Did a thing some while back on the huge numbers of public sector sick/strike days compared to the private sector. the absolute queens of the sicky are nurses.
A splendid story, Mr Tyler,
To make just a tiny hole in your story, you might like to spell the Labour MP's name "Khan" though. "organistaion" is a forgivable typo.
Please delete this post if you correct the typos.
Cheers,
MTK.
xoggoth,
I detest the NHS, but nurses do pick up more infections due to obvious reasons!
I suspect that the probable reason for the NHS using a lot of temps (if the fact is correct) is that it is very difficult to sack staff in the UK public sector - so the only way to be able flexibly to adjust staff sizes in line with income and deman is to employ fewer permanent staff than you need and adjust the number of temps to match demand changes.
Of course the UK public sector currently has (as pointed out above) (according to The Economist) about double the level of days lost to strikes as the private sector, more sick leave, greater job security - and over recent years higher salaries too.
This situation cannot and should not be allowed to continue!
The difficulty of sacking staff has got nowt to do with it - it's because nobody wants to do the job.* And even if they do, there's a recruitment freeze.
Sure, there's no shortage of newly-qualified nurses (though the current financial disasters and muddle-headed NuLab "reconfiguration" means that there are no jobs for 'em...). But there is a dire shortage of experienced, battle-hardened senior staff. Hence even the British Army using temps in certain areas during GWII (they are 70% understrength in critical care). Most hospitals place a ban on using "Agency" ("agency" = expensive - can't have these nurses getting paid lots for their expertise, eh? Unlike, say, Paty's beloved management consultants...), so as to control costs. NHS Professionals is designed to provide an "in-house" flexible workforce, to cover short-staffed wards and provide overtime cover. The sticking point is provision for acute areas like A+E or ITU, which often use agency staff, simply because there are not enough people who are appropriately qualified. Where acute beds in areas like PICU (kid's ITU) remain closed, it's asmuch for lack of suitable staff, as lack of money (a pretty desperate state of affairs when you need a bed for a sick child...).
Better retention of permanent staff is the answer, as ever. Free-marketeers might like to ponder the fact that for experienced staff nurses (i.e. critical care etc), the world is now their global labour oyster. Given the UK's heavy reliance on foreign staff nurses**, I'd be worried. And in contemplating what makes for a motivated workforce, I wouldn't wax too lyrical about the beauty of "competition" (unless you mean competing insurers), even if you believe (as I do) that healthcare provision needs to be a carefully considered mix of state-funding and multiple-providers, a la the French. I agree entirely that the NHS needs to be de-centralised, away from the dead hand of government. But the pity of current "reform" is that much that is good (and not necessarily obvious) about the current service is being dismantled, for the sake of spurious - and seemingly perpetual -"change". The infrastucture + expertise required for emergency and critical care favours "all-in-one-place", not competing entities. In the city I know best, serious stuff gets sorted because different hospitals co-operate over things like head injuries. That co-operation is rarely quantified - don't invent pseudo-markets where none exist. The high street may work wonders for plastic surgery and day-case elective procedures - but there's a reason why BUPA, Netcare etc aren't interested in complex caseloads - although they are not adverse to asset-hunting either NHS staff or facilities.
Critics of the NHS always bang on about the charitable hospitals which preceded it (and still operate as such, a la Great Ormond Street). If all state funding for healthcare provision stopped tomorrow, my guess is that such a model - and not th
(cough, continued...)
If all state funding for healthcare provision stopped tomorrow, my guess is that such a model - and not the beloved market - would end up taking the strain.
*Would you, Wat? Especially given that you seem to turn pale at the very thought of what your old friend Dr Crippen has to put up with.
**Language difficulties pale into insignificance compared to the sterling work of - in particular -Filipino Staff Nurses. Without 'em, we'd be screwed.
**Language difficulties pale into insignificance compared to the sterling work of - in particular -Filipino Staff Nurses.
Yes indeed. In hospitals and in nursing homes, they do a terrific job. (I haven't come across any with bad English, I suspect some British people think anyone with an accent they aren't familiar with speaks bad English.)
A note on agency nurses. Some are very good. But yes, fewer should be hired.
Commenting by HaloScan
