How can A&E waiting time be made shorter?

[Mr Bloom 10]

Spent ages putting a post together with ideas and then the forum 'lost it', so I'll not bother.

[joiner andy 10]

Spent ages putting a post together with ideas and then the forum 'lost it', so I'll not bother.

 

Sorry that they got lost, if you get the time to rewrite then I'd like to hear them.

[the_bloke 17]

Because there are less full time staff to pay.

 

The amount of money the Government gives to the NHS has not been cut. Issues with staffing levels, nurses not being paid a 'living wage', the use of agency workers, less nurses due to more managers is all a problem at Trust level and does not mean the NHS has been given less money by the Treasury.

 

You can spin it how you like, but the budget has been ringfenced for years now. It's not going up, but it's not going down either. There is no cut from the Treasury, all you are seeing is mis-management of resources by those within the NHS itself.

 

Increasing the budget to the NHS is not a golden bullet. You can increase the budget per hospital by an extra 50 million a year, that doesn't mean you'll get an extra 50 million pounds worth of nurses - instead you'll get millions wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency, admin and managerial staff with a disappointingly small increase in nursing levels.

 

The NHS is a slow and lumbering machine; yes it might be the tenth most efficient state run healthcare scheme in the world, but that doesn't mean it's efficient and it means it has a long way to go to be as good as number 1.

 

Restricting budgets forces organisations to work better and work smarter; if Trusts in their little fiefdoms are incapable of doing this without losing focus of their primary goal - helping the sick - then they should be held accountable as they can't manage their own budgets, workflows and processes, but instead they refuse to change and blame the politicians instead.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

The amount of money the Government gives to the NHS has not been cut. Issues with staffing levels, nurses not being paid a 'living wage', the use of agency workers, less nurses due to more managers is all a problem at Trust level and does not mean the NHS has been given less money by the Treasury.

 

You can spin it how you like, but the budget has been ringfenced for years now. It's not going up, but it's not going down either. There is no cut from the Treasury, all you are seeing is mis-management of resources by those within the NHS itself.

 

Increasing the budget to the NHS is not a golden bullet. You can increase the budget per hospital by an extra 50 million a year, that doesn't mean you'll get an extra 50 million pounds worth of nurses - instead you'll get millions wasted on bureaucracy, inefficiency, admin and managerial staff with a disappointingly small increase in nursing levels.

 

The NHS is a slow and lumbering machine; yes it might be the tenth most efficient state run healthcare scheme in the world, but that doesn't mean it's efficient and it means it has a long way to go to be as good as number 1.

 

Restricting budgets forces organisations to work better and work smarter; if Trusts in their little fiefdoms are incapable of doing this without losing focus of their primary goal - helping the sick - then they should be held accountable as they can't manage their own budgets, workflows and processes, but instead they refuse to change and blame the politicians instead.

 

Whilst the the NHS budget hasn't been cut, it also hasn't risen to cover the increased costs that the NHS has to cover.

 

Costs such as increased energy costs, increased costs of existing treatments, the increasing costs bringing in new treatments, the increasing costs of having to treat more people, as lifestyle illness get worse and the elderly live longer.

 

There are always ways to work more efficiently especially so in any big organisation, but when you talk of of an inefficient health service you have to look at the context. This being, how much we as a country put towards out health service compared to other countries, and what we expect from it.

 

I think that when you put it in this context, the NHS performs well when you consider the funding that it receives.

[Oldtrout 10]

The idea of a 24 hr walk in centre, close to or next door to A & E seems a good idea. Quicker triage and prioritisation, with the luxury of an option of where to send people, would speed the whole system up.

 

I presume the majority of people involved in real accidents and emergencies, which are life threatening, would get to hospital by ambulance, and as such will have already been partly diagnosed/ treated in some way. The paramedics or ambulance crew will have an idea of how much of a priority they think it is.

 

Others involved in less serious accidents might arrive by taxi, car, bus or on foot. It's likely that these people will make their way to the closest medical facility they can get to. If there was a 24 hr walk in centre close to A & E, I'm sure more would use it.

