Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Patient warns loss of specialist podiatrists will compromise care in Northamptonshire

Full Story

 

The NHFT spokesman told the Chron that diabetes patients would continue to get the best possible care.

He said: “We are currently in the process of interviewing staff for the new structure, which has been based on the decreased activity that is planned due to the contract change implemented by commissioning. By skill mixing we have managed to retain as many staff as we possibly can to ensure that the high risk patients continue to get the best possible care.

“We will ensure that the staff in the structure will have the right skills to provide the care to the patients that we will continue to see.”

Pardon!

Does it say, we are decreasing the number of staff and will see fewer people but diabetics will continue to get the best possible care.

If that is what it says which group/s won't get the best possible care or any care?

Bill

 

They are taking a "landscape view" and will do things "leaner" after that they will ensure a "quality structure" by introducing "models of excellence". Yawn, yawn. It will be done in a "timely manner" and will "integrate ideas from the prospective of all key stake holders". Do I win "bulls*** bingo for the day?
Ros

 

Thanks Ros, that's clarifies things nicely.

You do wonder what the authors of such stuff think they are doing. They can't believe that it repesents transparency or any attempt to usefully inform. But reading between the lines it says, if you are a patient, something is coming your way and although it might sound good it won't be.

Bill

 

After the Griffiths Report was published in 1988 espousing the principles of general management with care in the community I used to keep handy a pile of 'bingo' cards. Not your numerical type - but Bullsh!t Bingo - where the cards held phrases commonly used by the suits - like service optimisation, single user tariffs, patient journeys etc. Distributed prior to management meetings amongst the staff, they ensured an attentive audience - for all the right reasons, of course. A full house necessitated a clandestine squeak of "Bee Bee" often to the consternation and mystification of the management. Just as it should be.

 

The absolute best I ever heard was from a representative from a well known consultative firm who was tasked by the Minister to reduce spending on orthotic devices and aids to patients. Disguised as "centralising resources". He was brilliant he spoke for 45min on how he knew nothing about the subject and that's why are input was needed. Then we had 15min for questions!
He was so good we sat in awe at every new phrase of Bullsh**. He got a standing ovation which stunned him! Guess what budget was cut, but at least we were consulted!
Ros

 

At the same time as I find the use of BS unacceptable I find it quite understandable.

I think it arises for a number of reasons.
It superficially seems to satisfy the contemporary cry for transparency at least in retrospect;
it allows the BSers more time to formulate concrete plans;
it effectively maintains opacity;
it doesn't give others too much warning to allow them a better opportunity for oranising effective opposition;
it can be used to wrong foot the opposition;
it increases the BSer's chances of getting what he wants;
it reduces opposition, cost, time, money and energy expenditure if your lucky.

Bill

 

U-turn on podiatry changes in Northamptonshire

Full story