What the fuck was the point in the Nightingale hospital?

[QOFE]

I just don't understand

I thought it was meant to take coronavirus patients to free up normal hospitals so the NHS didn't grind to a halt?

But I've just read an article saying it's likely to be wound down as it's not taken a new patient in over a week and the most it's ever had was 35, despite having 4000 beds.

But there's thousands of people who haven't been treated or admitted to hospital when they should have been, whilst a dedicated hospital sat empty? Elderly people being sent back to care homes to spread the virus to staff and the other patients due to no space for them to stay in hospital, but an empty hospital that they could have gone to instead?

What's that about then? Like... What was the point?

The issue was always going to be staffing. Nursing vacancies are already high...nursing has the highest level of vacancies in the public sector - the office for national statistics gives the detail on this.

What are the stats based on though? This recent article from Germany says they are short of 40,000 nurses as well;

"Officially, the country [Germany] was short 40,000 nurses according to the most recent numbers from the Labor Ministry for 2018, but the real tally is believed to be far higher."

www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-crisis-underpaid-overstretched-nursing-staff-demand-more-than-applause/a-52995776

I assume both countries are plugging the gaps with agency nurses rather than actually being short staffed.

The key missing part is infection control rather than that such people are not being taken to hospital to die.

Staff in homes should still have been wearing PPE.

Denying people medical treatment raises some ethical questions I think. Keeping them in care homes and denying medical treatment is really only ethical if they are having end of life care. Simply refusing medical treatment to any resident of a care home suggests something quite sinister to me - where they assessed by a Dr to diagnose Covid rather than a treatable condition such as heart failure or bacterial pneumonia? What was done to keep them comfortable and ease pain and suffering? Did they get end of life drugs?

Far better to have taken the precaution than not - it was looking possible that the NHS was going to be ovewhelmed as badly as the Italian health system, but we seemed to have dodged that thankfully.

But we only appear to have dodged that by the dubious means of "just not treating people until it's too late" for the most part.

Our death rate is appalling and only going to get worse.

Insurance.

I pay for house insurance every year too and haven’t had to use that either. And I will still pay for it when it comes up for renewal this year.

If the hospital’s hadn’t coped, you’d be here moaning we weren’t prepared. It’s a good thing.

But there's thousands of people who haven't been treated or admitted to hospital when they should have been, whilst a dedicated hospital sat empty? I don’t think this is right. I thought it had been made very clear that people who needed to be in hospital were, but those better cared for outside hospitals would be.

Perhaps greater aviation restrictions would have been an idea? - we've been having between 10000 - 15000 people arrive to the UK throughout the month - with no checks, screening or anything. We're one of the least locked down countries in the world.

But nah, spanking new hospital is so much more glam.

Fascinating that in the scientific advisory body for the Govt - 13 out of 23 members were - yes, Govt figures inc Cummings and not scientists at all.

We weren't overwhelmed, so didn't need them.

I suspect they will be used more as we try to move forward with restarting other essential nhs services that have been stopped for covid.

I was a returner nurse & placed in nightingale, but haven't been needed so far. They are still doing my dbs & sending online training and so I assume they expect to need me soon.

Like some others, to me the scandal is not admitting people to hospital who then died, who may have been ok with oxygen. I'm not talking about the very very elderly and frail, or very ill previously but about the average people who were refused treatment and then died.

@clavinova every NHS trust has to send in monthly workforce returns to the Dept of Health via the various commissioning bodies on a montly basis that breaks done vacancies against establishment for all roles (clinical and non clinical) against every grade and also state whether these are filled by agency nurses. its a very comprehensive breakdown and a bit of industry to be honest. This data is also then used by the ONS. you can see the summaries of these for your local hosptial as they are included in the public board meetings and the papers published on their website.

Whislt there is always lots of noise about excessive use of expensive agency and locum staff in the papers, it is a myth that the NHS can fill all posts with these particularly for the more specialist posts......there are all kinds of rules around agency caps and the reality is (well mine was in a large well known and respected hospital) was that I could never book enough anyway so spent a lot of time with fellow colleagues looking at how we could ensure met safe staffing nos and skill mix.

