any other painkillers so I just have to "grin and bear it"  I can go to any supermarket and buy paracetamol or aspirin which certainly would kill me, but because my GP is not prepared to take responsibility for writing a prescription saying that "NICE has said no"  I, and countless others, have to suffer.  I have absolutely no intention of taking my life, so please repeal this ruling and allow me to enjoy my life again.

Make the NHS safe for patients and front line staff.

As the NHS is now viewed as a business with its expensive internal markets (and patients and front line staff are regarded as a drain on resources), I propose a new regulation!  This regulation would demand safe staffing levels of nursing and medical staff.  It would give patient care back to the professionals.  It would give a legal assurance that whistle blowers had a right to voice their concerns and that 'gagging' clauses in contracts would be illegal.

Although expenditure in the NHS has been ringfenced – it has changed not a thing!  Non-jobs are still being advertised (with a salary double that of a newly qualified nurse) and the NHS has become a social club for those who mismanage (at great financial cost) our health system.

For health professionals, the NHS has become a dangerous environment to work and it is considerably more dangerous for the patients as there are not enough quailified staff on a ward to  provide safe and appropriate care.  Staff are scared!

Please really listen to front line staff!

Why is this idea important?

As the NHS is now viewed as a business with its expensive internal markets (and patients and front line staff are regarded as a drain on resources), I propose a new regulation!  This regulation would demand safe staffing levels of nursing and medical staff.  It would give patient care back to the professionals.  It would give a legal assurance that whistle blowers had a right to voice their concerns and that 'gagging' clauses in contracts would be illegal.

Although expenditure in the NHS has been ringfenced – it has changed not a thing!  Non-jobs are still being advertised (with a salary double that of a newly qualified nurse) and the NHS has become a social club for those who mismanage (at great financial cost) our health system.

For health professionals, the NHS has become a dangerous environment to work and it is considerably more dangerous for the patients as there are not enough quailified staff on a ward to  provide safe and appropriate care.  Staff are scared!

Please really listen to front line staff!