Category Archives: medical

Curing the NHS

Recently I’ve been looking at the NHS as an outsider and a user. This has led me to think about the organisation, it’s shortcomings and whether anything really can be done to improve it.

The Health Service is something that we all want, and for which we all pay taxes. So we expect that when we need it not only will it be there, free at the point of use, but we will get the best possible treatment, speedily, in a good environment, from professional people and a professional organisation.

Sadly one or more of those elements are nearly always lacking, often conspiring to make patient care less than optimal.

Don’t get me wrong. Many parts of the health service are excellent. And in an emergency they generally work brilliantly, at least in the short-term.

Recently Noreen and I attended a Patient Participation Group which our GP practice has started. Everyone there was self-selected and had volunteered; they were not “yes men” hand-picked by the practice. And everyone there had nothing but praise for our excellent GPs, nurses and admin/reception staff — indeed we found it quite difficult to come up with anything major we thought they needed to improve. The only significant thing we homed in on for improvement was some of communicating with the body of patients as a whole. But our doctors are lucky; they have excellent staff throughout the practice and new-ish purpose-built accommodation. Nevertheless they are now short of space to do all the things they want to do.

Many parts of the Health Service are not so lucky. Visit the average NHS hospital and you’ll find a run-down building containing a large number of staff many of whom (especially at the lower levels) appear poorly paid, poorly trained, poorly managed and demotivated, giving off an air of being oppressed and disinterested. One suspects there may also be bullying by both management and unions. They seem ground down and struggling to do a good job against a background of inefficiency, waste and the awfulness of the people (mostly patients!) they have to deal with.

And that’s a two way thing. Staff (and an organisation) that don’t care about patients encourage patients to not care about how they treat the staff.

This has to lead to an attitude of unprofessionalism. As an example I am continually horrified by the awfulness of the communications I receive from all parts of the NHS. They are written in poor English (GOK what their Gujarati translations are like!); poorly typed; poorly designed; poorly printed. One recent letter I received was offset such that the right hand edge of the text was missing, it was faintly printed, poorly worded and covered in printed-on splodges of toner. It looked slapdash and unprofessional; the work of a not very careful 10-year-old. Frankly I would have been ashamed to even put it in my rubbish bin, let alone send it to anyone. And yet this was an important communication.

Go to a private hospital and you generally find exactly the opposite of all this: personable, helpful, interested, caring and motivated staff at all levels and good communication.

Why does the NHS have to be this way?

The simple answer is that it doesn’t.

Whilst bringing the whole of the NHS up to the standards of the best private hospitals may be neither achievable nor affordable, it should be possible to achieve a 500% improvement. (And this doesn’t mean US-style healthcare where one has to pay for everything or go without.) It won’t be easy; but if there’s a will I believe it could be done. In broad terms this is how I see it being done …

  • The NHS always maintains it is short of money. It isn’t; it has shedloads of money to do everything it should (and we want it to) sensibly do. But …
  • It also has too many meaningless, politically imposed, targets.
  • In consequence there are also far too many managers.
  • It probably also has too many (non-productive) admin staff. There always seem to be lots of people walking about carry pieces of paper but apparently doing little else. I’m not saying they are all unnecessary, but does anyone really know?
  • On top of this there appears to be an especially corrosive and pervasive culture; a culture of mistrust and of doing the minimum necessary; a culture which generates unprofessionalism and a couldn’t-care-less attitude.

So what can/should we do about it?

  • Well first of all there has to be a real will to do something and act sensibly, not just out of short-term political expediency or protecting one’s backside.
  • Then the budget has to be maintained at least at current levels, in real terms.
  • In doing that there has to be a vast improvement in cost control (yes, drug spend does need to be monitored, but hopefully not rationed), which means good stock control and the reduction of waste.
  • Scrap all but the most essential of targets and have what targets there are set by the clinicians for it is they who really understand what the patient needs. One target which must remain is to ensure the service is the same across the whole country; there must be no postcode lottery.
  • That should mean a reduction in the number of managers required, which will free large sums of otherwise non-productive money for patient care.
  • Then we need to look very critically at the number of non-clinical, non-managerial staff required. Reductions, where sensible, should be achievable by streamlining much of the (still largely paper-based) admin. That doesn’t mean an all-singing-all-dancing ginormous IT system; it means a large dose of analysing what really happens, what needs to happen and lots of common sense.
  • Much of all of this can be achieved by empowering all NHS staff to make the right decisions for the patients (both individually and collectively), empowering the staff to help improve their environment (why shouldn’t they repaint a wall or fix a door handle? — they’d do it at home!) and take pride in what they do.
  • All of this will only happen with a major change in culture to one which cherishes and values both the employees and the patients; a culture in which the staff treat the patients (and each other) as they would wish to be treated themselves. That has to start at the top: the top of each hospital/practice and the top of the NHS, ie. with the politicians and Civil Servants. Lip service won’t do; management have to demonstrate that they mean what they say. It also needs the staff — and the unions — to engage with, and believe in, the process and have an element of trust in it.

