Unregistered User
And which school of economics did you go to Vic?
If the NHS overall has not been cut but local decisions are being made on how to spend the cake where is the difficulty?
Should you & your doctors decide or should NHS managers?
Watty
Did anyone hear PaulW? It is about management - you don't have to throw money at services to improve them: proper targeting of resources, strong leadership, appropriate recruitment and discipline, decent lines of management and accountability, those are the things that count.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I am all for cuting out some of the N.H.S. Managers.All I am saying at the last meeting of the East Kent Hospital N.H.S.Trust we were told that even if there is no cut back on the N,H,S,budget in 2011 That means there will have to be some to stay within it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
going back to post 19 from paul i must admit i was taken in by the initial idea of g.p.s taking over control of dosh that primary care trusts previously managed.
my main hope was that a lot of minor hospital services could be carried out at our local quacks, which would be good news all round.
having listened to the national furore from our leech purveyors and speaking to a local doctor the idea is completely unworkable.
the whole idea frightens the life out of them, they trained purely for medicine, nothing else.
i like to think that my g.p. when not treating patients is catching up on new treatments and drugs not taking an evening class in accountancy.
Unregistered User
Vic , you are talking about growth & the NHS budget's ability to keep up with modern medicine & techniques.
Watty
Howard, that is why we need managers! People slag off managers and shout about cutting them, but the NHS needs good managers so that doctors and nurses can doctor and nurse!! GP consortia having more control over the targeting and streaming of services is good, but they will need some damn good managers to direct the services and manage the funding streams and budgets and make it all work.
Unregistered User
Totally agree Bern.
Watty
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
The Tory-led government wants to place sweeping powers with a new national QUANGO - the National Commissioning Board - and a national economic regulator charged with promoting and enforcing competition to open up all parts of the NHS to private health companies.
The Health and Social Care Bill seriously restricts openness, scrutiny and accountability both to the public and to Parliament. It will lead to an NHS in which "commercial in confidence" will be stamped on many of the most important decisions.
The Conservative ideology towards full market competition at the heart of this legislation conflicts with Doctors who warn the plans will be "the end of the NHS as we currently know it".
The reorganisation, which the NHS chief executive has described as "enormous - beyond anything that anybody from the public or private sector has witnessed" is piling on extra unnecessary pressure on the health service. It comes at a time when patients and staff are already seeing waiting lists grow and services cutback.
Led by the BMA, organisations speaking for NHS staff say the scale, speed and cost of the changes are "extremely risky and potentially disastrous".Hopefully Clegg will see through this policy and persuade his members to put pressure on Cameron to think again.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
let's have a brief summing up here.
dave and chums want to get shot of the primary care trusts that currently hold the purse strings.
my understanding is that they manage things so that doctors, nurses porters etc can do their job.
paul and bern(both been in the healthcare game for yonks) are saying about how vital the managers are.
i might be missing something here but it appears that the managers from the trusts would get the elbow and our local g.p.'s would then hire them to do basically the same job.
BUT: it is an opportunity to reduce some of the complexity and re-target resources and, truth be told, an opportunity to downsize the number of ineffectual managers. A significant proportion of the public sector PCT and SHA managers/directors have either never worked at the sharp end or have lost touch with it and acquired a new and less helpful set of priorities and in addition lack the ability to manage effectively. Many of those public sector managers are now wondering why the GP consortia are not beating a path to their doors - I can tell them why!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
in short then, dave wants to sack the lot then see the good ones re-employed.
what is a sha when it is at home bern?
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Possibly s**t health authority Howard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Probably strategic Jan, but I'm sure your word applies in some of them.
Roger
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Yes Bern is right...Managers are often undervalued and they seem to be the nations favourite whipping dog these days. But good managers are vital in all walks of life. Perhaps the simplest way we see this in action everyday is in Football where the same few managers. Ferguson, Wenger, Mancini, gravitate to the top every single year. Its not a co-incidence.
Sack the manager and yes indeed you save money but you become directionless. Its like those Rebels fighting west of Benghazi...very well meaning but with nobody in charge they simply loose their aims goals direction etc. They have no manager but run about following the headless chicken principle.
It could be like this in the NHS..lots of well meaning participation but nobody powering forward to a goal...just lots of well meaning headless chickens.
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
somewhere along the line something has to suffer the powers that be cann't get this wrong, because which ever way you look at its people who will lose out.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
paul
you mention the good managers, there are very many that are not though.
i am sure that the health service has the same sprinkling of good and bad managers as football has.
this is seen by some of their purchasing, each hospital has been shown to pay vastly different prices for the same purchases.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Good managers are vital to the efficient running of any concern, the problem seems to be there are too many unnecessary managers overseeing the important managers who do the actual work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------