• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About benl

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member
  • Birthday 04/16/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. I'm not sure what state it is they are kept in? I think it's sad you've never seen the benefits programmes such as they can offer, perhaps volunteer and open your mind? Everyone can make a valuable contribution to society, and people with mental ill-health are included in that. There is evidence to suggest the less people with serious mental health conditions are excluded from society, the lower their care needs are. Shunning people doesn't work, giving them purpose through schemes such as this can improve lives. On a side note, have a look at the Global Burden of Disease report, it shows that nearly half is attributable to mental ill-health with only a fraction of the money spent on physical health (even though separating the two is often artificial). My only fear with these project is capital expenditure doesn't always equate to care, yes they have a new building but are they proposing better or new services with it?
  2. As a genuine question, how much damage was done by closing Glenside and how much pressure has this placed on the rest of the system? Whilst I suspect it wasn't up to modern standards it seemed to be closed without any sort of strategic plan and in the years since there has been a lot of talk about the lack of social care/residential facilities. If it was a cock-up how has the minister who recommended its closure escaped repercussions? I'm pretty naive when it comes to what is expected in terms of legal requirements, but surely something OK is better than an abject shortage?
  3. Does anyone know if this figure includes the 'Meals-on-Wheels' service, as I think they are made in the hospital kitchens? If so, perhaps the loss is partly cost of the service? That said they could even up the prices of the vending machines in the hospital, it's pretty cheap for the NHS.
  4. Admin is a bit of a nightmare in every hospital, but Noble's does need to modernise. Discharge summaries are really in need of change to free up admin time but I think they are sorting these. The whole modernisation of IT systems that Quayle has overseen is pretty commendable IMHO. The IOM Govt has a pretty hard job with health and controlling spending. I think less is spent less per head on the IOM than in the UK but it's hard to separate the figures and with overspends etc. The other challenge on the Island is the demographic, it's 90,000 and very top heavy and so the spend will be disproportionate to the UK. Then there is the isolation, lack of on-site specialists (no friends to ask when the proverbial hits the fan) and covering 24 hour rotas. Change in the NHS is hard and changing a process takes on average 3 years. The Isle of Man has the potential to be nimble in this. I think online service could improve a lot and publishing transparent data re waiting times, incidents and infection rates would be a cheap and reasonable push for change. I wonder what other people think, crowd sourcing positive solutions might be a way forward as would frank discussions about what the island can afford. In positive news, is pushing some figures, as part of nursing recruitment which would suggest life expectancy is one of the best in the world. Whilst this could be trickery with stats, it could equally prove that current achievements with the health service are spot on?
  5. Declaring my interest, I am a doctor but not a BMA member. With regards to the BMA leak I doubt many are that surprised. They were whatsapp messages and if you don't think the UK govt have something similar between themselves I'd be surprised. I think the tactics stated were already visible maximum impact with minimal damage - junior doctors aren't essential for a few days during working hours. Pay is an issue, not because of the overall lack of it, but the relative decrease over the years with pay freezes and shift of fees and training costs. No doctor can realistically say they struggle to pay basic bills if they live sensibly. The slap in the face of being told it was a pay rise when in reality it was a complex cut also really pissed people off. Morale in junior doctors is pretty low at the minute (not helped by the BMA campaign) and pay I think is seen as the only thing that will change. There are so many gaps in rotas you end up picking up crap from sub optimal care. I think replacement of doctors duties in some areas is feasible and realistic. It is a waste of resources for doctors to take blood or be a glorified scribe for their boss whilst being not always dealing with the nicest colleagues. I'd happily take a cut in exchange for fewer hours. We should be careful what we wish for in the NHS because if you take away control of the markets you will end up where demand and shortage drives up wages - look at locum fees. Still, I'm grateful for what I get to do, it is a privilege, just wish the politics side of it was less of a thing.
  6. I'm not an expert on the consultant contract, but I'm certain they don't get paid this figure which is spurious. RogerMexico linked to the salary but this cost will cover pension contributions, national insurance contributions, some continued professional development and the expense of hiring a locum to cover annual leave. There is also the cost of college membership, GMC registration, exams and indemnity cover. The cost of training has now been shifted onto graduates, new doctors in the UK carry around £90k of debt. Doctors do earn well over the national average but I think this figure is quite misleading, for any job the cost is above that of the salary alone. The NHS works to the UK's advantage of restricting free market economics with labour, effectively one large employer, don't like it look else where for work! It is down to society to determine the worth of doctors (though doctors can be manipulative and have a powerful trade union). Perhaps a more interesting question would be the economic benefit of a consultant (would be almost impossible to calculate) but does the average benefit in health and therefore productivity exceed their cost? If you asked how much an MHK costs after considering pensions, salary, travel and expenses I'd estimate the figure exceeds £100k I don't think anyone can say they do private work for moral gain (unless you donate profits of said work or it is charitable). The hours are outside of the contracted NHS (annual leave/time off) and it does have unintended benefits to the NHS. The rich pay twice and some money goes toward hospital service, NHS waiting lists get shorter, and you maximise use of resources i.e. one constant works 120% of expected hours.