None of this will be easy. I’ve worked in an organisation where it has been done. It is difficult, painful and takes time. It needs a determination from everyone to make it work. Heads will have to be banged together. It almost certainly means shedding staff: if nothing else the non-believers have to be encouraged to change or move elsewhere — for their good and that of the organisation. It needs good, no-nonsense, management at the top; management with a long-term vision, a determination to make the right things happen and the charisma/skills to be able to fully engage with their staff at all levels. It also needs the unions to be willing to embrace the change (or be sidelined).

What is not needed is what we currently have: short-termism, poor management, bullying and continual change driven b
y political expediency.

Someone has to get a grip. Sadly I don’t see who that someone is.

Did You Know ….

There is a brothel in Prague where the “services” are free, but live video streams of the “activity” in the brothel are shown on their website (for a fee).
[Wikipedia]

Male chimps, bears, dogs — indeed almost all mammals except humans — have a bone in their penis, called the baculum (photo is a raccoon baculum). No-one knows why it was evolved out of humans.

In the US, of those men who take paternity tests some 30% find out they are not the father of the child concerned – although of course these are cases where there is doubt to start with.
[Sheril Kirshenbaum, The Science of Kissing]

You've Got What?!?!?!

One of my less endearing qualities is a lay-scientist’s interest in emerging infectious diseases (of plants and animals). And as such I follow ProMED which disseminates reports of these things from around the world to the scientific community.

And are there some strange and amusingly named diseases out there. So I was amused, but not surprised, this morning to see a report of Wobbly Possum Disease in New Zealand. If you wrote it in a novel, or indeed a comedy script, no-one would believe it! But what would you call a disease which makes possums, well, wobbly?

Others that always amuse me for their names are Astrakhan Spotted Fever (which affects humans), Flaccid Trunk Disease (of elephants), Lime Witches’ Broom Phytoplasma (affecting citrus trees) and O’nyong-nyong Fever (also affecting humans).

Yes, it’s a strange world we live in!

In Case You Missed It …

Links to a selection of the curious and interesting items you may have missed in the last week or so.

Do You Have Free Will? How can we know?

Heroes of the Hot Zone: pen portraits of some of the guys who are trying to clean up Fukushima.

Waterstones ditches apostrophe. English must be under threat when a bookshop ignores good grammar and makes it’s possessive Waterstones’s which is worse!

OK, here’s one for the mathematicians out there: 153 and narcissistic numbers. I want to know how they’ve proved what the biggest such number is.

Here are some seriously stunning 100 year old colour photographs of Russia (see right).

Difficult to work out here who is the madder: Amish men jailed over reflective triangle dispute.

Cats occasionally like all sorts of unsuitable things. Apparently some even like mushrooms.

And finally, just to prove it is worth goig to the gym … Scientists name rare horse fly after Beyonce “in honour of its impressive golden behind”.

On the Sociobollocks of Wellbeing

OMG here comes another “deep thought” posting! GOK what they’re putting in my tea this year?!

David Colquhoun at DC’s Improbable Science has a reputation, along with Ben Goldacre, of exploding the myths of bad and pseudo science. In a post yesterday he’s got his knife into “Wellbeing“, that subject so beloved of the much reviled HR departments.

Sure we all like wellbeing. Who wouldn’t. But can we sensibly measure it? Can big (or small) organisations do anything meaningful to change it? I suggest the answers are no and no. It is a wimpy way for terminally ineffective and unnecessary droids to appear to do something useful. In fact I maintain it is divisive and destructive.

Divisive in that it ultimately sets one group of people at odds with another; eg. those who want extra time off for parents against those who have to pick up the extra work; us against HR. Destructive because it wastes time and money which could be better used.

Throughout my working life I have taken part in countless wellbeing type surveys: my former employer conducted just such a survey of employees every couple of years. There was a standard core of questions, and a set which varied according to mood of the year. It was supposedly used to measure employee morale and tell senior management what we thought of company policy, management, etc.

