AIBU to ask if you believe that a labour government will go some way to fixing the NHS?

[TabithaTwitchel]

I'm not a labour voter but I could potentially be persuaded for obvious reasons right now

I'd like to believe a new government could do 'something' to stem the rot in the NHS. But I'm not convinced.

Do you think it will help?

It’ll take money, even if it’s to ‘reform’ stuff and that depends on growth

It’ll be linked to whether policies bring growth or more debt. Debt has gone up and servicing it is very high currently, so we’ll see

I trained and spent the early part of my career in the NHs under labour. I mostly saw loads of overpaid locums mostly from Australia and buildings being built under expensive leases we still can’t get out of. Didn’t see much improvement for actual permanent staff pay or conditions. I worked 24 hour shifts under labour.

Oh yes and lots of pointless overpaid management with stupid job titles.

Don't spoil it, olivehater ... the narrative on here is that everything in the NHS was rainbows and unicorns under Labour, with some apparently forgetting (or perhaps too young to remember) that the howling about "the cuts" was just as loud back then, and the answers when it was pointed out there hadn't actually been any cuts just the same

I have had decades longer experience of being on the receiving end of NHS practices than your 20 years of working

The 4 hour target was to be seen by someone. It didn’t mean they got treated within 4 hours and waved on their way.

It took me doctors appointments, probably in their 100s and with them prescriptions from birth to eventually ending up in a&e at 60 years old to finally get an allergy test

How much money the NHS has wasted on me by not treating me is definitely over £1million
Most likely in 7 figures all in the name of saving money on an allergy test.

I sometimes wonder what my life would look like if the NHS could actually do their job

The four hour target was from arrival in A&E to discharge or transfer to a ward. No wonder you’re so wrong about it when you don’t even know what it was. Incidentally public satisfaction with the NHS was 70% in 2010.

It needs a lot to improve it, but more of a chance under Labour than Tories. The last lot were too busy being a squabbling mess. Any government in power at the time of covid would still of had 2 years of catching up to do. But at least now we should have all that Brexit money to fix it 😂😂.

"Transfer to a ward" usually meant being moved to a corridor or cupboard, in our experience.

"Discharge within 4 hours" usually meant being completely ignored for 3.5 hours, even in visibly empty/quiet A&E, and then staff suddenly running around like headless chickens when the 4 hour target was nearing.

You clearly didn’t attend A&E in the hospital I worked in.

And you didn't work in the hospitals we used either!

That's the problem with the NHS. No consistency. I don't doubt people have good experiences, but lots don't. There needs to be more standardisation and consistency. The ones (presumably like yours) who do things well need to be looked at and used as a model/example for the ones that don't.

That’s why Streeting is planning to do exactly that.

Personally, I wish Wes Streeting every fair wind and all the good will in the world to make the NHS work CONSISTENTLY and competently. He has a huge task, all uphill. I think that only a Labour government can make the changes needed without hideous fightback; whether they have the cojones to do so remains to be seen.

But even in a single hospital the one local to me serving a large rural catchment and a large (poor) city, there are good and failing departments. Between DH and I (both closing 70), we see oncology and breast cancer follow up (me -- care is/was brilliant, efficient, good recall etc, and jolly lovely with the delivery of service) and cardiology and proctology. Cardiology is good at emergencies, with good surgeons etc, but follow up is hit and miss. Proctology has been good but that's probably as much to do with our consultant's children having been in the same class. I also spent a lot of time post surgery and radiotherapy in dermatology; I eventually got the necessary treatment, and it ran smoothly, but getting in was like climbing a mountain. However, DMIL in a care home 5 miles from the hospital waited 27 hours for an ambulance when she fell and broke her femur, and then spent six miserable weeks in an acute orthopaedic trauma ward until she was returned to her care home, where she died five hours later. How does one put a label on a huge hospital that reflects the variety of truths of diverse experiences? Derriford can be very good and dreadful on the same day. It would be nice if they could answer their appointments lines too.

The wording is

95% of people arriving at an A&E department should be admitted to hospital, transferred to a more appropriate care setting, or discharged home within four hours

Note the “transferred to a more appropriate care setting”

This could just mean sat in a different area of the hospital, just not in A&E

Completely incorrect in everything you say x.. sorry but you are ..

Actually they’re not. In 2010 the NHS had a 70% satisfaction rating, it’s now 24%.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/high-performing-nhs-review-progress-1997-2010

@Memyaelf the evidence says you’re wrong https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/09/doctor-nhs-private-invest-healthcare-new-labour

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/rise-and-decline-nhs-in-england-2000-20#:~:text=Multi%2Dyear%20funding%20increases%20and,and%20neglect%20of%20workforce%20planning.

www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p836

Go search board reports for your and many of the acute (hospital trusts) in England. Don’t rely on institutions whose job it is to report impartial media worthy news. Look at the vacancy levels and the amount paid for agency workers, the pay structures, the death (mortality) rates, pressure ulcers, serious clinical incidents, unavoidable falls, infection rates.. etc etc etc.. then consider how information and its reporting is manipulated. Apply to be a non executive director at your local hospital. You will see what is reported in a very different light.

The Guardian, BMJ and kings fund.. it’s posh totty sun newspaper… start quoting the ‘England NHS. Or reliable research statistics then people might listen. Except many of the statistics are manipulated.

The King’s Fund is independent and its statistics are the most trustworthy available.

@Memyaelf King’s Fund is fully independent- but you’d know that if you googled - given you were determined not to engage your critical faculty I think we can all recognise your bias.

NO.

My bias is all about the way statistics are manipulated. Trusts report their statistics. They are so manipulated. These are then analysed by others. Who then apply the statistics according to their needs.. seriously.. wake up.

No, you wake up. We don’t all live in a world that’s dominated by conspiracy theory. If what you say is true the current statistics wouldn’t be so appalling, would they?

No conspiracy theories here.. I’ve lived it! Unfortunately whistle blowing doesn’t really mean anything in the NHS.. let’s look at the Letby case!

Tell me why, if statistics are regularly fudged, why the figures are so bad now? Clue, the answer doesn’t involve whistleblowing or Lucy Letby.