 

I don't think there should be a charge for using A & E, but if someone turns up, and after examination it's obvious they should not be there, they should definitely be charged. It's these selfish ones who slow down A & E.

[gimp27 10]

Its not the selfish ones who slow down A+E. Its the nurses and doctors, who are doing a fantastic job with the resources that are available to them. These people take great care in looking after patients, and im sure that if any of us were unlucky enough to need to use A+E, we would expect to be treated the same. Remember, every minute you are waiting somebody else is getting the 100% care and attention that YOU would hope to expect.

[spider1 11]

Its not the selfish ones who slow down A+E. Its the nurses and doctors, who are doing a fantastic job with the resources that are available to them. These people take great care in looking after patients, and im sure that if any of us were unlucky enough to need to use A+E, we would expect to be treated the same. Remember, every minute you are waiting somebody else is getting the 100% care and attention that YOU would hope to expect.

 

So you dont mind waiting 4.hrs whilst some selfish morons with hardly anything wrong with them takes uo specialist time. Next time you are there try having a conversation with a few. I am sure that the 3 or 4 hrs youre there that shouldnt be a problem ./ Last time i was there i got talking to woman with a10 year old boy she had bought in said he had stepped of curb and twisted his ankle. said she had been waiting 3 hrs. They called there name out and lad got up and walked in didnt even limp. I know some one who works in dept said a lot are known faces and go regulary 2 or 3 times a week

Edited November 23, 2014 by spider1

[gimp27 10]

 

So you dont mind waiting 4.hrs whilst some selfish morons with hardly anything wrong with them takes uo specialist time. Next time you are there try having a conversation with a few. I am sure that the 3 or 4 hrs youre there that shouldnt be a problem ./ Last time i was there i got talking to woman with a10 year old boy she had bought in said he had stepped of curb and twisted his ankle. said she had been waiting 3 hrs. They called there name out and lad got up and walked in didnt even limp. I know some one who works in dept said a lot are known faces and go regulary 2 or 3 times a week

 

Yes spider. What may seem black and white on the surface isnt quite exactly what goes on underneath. I will have a conversation next time im there, because I work there. Its not this stereotype that you percieve. The amount of people coming through A+E with genuine afflictions has increased by over 50% in the last twenty years, never mind the daft ones who are there by their own actions. Yes, that is annoying but the drunk who fell down the steps has as much right to be there as the little old dear with chest pains. There is NO discrimination within the NHS, never mind how much folk believe there is.

[DaveGas 10]

A very large reduction in management,I think. With the money saved going on the front line. I hope your daughter is o'k.

 

Absolutely spot on, far to many middle management in the NHS.

[spider1 11]

Yes spider. What may seem black and white on the surface isnt quite exactly what goes on underneath. I will have a conversation next time im there, because I work there. Its not this stereotype that you percieve. The amount of people coming through A+E with genuine afflictions has increased by over 50% in the last twenty years, never mind the daft ones who are there by their own actions. Yes, that is annoying but the drunk who fell down the steps has as much right to be there as the little old dear with chest pains. There is NO discrimination within the NHS, never mind how much folk believe there is.

 

Thats the point to many not genuine a/e patients./ Weed the time wasters out by making them pay £10 they wont come then ./ End of they wont come unless genuine case. Probably lift your wages as more money for n.h.s.

Good idea have a word with those waiting and when they say ive got a cold or sore throat send them out to see there g.p.

Edited November 23, 2014 by spider1

[mary70 10]

Thats the point to many not genuine a/e patients./ Weed the time wasters out by making them pay £10 they wont come then ./ End of they wont come unless genuine case. Probably lift your wages as more money for n.h.s.

 

and don't tell me the people on benefits would get it free and the hardworking would be hit again like they are for everything else

[spider1 11]

and don't tell me the people on benefits would get it free and the hardworking would be hit again like they are for everything else

 

Unless you come in by ambulance everybody pays ./ Time wasters pay double the ive got a cold wallers