I must have completed well over a dozen, maybe as many as 20, such surveys in the course of my employ. Although optional I always took part on the basis that that however ineffective I thought they were, if you didn’t express an opinion then certainly nothing would change.

And that is exactly what happened: nothing changed. Not once in almost 35 years did I see any action result from survey feedback. Senior management were allegedly incented on increasing morale etc. (as measured by the survey). But this was never more than lip-service. Over the years morale steadily fell as HR policies became less sympathetic to the employee (pay freeze, less empowerment, emasculated pension schemes, downsizing, etc.). But neither senior management nor HR people ever suffered. Unlike the rest of us they always went on to bigger, better and more lucrative jobs.

Should this surprise us? Well no, not really. Because apart from a few headline figures (like the morale index, based on some fixed core questions) all the opinions expressed were aggregated and thus watered down into useless generalisations by the time they reached senior management. So the high-ups could then say things like “But that doesn’t tell us anything”, “That’s meaningless” or “They [employees] don’t understand”. And thus our views were universally ignored, despite platitudes to the contrary.

Result: a huge waste of time and money which could be better spent moving the business forward. At best all it did was to act as a brake on some of the more oppressive ideas which might have come out of the profit-hungry upper echelons. At worst it wasted 2-3 hours per employee. In a company of 250,000+ employees worldwide that’s an extra 400-500 people to develop the business.

Should it have been this way? Of course it shouldn’t. But such, I fear, is the way of the organisation — large or small. It is all too easy to cover a multitude of sins in smooth management platitudes; even I can do it!

But, you say, wellbeing is important. Yes, of course it is, at a personal level. It is at the peak of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and is surely the hallmark of a civilised society. And morale should certainly be important to any organisation.

But I would maintain that wellbeing and morale are best changed at a personal level. They’re my responsibility. We don’t need a “wellbeing industry” composed, as it so often is, of quackery and get-rich-quick scams. Wouldn’t it be better to empower (and teach) people to look after themselves? Empowerment is, after all, one of the quickest ways to improve perceived wellbeing and morale at all levels.

I can’t do justice to Colquhoun’s latest article; it just contains the exposure of too much corporate HR hokum and sociobollocks. You need to go read it for yourselves. It’s too good to miss!

Nanny State's Fatal Addiction

A few days ago the Heresy Corner blog wrote a piece exposing the worrying tendency of officialdom and do-gooders to slam down hard on things they don’t like (eg. smoking, alcohol) but with completely the wrong timing and emphasis. The writer shows that they did it with smoking and now they’re doing it with alcohol, and suggests that it is little more then self-defeating persecution. Consider the following extracts …

Alcohol consumption in the UK in fact peaked in 2004 and has been declining ever since. It’s now 11% lower than it was. There was an especially large fall in 2009. The UK ranks also below the European average in terms of consumption, an under-reported fact that may have something to do with Britain’s having the second-highest level of alcohol duty in the EU. The fall in consumption has been most dramatic among young people (the same is true of smoking) as a combination of draconian ID-checks (these days, you’re lucky to be sold a bottle of wine no questions asked if you’re under 40), rising prices and a media obsession with teenage drunkenness has made the traditional slow transition to the adult world of social drinking far more difficult to accomplish. This, of course, may help to explain why, when they finally are allowed to drink, so many young people seem unable to handle it.

As the harm reduces, so the zeal of the harm-reducers increases, as they focus all their energy and determination on ever-smaller numbers of the recalcitrant. At the same time, new targets come into their sights.

Two media organisations in particular enjoy scaring their audience with exaggerated levels of gloom. The Daily Mail and the BBC […] It’s not just alcohol and tobacco that regularly get this level of alarmist coverage. It’s also… illegal drugs, obesity, sex-trafficking, climate change, internet porn and the “sexualisation of childhood”.

Nanny statism, of course, is what happens when the government takes the regulation of morality away from bishops and gives it to doctors, social workers and professional experts.

I would actually say that this is what happens when you take the regulation of morality away from the people themselves. What happened to the personal responsibility that this government is supposedly such a believer in?

What is just as worrying, as is pointed out by Tim Worstall at Forbes is that the numbers upon which this alcohol policy are being built are themselves a complete fiction. As Worstall points out …

[W]hat drives political action is not the truth but what people believe to be the truth. So, if you can whip up a scare story about the ill effects […] then, as long as people believe you, you should be able to get some action taken […]

“Some 1,173,386 people in England were admitted to casualty for injuries or illnesses caused by drinking in 2010/11, compared with just 510,780 in 2002/3 […] The figures for last year represent an 11 per cent increase on the previous 12 months, when alcohol-related admissions stood at 1,056,962”

[…] there are two things odd about these numbers […] The first is that no one at all is measuring how many hospital admissions are as a result of alcohol. That’s just not what is done:

“It’s largely a function of methodology. Alcohol-related admissions are calculated in such a way that if you are unlucky enough, say, to be involved in a fire and admitted to hospital for the treatment of your burns, it will count as 0.38 of an alcohol-related admission — unless you happen to be under 15, when it won’t count at all.

