• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


wrighty last won the day on June 6

wrighty had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,277 Excellent

About wrighty

  • Rank
    MF Veteran
  • Birthday 03/25/1970

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,716 profile views
  1. I'm not an official spokesman for the DHSC, and these are my own views as a private citizen, albeit 'in the business'. The way our adversarial legal system works is that each side goes all out for the win, or at least tries to maximally mitigate their losses, and the court decides the final outcome. If it doesn't happen like that, then one side or the other can claim that they weren't represented properly or whatever, and there can be appeal after appeal. It's why even the most blatant murderer has a defence lawyer, even when there is no real defence. In medico-legal cases the claimant will usually go after everyone - I read about this stuff all the time. I'm not at all talking about this case, but usually if a patient is wronged somehow they will try to sue the GP, the hospital, the GP's receptionist, the secretarial staff... In return, those being sued will try to deny liability as much as they realistically can and try to attach it to everyone else, including often the claimant. This can sometimes appear callous and unfair, as is apparent in this case, but it is up to the lawyers and the court to view things rationally rather than emotionally. It is sometimes the case that the claimant is at fault, and at least partially responsible for their own misfortune - if the hospital being sued didn't explore that possibility in a legal setting they wouldn't be looking after the taxpayers' interests properly. With regard to referrals - those in receipt will often be getting several per day. They have to be guided by the information in the letter. I frequently receive letters marked 'urgent', with clinical information that indicates the problem is not at all urgent. I may therefore downgrade them as routine. When waiting lists are too long, and I don't think anyone denies that they weren't in this case, then there is a tendency for the proportion of referrals received marked 'urgent' to increase, in a well meaning attempt to attach priority to an individual patient. Sometimes it is patients who complain loudly, or are educated and eloquent, or who threaten to contact their MHK, that get sent in as urgent referrals. It is the responsibility of the receiver to judge all referrals and prioritise them accordingly. If every one was marked 'urgent' none of them would be. The first I heard of this case was today in the newspaper. If I read it correctly, the DHSC's lawyer explored the possibility that the patient was at least partly responsible for the delay in being seen. This was rejected. The court did agree however that the GP in question was partly liable - there could be many reasons for this decision, such as not making the reason for urgency apparent, or not telling the patient it was urgent. I don't know, since I'm not party to the full information. The DHSC were also deemed responsible, presumably because of the length of the waiting list, or the fact that the receiving consultant downgraded the referral (inexplicably according to the lawyer in the paper) This is clearly a tragic case where a young man has died as a result of a failure of the system. As well as the compensation payout undoubtedly due, let's hope the system can change and improve as a result.
  2. It astonishes me, virtually on a daily basis, that people would prefer to go under my knife (and hammer, saw and various power tools), than determinedly try to help themselves through exercise - it's as though I'm not believed when I say physiotherapy is the best answer to their problem. Many folk these days seem to think that a scan and an operation could fix anything, instantly, if only there was enough money to pay for it. ETA - I like making people better by operating on them. It's far more satisfying for me than upsetting them by not offering surgery. That I often opt for the latter is because more than most, I understand the limitations of surgery.
  3. Echoes my thoughts exactly. I can only assume that RC hasn't seen the spoof blog - surely he would have either referenced it directly in order to laugh it off, or he would have changed his own so it wasn't so similar?
  4. How do you suggest charging the staff, and not everyone else? Wouldn't staff just remove their staff ID and park for free like everyone else?
  5. Reminds me of the old lady who, after she'd died, her family found a jar labelled and filled with 'pieces of string too short to be of any use'
  6. I think you're right. There have been several serious injuries though, including 7 major trauma calls on Wednesday alone with 3 off-island transfers. We've managed to fill the major trauma centre's trauma ITU again, and I know that many of the injuries have been life changing, if not ending. I don't know whether to say 'well done to all concerned' or 'FFS, isn't it about time this mayhem was canned?'. Or perhaps both.
  7. Never came across 'Biff' as a term of abuse in my childhood, but we definitely used 'Flid' (never seen it written down, so no idea of spelling) and 'Spaz'. Just like 'idiot', 'imbecile' and 'moron' used to be official medical terminology, as well as 'Mongol' (short for 'Mongoloid idiot' = Down's syndrome). Whatever medical terms are used, they get abbreviated and used as words of abuse. Eventually the medical terms are changed as they are seen as offensive, until the new ones start being used as terms of abuse, and then they change again.
  8. I used to be a boxing fan, 20+ years ago, in the time of Tyson, Frank Bruno, Nigel Benn, Barry McGuigan, Chris Eubank... But it's had its day in my opinion. Too much of a circus rather than a man-on-man contest. Too many weight classes, too many 'world titles'. But, this 'fight' attracted my attention. Perhaps it did the same for others and will reinvigorate boxing, while bringing MMA to a wider audience. Wouldn't be surprised to see a re-match of sorts.
  9. The £105 is, I believe, paid to the practice and is used to pay other staff and practice expenses. It's not the case that your GP takes home £105 just for having you on his/her list. As for medics' pay, for consultants at least, the pay scale is in the public domain. Some will be contracted for extra sessions over and above the notional 10 programmed activities that the base salary is based on. For private work, consultants pay an hourly rate to use a room in PPU for consultations. It's about £22 per hour, more if you choose to have a nurse or HCA with you. Other private costs, such as ward stays, theatre time, implants etc are charged to the patient. I don't do private operating - gave it up about 5 years ago - but when I did the going rate for a hip replacement was about £8000 all in, of which my fee was £850. Out of that I'd pay my assistant 10%, my secretary 5%, and most of the rest was indemnity insurance and tax. I'd end up with about £200. Probably less than the plumber clears for installing a bathroom. Now I'm not having a pop at plumbers - they do valuable work. But whereas you might have a crack at installing your own bathroom with a mate, you wouldn't try your own hip replacement.
  10. Times have changed. In the pub last night they'd got old TT/MGP footage playing on the big screen. Don't know from when exactly, but Joey Dunlop was riding. There was rain, spray, standing water on the road. These days if there's a damp patch under a tree in Ramsey they seem to delay the start, and I don't recall them ever going out in rain.
  11. Yes, as you know. I'd be happy to pay to park at the hospital, as long as it was a simple system and was administered fairly. Does that count as volunteering to get paid a bit less?
  12. Really? My impression is that anyone with a bike and license can turn up and have a go. I may be exaggerating a little, but really, what is the qualifying criteria for the MGP?
  13. Charging - bring it on. Barrier system. Staff pay monthly, with a permit that goes in the windscreen to avoid the need for tickets. Everyone else takes a ticket, patients can get it validated for free, relatives/visitors small charge for 2 hours, ramp up charges for more than that. A&E car park free for patients/people bringing patients only - staff/visitors/park and ride abusers clamped and fined. My opinion, and not government/hospital policy. There are almost enough car park spaces, it's rare I struggle to find one there, so a slight reduction in park usage as a result of the above on a break even basis will be beneficial and relatively painless.
  14. If that is the case then they really must have a death wish. Given they're meant to be banned, motorcyclists won't be expecting them and perhaps will be more likely to hit one. They may not like the ban, and I can appreciate that perspective, but really - just deal with it.
  15. What bits of what Hawking's said do you disagree with? He's not being gifted the upper hand in a so-called debate with Hunt because he's either a physicist or severely physically disabled, but this pairing means he is famous and well-regarded, so what he says will get publicised. I have sympathy with Hunt's position too - I don't think he's trying to run the service into the ground, he's just trying to balance the books while pretending that the service is affordable, which it isn't in its current form.