Seriously shaking my head here.

As this thread (and others before) demonstrate, there are so many questions around the Nightingale hospitals and it isn't something we will get answers about anytime soon - if ever.

The London Nightingale was never equipped for anything near full capacity (4,000) but the lack of use of the hospital overall needs to be questioned - if it remains unused.

I hope that there is lots of background work being put into deciding how the Nightingales can be best utilised, whilst of course planning for subsequent outbreaks.

If pushed I'd say I'm glad we have them, even with all their issues / unanswered questions.

As an aside, I keep hearing Professor Neil Ferguson in a less than flattering light so I am going to check him out.

The government are extravagant and hopeless.
Matt Hancock, the career politician who has never run anything in his life, in charge is a joke.

They might not have had enough staff but they also weren’t recruiting all staff they could have.

I emailed their recruitment offering to work as a nurse but they were only taking on staff who lived in London. I was prepared to move down there and find digs/take my caravan.

Denying people medical treatment raises some ethical questions I think. Keeping them in care homes and denying medical treatment is really only ethical if they are having end of life care. Simply refusing medical treatment to any resident of a care home suggests something quite sinister to me - where they assessed by a Dr to diagnose Covid rather than a treatable condition such as heart failure or bacterial pneumonia? What was done to keep them comfortable and ease pain and suffering? Did they get end of life drugs?

This is something which troubles me, too.

Haven't read the full thread yet but saw the title and thought "very good question op - and why aren't we asking questions about it?"

will now read back.

I am incensed that so many people have died at home and in care homes while this facility was lying empty.

In 1918 several months after the first wave, the second wave came in September with a vengeance.

It’s better to be prepared.

The government are extravagant and hopeless.

"Swine flu campaign 'cost France €1bn"

"2010 [French] Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot said: "Today I'm being criticised for doing too much - but to begin with the same people were criticising me for not doing enough. I can't win."

www.connexionfrance.com/index.php/Archive/Swine-flu-campaign-cost-France-1bn

Ok it may be insurance, but as a lay person the optics of it all are really troubling.

• Build new hospitals that don't get used
• Set a much higher threshold for admission to hospital than other countries, so a lot of people are just left to fend for themselves at home
• Try and get away with just counting hospital deaths
• Clap yourself on the back for 'protecting the NHS' (which in itself seems backwards, surely the whole point of the NHS is to protect people) and declare the fact that the nightingale hospitals weren't needed demonstrates that the NHS coped admirably
• Attempt to write all the poor sods that died at home/in care homes out of the narrative
• Save some money by cancelling pretty much everything else but then waste a load by setting up hospitals that apparently aren't fit for purpose in temporary premises which will need to be dismantled (no doubt at massive cost)

It just really feels like they protected doctors from making difficult decisions by pushing that onto 111 and the ambulance service, and as a result have actually been responsible for the deaths of people that may have been ok if they had earlier treatment.

The thought that appearances of action seem to be more important than actually saving people sickens me - of course the NHS will cope when you lock the doors and don't let most people in. Perhaps they should have waited until Boris had blue lips before considering him for treatment....

(Some of this has happened yet, but it's not hard to see it coming)

*hasn't

Like some others, to me the scandal is not admitting people to hospital who then died, who may have been ok with oxygen.

I haven't really seen any relatives talking to the press about this though. Also, there are plenty of care home scandals and criminal investigations on the continent (even Germany) but not in the UK?

Being prepared in case of disaster
Being prepared for a terrorist attack requiring hospitalisation of many hundreds

Trying to ease the stress on our hospitals if it all went tits up, seriously 😒

Fascinating that in the scientific advisory body for the Govt - 13 out of 23 members were - yes, Govt figures inc Cummings and not scientists at all.

Do you have a link for that? In what way does the advisory body differ from the group assembled for Swine Flu under Labour here?

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120907150455/www.dh.gov.uk/ab/SPI/DH_120535" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120907150455/www.dh.gov.uk/ab/SPI/DH_120535