“If you drown, it counts as 0.34 of an alcohol-related admission […] Getting chilled to the bone (accidental excessive cold) counts for 0.25 of an admission, intentional self-harm to 0.20 per cent of an admission.

“These fractions apply whether or not there was any evidence you had been drinking before these disasters befell you.”

So […] [w]e’re not in fact being told anything at all about the number of alcohol related hospital admissions. We’re being told about the numbers which are assumed to be alcohol related. And I think we can all see what the problem is here, can’t we? […]

Now, does all of this mean that there has been no rise in alcohol related diseases? I’ve no idea actually, but the point is that nor do you and nor do the people releasing these figures to us. The methods they’re using to compile the numbers, the things they’re not telling us about those numbers, mean that they lying to us with those numbers.

So basically the whole thing is a complete and utter lie from start to finish, and the numbers could be adjusted in the background to prove anything anyone wants. And politicians wonder why no-one believes nor trusts them. Would you?

So wither next? You’d better believe that these state-registered nanny do-gooders have their sights on all the “problem areas” mentioned above. Drugs have been a target for a long time; the heavy-handed mobsters must arrive soon. They’ve started on obesity already. And as for anything to do with sex, well we must ban that because, well, it’s just not nice is it?

Next we know they’ll be wanting to grant us licences to shag. Oh wait a minute. We have those already, it’s called marriage. It’s probably as well no-one takes blind bit of notice of that any more.

So be alert … your country needs lerts! Gawdelpus!

The Mufia

Yep, you read that right … the Mufia are out and about tomorrow.

Apparently tomorrow (Saturday 10/12) will see a “The Muff March against ‘designer vagina’ surgery” along Harley Street, London’s centre private medicine.

High time to stop the medicalisation of the normal!

Links of the Week

Here’s your usual selection of things which interested/amused me and which you may have missed. And do we have a bumper selection this week!

First something useful? There’s a view that “use by” dates on food are a myth which needs busting. So it’s American but I don’t see much being different in the UK. But I do worry whether people have enough common sense to safely abolish “use by” dates.

And now to the very unuseful. Why does the search for the Higgs Boson matter? Actually to most people it doesn’t matter; whether physicists find it or not it won’t change the lives of 99.9999% of the population. That doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t look for it, but in the overall scheme of broken banks and countries it actually doesn’t matter.

Sociable wasps have an eye for faces. But not for caterpillars. And you just thought they were animated automatons sent by the Devil to annoy you!

And talking of the works of the Devil, pyjamas are another … The joys and benefits of sleeping naked. And no, it isn’t colder!

Think you’re good at sudoku? You’ll need a good night’s sleep before you try this! He-he!

A few weeks back we told of these strange paper sculptures left in libraries. Well the phantom has returned, for the last time.

Not got enough to do in the run-up to Christmas? Need a craft project? Make storybook paper roses (above).

And finally … Do you need an udder tug? Well who doesn’t? — Certainly no self-respecting mutt!

Gawdelpus …

… if this is the logic!

BBC Breakfast is this morning reporting the need to “halve the number of people in the UK with HIV”. And how are we going to do this? But getting people tested earlier, etc. etc.

No, guys!

Even if there were zero new infections, the only way you halve the number of people with an incurable disease is for them to die!

So did you mean you need to halve the number of new cases? Or halve the number of people who have HIV but are undiagnosed? Or what did you mean?

Reasons to be Grateful 2

OK so here’s week two of my experiment: this week’s things which have made me happy or for which I’m grateful:
Crab Apples

  1. Autumn Colours^ — there are still some gorgeous golden leaves around as well as bright red fruit on our ornamental crab apple, especially in …
  2. Sunshine* — which makes those autumn colours all the more vibrant
  3. Vagina Cupcakes — they’re a hoot!
  4. Beaujolais Nouveau* — I’ve now tasted three different ones and they’re all excellent
  5. Sleep — it’s so restorative to sleep well and undisturbed as I did last night
^ Click the image for a bigger version, and for other photos.
* No-one said I couldn’t choose the same things as last week!