  7. The Swedes have a pretty interesting view on road accidents called Vision Zero. They say we should anticipate that all people make mistakes and it is for the system to accommodate and minimise the consequences of it. The idea is now that it should now be almost impossible to suffer serious injury in a modern car on Swedish Roads. Their fatality rate is 87% lower than the Manx figures. Unlikely with Manx geography but interesting.
  8. Aye, doctors do have job security. Medicine can learn a lot from the aviation industry, there was a guy Atal Gawande (?) who said similar things. Barrie, some say the hippocratic oath at graduation others say a modified form of it. Now aways you pay your allegiance to the GMC (and a wedge of cash).
  9. I think a couple of point here are a bit muddled. No junior doctor can opt out of working weekends, I believe the clause exists in some consultant contracts but I think it's in single figure what percentage 'use' it. Most doctors work weekends but at present, like with most NHS staff, receive a premium for working such hours as part of the overall package. The independent review of pay and conditions 'DDRB' suggested this could be done but there would need to be a rise in basic ay so as to keep pay within the current cost envelope, or cost neutral. The government opted not to do this, offering a lower overall increase 11% and removing weekend premiums. To avoid backlash it would be cost neutral for those currently in training but then result in an overall pay reduction for those starting training schemes in the next couple of years. The changes are complex and both sides are trying to hide behind figures. At present there are very few trusts who have planned a 7 day service (non-emergency) and at present would simply mean that staffing of doctors would be spread across 7 days rather than 5. Problem arises here with what can be achieved if more doctors are working, to function like any other day of the week you'd need cover from other allied professionals, more radiologists, OTs, PTs, and social workers. At present this isn't accounted for or planned for. Perhaps it will be after the doctors are sorted. With tuition fees now only a fraction of the training is covered by the government, graduates are leaving with £70k debts when including maintenance. Other studies include salary in the cost of training doctors and exclude the value of service provision. The issue about being at work and not working is difficult and depends on the job, some posts require you to be at work and be working all that time, others have non-resident on-call which the proposed rate would be around a few pounds per hour whether you spend the whole night answering calls or if your phone doesn't ring at all. The NHS is a political institution like it or not, and doctors need to accept that change will happen and they are civil servants. I think Hunt has honest intentions but he made a mess of imposing the contract which has played into the BMAs hands, who have then whipped up their members. The government has mislead the public with use of data and the interpretation of said data, but a weekend effect probably does it exist, but there isn't so much to say it is down to staffing. You may not think the NHS is great and is financially struggling but from a public health point of view offers a lot of bang for your buck. It is actually one of the most efficient world wide. Funding has actually been relatively static since the recession in the UK as a share of GDP whilst other countries have increased it, the world bank have some great data on this. Private health care particularly US models increase pay for staff, costs for consumers and don't actually improve outcomes. That said the decision is political and down to what people want. It's complex and no one person will ever be right. I don't support striking but what do you do other than pack up and leave, approximately 40% of my cohort now work in Australia but most will return I guess.
  10. Thanks for all the replies, and thank you for being so reasoned. As I say, I am not going to pass comment on the merits of either argument, but hopefully both sides can reflect and learn from this and both Manx Radio and democratic processes in general (freedom of speech etc) can show themselves in the best light.
  11. I am Sid, yes, and I make no effort to conceal it. I also make a point of not taking either side on here, only suggesting some decorum in what could so easily be a reasoned debate. I will of course be more than willing to either retract or justify any statement you feel and consequentially prove to be unfounded.
  12. I'd be more inclined to believe you Sid if you classified what made him 'nasty and dangerous'. He has objected to a planning proposal (with many others - whether or not this is the representative view I can not say) and complained about Stu Peters and even if you don't agree with the content he has at least made public his complaint and put his name to it, the same will happen if he is found by the regulator to be wrong. Need I otherwise say the only thing they have directly rallied for is that the horse trams not be put on the walk way. I think everyone would agree the fabric of the promenade is in poor condition. I'm sure his opinion is one sided but challenge it with substance not vitriol.
  13. I'm sorry Boredom, I take it back. I confused usernames amidst the quick replies and the last one I had read was the sarcastic one. Either way, it's not a personal vendetta, I'm not here to tar names. Edited to correct my facts!
  14. Boredom I was just mentioning it as a polite correction to your assertion, but you're right it makes no difference, much in the same way if he was born here. I'm sorry I don't mean to lump everyone into the category, but I do sense it is becoming more and more of a pervasive theme in comments, which i regrettable when you think how many news stories and truly worthwhile contributions this website has made over the years.
  15. Regardless of who is right or wrong I think it's a shame the debate has been dragged down to this level. As you said you doubt Stu Peters is losing any sleep over it. Both have their names in the public arena through choice so can expect a degree of criticism, but some of the comments go far beyond that, even for Manx Forums. In one thread on here some are advocating more expressive dialogue of political opinion, yet here seem to be contradicting that. It's a shame for the whole Island when people start spewing the whole 'deportation' and what is Manx argument and for what it's worth his Grandfather was an MHK (Frank Crowe) and also, represented the Isle of Man in the Commonwealth Games.