Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Nomadic Raptor

Nobles hospital

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Yes, you’ve misinterpreted it. Probably because you chose to.

transformational - brings about change that has purpose and can be sustained 

modernizing - sweeping aside those debilitating practices you describe and putting the place on a solid footing.

evangelical leadership - walking the talk, having credibility, believing themselves in a better place, embracing the Chetwode principles

reconnecting with the operational front line without filter - talking to and listening directly to the people. Being there, amongst them, with credibility. 

giving clear direction -sorting out the mess and putting the place on a path that people uunderstand  and buy in to

and no quarter to anyone who seeks to disrupt or hijack. - which hopefully speaks for itself.

This part of your post is irrelevant. It's management speak. People at the coal face either don't understand it or simply cannot listen to it because they know it is meaningless.

58 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Tell me how that doesn’t meet your objectives? The best bosses I’ve had demonstrated those traits, and I hope that I managed it to some extent. Custody was a shambles when I took over in 2012. Untrained staff, a screwed up shift pattern, understaffed, poor risk assessment, shit conditions. Over the following 3yrs they were involved, listened to and supported. They helped design their new environment and build better processes. We showed we were improving and managed to get a guarantee of ring fenced staffing. Training was redesigned and doubled in length. The place was safer, and went from the bastion of the damned to a credible and professional place unit. And that’s not just me sucking my own exhaust- directly commented on by health care professionals who by coincidence also work at Nobles.

I am not saying for one moment that I’d personally have had the skill or capacity to do that with the Health Service, but the principles are scalable. The recently retired Mick Barton transformed Durham Police. Northants is going through similar transformation under Nick Adderley. 

I am not describing someone who knows nothing but theory. I’m using the words to describe a  leader who builds a culture of trust through the nine habits. A ‘do-er’.

What sort of leader do you think they should have? 

This part of your post is getting close to what I was asking for. I don't understand why you were so reluctant to give it. I have no problem at all with you telling me what you think you achieved, if that's all true then hats off to you. The point I have been trying to get to all along is this - do you think you would have achieved what you did if everyone you were trying to work with knew you were transient? If you had not been here long enough to fully understand the complexity of the system and they knew that ultimately you and or people further up the tree from you were flown in simply to 'slash and burn' or 'shock and awe' and weren't actually invested in the endeavour? Do you believe you would have achieved the same result?

The sort of leader I think they should have is someone who is invested in it working. Someone flying in with the brief to 'shock and awe', who's going to be paid whatever the outcome and who's family are not going to suffer the consequences in any case is not invested. Someone who's not afraid to go and see what's actually happening on the front line (and I don't mean scurry through without stopping), look people directly in the eye and deal with the shit they're dealing with including the consequences is far more likely to be invested. So far this isn't happening. Unfortunately nothing in the Michael report gives me hope it's about to happen. Hopefully I am wrong.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by maynragh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maynragh said:

The sort of leader I think they should have is someone who is invested in it working. Someone flying in with the brief to 'shock and awe', who's going to be paid whatever the outcome and who's family are not going to suffer the consequences in any case is not invested.

Yes. As I said. If you have no ‘skin in the game’, nothing invested and are being paid whatever then what is the incentive to do a good job?

At least healthcare professionals have signed up to a moral code and are regulated. Hospital managers are not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maynragh said:

This part of your post is irrelevant. It's management speak. People at the coal face either don't understand it or simply cannot listen to it because they know it is meaningless.

This part of your post is getting close to what I was asking for. I don't understand why you were so reluctant to give it. I have no problem at all with you telling me what you think you achieved, if that's all true then hats off to you. The point I have been trying to get to all along is this - do you think you would have achieved what you did if everyone you were trying to work with knew you were transient? If you had not been here long enough to fully understand the complexity of the system and they knew that ultimately you and or people further up the tree from you were flown in simply to 'slash and burn' or 'shock and awe' and weren't actually invested in the endeavour? Do you believe you would have achieved the same result?

The sort of leader I think they should have is someone who is invested in it working. Someone flying in with the brief to 'shock and awe', who's going to be paid whatever the outcome and who's family are not going to suffer the consequences in any case is not invested. Someone who's not afraid to go and see what's actually happening on the front line (and I don't mean scurry through without stopping), look people directly in the eye and deal with the shit they're dealing with including the consequences is far more likely to be invested. So far this isn't happening. Unfortunately nothing in the Michael report gives me hope it's about to happen. Hopefully I am wrong.  

 

 

 

 

Interesting. And when the transient CEO and the transient transformation lead have gone (even if successful) who heads up the organisation then? Will they be invested? And do we trust our politicians to (a) make the right appointments and (b) keep their noses out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patient centred said:

Yes. As I said. If you have no ‘skin in the game’, nothing invested and are being paid whatever then what is the incentive to do a good job?

