reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Aaahhh, my little Bette Noire returns...
Still choosing to discount the obvious and selectively ignore postings that state facts about the NHS?
What part of REDUCING UNAVOIDABLE DEATHS don't you understand? You can't blame me for the headline title the NHS chose the damn thing! Are you holding
me responsible for the reasons behind the report and it's content as well?
As for working in the NHS, let me make myself clear to save you repeating yourself, on this fact at least, I don't work in the NHS, got it? I have
however 60'yrs of seeing its highs and lows and some disgraceful failures of care which I have already described, that gives me a right to speak on
the state and reputation of the NHS, as a taxpayer I contribute, quite rightly to the running costs of the NHS, including your wages, that also gives
me a right to speak in what the last time I went out the door or read the Daily Mail, is still a democracy. btw I also read the Guardian, Telegraph
and if my youngest lets me have her copy, the Times, not as often as The Daily Mail, but then I can manage the Daily Mail crossword!
Improved Infection Control, well it could not have got much worse I suppose, so I will agree with you that it has improved, but unless I am mistaken,
people are still uhhh, um, err., di, no, expiring, under NHS "care" as a result of infections caught in hospital. Or have you taken over the role of
UK Coroner as well? The cause of death on many death certificates related to deaths whilst under NHS care for many families appears to have little to
do with what they actually saw their deceased relatives die in front of their eyes from, or are they all lying as well in your "experience"?
Your next 2 rantings I dismiss by stating I have already posted that the worst appears to be over, i.e. past it's Nadir, or have you selectively
chosen to ignore that fact as well?
As for your last item, the Keogh Report that you have chosen to mention, perhaps it should have looked at all 350 hospitals. I bet that would make the
facts look a lot different to the crazy figures the biased press has been reporting before, during and since the report was published?
So, othersideofthecoin, how do you address the postings of other people on this thread that obviously report experiences of the NHS somewhat different
to the picture you insist and maintain is your version of it? I spent almost 40 yrs in my sector experiencing far worse words than you use, plus
violence, dangerous working conditions and life threatening hazards, threats to kill, PTSD, the stress of saving attempted suicides, road crash
victims and seen death more than once. So, I don't for one moment believe that working in casualty (ER) for the USA, or indeed in the NHS in general
is an easy option. People giving you grief for doing your job, at work, or within ATS will remain one of the issues facing people working in the
public sector especially face to face with the public.
Oh yes, almost forgot, those 2 books that I won't gain any benefit from reading...
Nursing in Context (nice title that)
Ch6 p108 has a wee quote halfway down that goes like this...
"The NMC code of practice states that as a nurse or midwife, you: 'must act without delay if you believe that you! a colleague or anyone else may be
putting someone at risk'.
Must be an overwhelming need for compulsory eyesight testing at the front line then?
Compassion, Caring and Communication
Ch3 p63 contains a final point within the chapter summary...
Raising any concerns related to poor-quality care.
Well, that would be a start I suppose.
Now, obviously I have not read either book in its entirety, which I confess I won't be doing as that would be unnecessary to obtain a flavour of what
is contained therein.
I look forward to your next debunking attempt and diatribe with feigned interest.
There We Are Then!
edit on 7-1-2014 by Shuftystick because: Punctuation, spelling and omissions
edit on 7-1-2014 by Shuftystick because: