The wait for NHS test results is cruel and anxiety inducing

[Summortime]

I had a routine NHS mammogram a week ago. Was told up to three weeks wait for the result. I cannot believe this is considered acceptable. In USA for example you can get the result within the next couple of days. My American colleague was shocked that here in the UK we are just expected to wait.

My anxiety is sky high. I appreciate this is a problem I need to get help with but if results were given in days rather than weeks my anxiety would not be so bad. It is the waiting that’s the worst.

How in a so called first world country is a long wait for test results considered acceptable?

If I'm wrong, then good luck with your results op💐.

Were it 3 weeks, 10 days, a week or 3 days you would feel the same. Ime result's tend to come within the maximum timescale suggested. Please find support to manage your anxiety.

Yesterday a relative attended the Breast Screening Unit of our local hospital. Within two hours the lump in her breast was declared benign. We were all relieved for her. It was fantastic service.
Sorry you are waiting for the routine Mammogram. At our local Nuffield hospital it is possible to have a private Mammogram & receive the results shortly afterwards, the same day. Maybe consider if possible for the next one.

The breast clinic at Blackpool Vic is superb.

And yet across the corridor in the stroke unit at Blackpool Victoria, patients were neglected so badly that 6 former NHS employees are currently serving time at HM’s pleasure.

Envy of the world. <bangs saucepans>

I am not being clever or horrible but your anxiety is as I am sure you can see illogical. If you had not had the mammogram you might not be worrying. Having it dome has not increased your chances of being ill. Its your mind playing tricks on you. Take care

And my husband waited over 50 hours in A&E in another part of the building with Sepsis amongst other issues, because there were no beds. (Third time in, 32 and 18 hour waits on those occasions). He was in for a month as specialists systematically discounted causes. It was eventually discovered that he had, as well as double pneumonia and acute kidney injury because of a pre-existing, congenital condition, a necrotic gall bladder, gangrenous, basically, that had formed cysts that had attached themselves to his liver. Over two difficult surgeries - we were warned beforehand - his brilliant Bulgarian gastric surgeon saved his life. He only got into her hands because, having been written down as “chest infection” and AKI, another “junior” doctor was not happy. What he saw on the scans and x-rays did not equate to the off the scale infection markers he was seeing in the blood tests so he insisted on further investigations. My husband had had no gallbladder symptoms whatsoever.
Those two doctors saved his life, without a shadow of a doubt. Not the first time by the NHS. The first again at the Vic then at Preston Royal in 2017 when his extremely rare (around 500 known sufferers in UK, only one specialist centre in Newcastle) life-threatening genetic condition was identified after dogged determination by about every ologist in the Trust. Eventually looked after by nephrology, which is ongoing. We’ve moved to Scotland now, he’s been referred to Dundee and his ongoing monitoring so far has been excellent.

Of course the NHS is not perfect but our family owes it a great deal.

The overnight service costs the NHS a bloody fortune as it oursourcead to a private company . And it’s unhappy for trauma CTs not routine mamograogy - the shortage of tracing places for radiologists (18 applicants for every place this year) it due to lack of investment by the government . So the delay in reporting the mammogram is due to a workforce shortage hitch the government could fix .

They tried switching it to biannual and got worse results, so they went back to annual screening. I can't remember the reasoning off the top of my head, but worse outcomes for Black women in particular were a concern.

(The US does not have an NHS but there are independent groups like the USPSTF as well as government agencies that issue guidelines for preventative care.)

You asserted it so it’s incumbent on you to provide the evidence. I’m not your secretary, mate.

Wow, that's so selfish!

It is not selfish in any way. It is simply factual. You may not like it being said but how else do you think it is funded?

I much prefer the healthcare systems they have in the EU and in Singapore. Singapore is probably my favourite.

But that's the reality of loads of things you pay for but don't really benefit from - like paying for schools when you don't have children and/or you were privately educated or paying for public libraries or transport.
I would hate to live in a society that doesn't do this .

It isn’t free though! People say that the NHS is great because they actually seem to think it is free. Their misguided belief that it doesn’t cost money blinds them to the fact that it is a comparatively bad health service and desperately needs to change. I am happy to pay tax towards our health service but not if we can’t criticise it and expect it to change when it is not fit for purpose. Some people are paying a lot towards the nhs and others are paying very little towards it and that does mean people have very different attitudes to what they are getting for their money.

Surely you realise that there is quite a lot of resentment from people who feel they are getting a very raw deal when it comes to public services. I feel far more strongly about schools than the nhs but that is not for this thread.

I think the other difference between healthcare and other taxpayer-funded services like education is that healthcare costs have the capacity to sink the entire economy. The NHS could absorb the entirety of the UK’s GDP, because demand is infinite. We can already see NHS spending prioritised over everything else - which is partly why the court system and civil justice is crumbling, even though we could probably all agree that access to justice is essential in a functioning democracy.

I don’t think a single provider works well for anything - give patients a choice, let the money (insurance or state) follow.

The UK fund the royal family from the profits of the crown estate. The government keeps significantly more money for itself from these profits than it pays to the sovereign grant. Taxes do not go directly towards the sovereign grant.

If the RF abdicated the financial arrangements with the Crown Estate would have to be renegotiated and I’d bet my house the taxpayer would benefit from considerably less than the current 88%.

Why you so offended by the word mate goodness. I did actually post some links but guess you were too busy being offended. Oh well 😌

Really? That's very interesting, I did not know that. Thanks!