At least healthcare professionals have signed up to a moral code and are regulated. Hospital managers are not. 

Actually not the case. https://hr.gov.im/media/1146/urn8codeofconductforpublics.pdf

 

Also see  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maynragh said:

This part of your post is irrelevant. It's management speak. People at the coal face either don't understand it or simply cannot listen to it because they know it is meaningless.

This part of your post is getting close to what I was asking for. I don't understand why you were so reluctant to give it. I have no problem at all with you telling me what you think you achieved, if that's all true then hats off to you. The point I have been trying to get to all along is this - do you think you would have achieved what you did if everyone you were trying to work with knew you were transient? If you had not been here long enough to fully understand the complexity of the system and they knew that ultimately you and or people further up the tree from you were flown in simply to 'slash and burn' or 'shock and awe' and weren't actually invested in the endeavour? Do you believe you would have achieved the same result?

The sort of leader I think they should have is someone who is invested in it working. Someone flying in with the brief to 'shock and awe', who's going to be paid whatever the outcome and who's family are not going to suffer the consequences in any case is not invested. Someone who's not afraid to go and see what's actually happening on the front line (and I don't mean scurry through without stopping), look people directly in the eye and deal with the shit they're dealing with including the consequences is far more likely to be invested. So far this isn't happening. Unfortunately nothing in the Michael report gives me hope it's about to happen. Hopefully I am wrong.  

 

 

 

 

I wasn’t reluctant to give anything. I didn’t expect to have to explain it in such detail, that’s all.

 

Top end executives are transient. Chiefs move between police forces. Health service is no different. Most actually are driven by the principles of public life, and want to make a difference wherever they are. 

To suggest otherwise is unfair to the new incumbent unless you have clear evidence that they are not up to the job, or that they are purely self-serving.

Don’t forget there was nothing at all preventing anyone already in the service from applying for the job and being measured for it. Whether they did, and were found wanting, or didn’t  bother at all, I don’t know. 

The person they think is the right one for the job has been appointed. If the scale and magnitude of the task is as awesome as some suggest, then quite likely the right option is for someone to come in, take some hard decisions and build the team to take the job forward after they’ve gone. Mike Culverhouse employed pretty much that tactic to good effect. 

Edited by Derek Flint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike C. wasn't too popular in some quarters by the end though, was he? Didn't he depart under something of a cloud IIRC, various claims made against him? Genuine question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Doesn’t mean anyone has read it. 
And so what if they are broken??

i know for sure that the conflict of interest policy is regularly transgressed  when it’s deemed fit  

yet again, just because it’s on paper does not mean it is being followed  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Mike C. wasn't too popular in some quarters by the end though, was he? Didn't he depart under something of a cloud IIRC, various claims made against him? Genuine 

I'd never have classed him as popular. There were casualties too. Some didn't deserve the demise they had. But it was inevitable..he had to take the force from what it had become to where it needed to be. It was an uncomfy ride but he would take unpopular decisions and shoulder the liability. 

There was some sort of conduct investigation near the end led by Hampshire I think. Dont recall anything coming of it. 

And that was a force of 236 people. The health service is a much bigger, more complex entity for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patient centred said:

Doesn’t mean anyone has read it. 
And so what if they are broken??

i know for sure that the conflict of interest policy is regularly transgressed  when it’s deemed fit  

yet again, just because it’s on paper does not mean it is being followed  

 

 

I totally agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

Work going on around private patients, does this mean they are going to open it back up?

It needed a complete refurb, so I think it was only a temp. Closure 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea announced at the time was to close, refurb and find a private operator to stem losses.

Of course, if computer systems were properly set up and input time and expense could have been correctly recorded and billed to make a profit.

Is it just me, or am I wrong, wouldn’t finding a private operator interested come first so that any refurb was what they needed?

Haven't seen that announcement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The idea announced at the time was to close, refurb and find a private operator to stem losses.

Of course, if computer systems were properly set up and input time and expense could have been correctly recorded and billed to make a profit.

Is it just me, or am I wrong, wouldn’t finding a private operator interested come first so that any refurb was what they needed?

Haven't seen that announcement 

Our company provides healthcare and seeing some of the invoices coming in from Nobles not sure how they are losing money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Is it just me, or am I wrong, wouldn’t finding a private operator interested come first so that any refurb was what they needed?

I must admit that struck me as being strange as well. IIRC didn't the Minister say it would be closed for 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

It needed a complete refurb, so I think it was only a temp. Closure 

I'm concerned that privatisation - if only in part - of our Manx NHS is on the cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...