UPDATE: Dorset County Hospital forced to find £6million more savings

Hospital's financial fears over new parking charge guidelines

Hospital's financial fears over new parking charge guidelines

First published in News
Last updated

NEW parking guidelines are set to squeeze finances at Dorset County Hospital at a time when the trust is already having to save millions of pounds.

Dorset County Hospital (DCH) has been ordered to save £6million next year as part of national hospital cutbacks which will see the NHS make savings of four per cent year on year.

Parking charges bring in cash of around £500,000 per year for the hospital in Dorchester, a spokesperson said.

Patient governor Derek Julian welcomed the move but warned it could put more pressure on DCH finances at a time when they are being ordered to save funds.

He said: “My view has always been that patients and relatives of patients should have a hospital experience that causes them as little stress as is possible.

“But the hospital has been told to save money next year, and that is something they must consider.

“When the government makes orders like this, it has an effect right the way along the line. The money has to come from somewhere.”

Guidelines issued by the Department of Health this week mean that hospitals will need to consider offering free or reduced charges to those whose relatives are seriously ill.

There is already provision on offer at DCH for the charges to be waived or reduced in certain circumstances upon request.

But the guidelines state that concessions should be available for people with disabilities, those who have frequent outpatient appointments, visitors whose relatives are gravely ill or will have an extended stay in hospital, and staff working shifts which mean public transport cannot be used.

Other concessions should be considered, such as discounts for volunteers or staff who car share.

And ‘pay on exit’ stations were recommended so drivers only pay for the amount of time they spend in the car park.

A spokesperson for Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “We are currently reviewing our provision of car parking and travel options for getting to the hospital, so we will con-sider the Department of Health guidance as part of that work.

“As it has only just been issued we haven’t had a chance to look at the full implications of the guidance yet.”

Mr Julian said: “In the case of DCH I know there have been problems locally with parking in the streets around the hospital, so hopefully these guidelines will help to ease that.

“It is expensive at the moment if you are having to go there regularly and a lot of people who do visit the hospital a lot are elderly or disabled and so not able to get public transport.

“Obviously having to put these concessions in place will cause problems for the hospital as they will have to find the extra money from somewhere.

“But anything that makes it less stressful for the patients and staff must be welcomed.”

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:45am Tue 26 Aug 14

La Vigneron says...

One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space.
'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses!
One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space. 'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses! La Vigneron
  • Score: 36

10:56am Tue 26 Aug 14

portlandboy says...

It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment.
If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.
It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment. If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets. portlandboy
  • Score: 16

11:02am Tue 26 Aug 14

portlandboy says...

La Vigneron wrote:
One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space.
'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses!
Just to be clear, Patient Govenors are unpaid, voluntary positions. All Foundation Trusts have to have them as representatives of the patients and for the patients. Each Patient Govenor represents their own area within the hospital's 'catchment' area.
They attend meetings with the hospital management and put forward issues that may arise on wards or in any hospital department - basically the patiens' voice.
[quote][p][bold]La Vigneron[/bold] wrote: One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space. 'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses![/p][/quote]Just to be clear, Patient Govenors are unpaid, voluntary positions. All Foundation Trusts have to have them as representatives of the patients and for the patients. Each Patient Govenor represents their own area within the hospital's 'catchment' area. They attend meetings with the hospital management and put forward issues that may arise on wards or in any hospital department - basically the patiens' voice. portlandboy
  • Score: 16

11:06am Tue 26 Aug 14

caapprentice says...

portlandboy says... permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend.
IMHO At the very least a permit should form part of the letter requesting attendance at any clinic.
I disagree with paying for parking at the hospital, nobody goes there voluntarily although I expect that if parking was free, there would probably be those who took advantage.
portlandboy says... permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend. IMHO At the very least a permit should form part of the letter requesting attendance at any clinic. I disagree with paying for parking at the hospital, nobody goes there voluntarily although I expect that if parking was free, there would probably be those who took advantage. caapprentice
  • Score: 11

1:57pm Tue 26 Aug 14

MrsSmart says...

caapprentice wrote:
portlandboy says... permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend.
IMHO At the very least a permit should form part of the letter requesting attendance at any clinic.
I disagree with paying for parking at the hospital, nobody goes there voluntarily although I expect that if parking was free, there would probably be those who took advantage.
That's a great idea - a permit with your appointment letter - that might solve the problem of people using "free spaces" when not officially attending the hospital.
[quote][p][bold]caapprentice[/bold] wrote: portlandboy says... permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend. IMHO At the very least a permit should form part of the letter requesting attendance at any clinic. I disagree with paying for parking at the hospital, nobody goes there voluntarily although I expect that if parking was free, there would probably be those who took advantage.[/p][/quote]That's a great idea - a permit with your appointment letter - that might solve the problem of people using "free spaces" when not officially attending the hospital. MrsSmart
  • Score: 9

3:45pm Tue 26 Aug 14

dignified says...

Actually wards and clinics issue permits for relatives on request that will allow extended parking for no additional cost. DCH car parking - though ridiculously inadequate in terms of capacity - is very lenient and inexpensive relative to other trusts. After all, it is about the only thing anybody is asked to pay for - just about everything else is free for the vast majority particularly the over 60's. I find it fairly extraordinary that people can moan about paying £1,60 for a parking slot then happily accept thousands of pounds worth of free treatment over the years the cost of which is likely to be in excess of any amount they may have shelled out in tax during their working life. As it is 'free' the service will be inevitably abused -eg missed appointments or 'no-shows'. and wastage of expensive medications. One downside is that the system is not sustainable and will collapse at some point. Then there really will be something to worry about.
Actually wards and clinics issue permits for relatives on request that will allow extended parking for no additional cost. DCH car parking - though ridiculously inadequate in terms of capacity - is very lenient and inexpensive relative to other trusts. After all, it is about the only thing anybody is asked to pay for - just about everything else is free for the vast majority particularly the over 60's. I find it fairly extraordinary that people can moan about paying £1,60 for a parking slot then happily accept thousands of pounds worth of free treatment over the years the cost of which is likely to be in excess of any amount they may have shelled out in tax during their working life. As it is 'free' the service will be inevitably abused -eg missed appointments or 'no-shows'. and wastage of expensive medications. One downside is that the system is not sustainable and will collapse at some point. Then there really will be something to worry about. dignified
  • Score: 13

3:48pm Tue 26 Aug 14

weymouthfox says...

Parking at hospitals should be free- as it is in Wales. A permit could be issued with the appointment letter. Wards and A&E would have some for emergency cases. As for Directors, surely they have comapny cars and reserved parking spaces.
Parking at hospitals should be free- as it is in Wales. A permit could be issued with the appointment letter. Wards and A&E would have some for emergency cases. As for Directors, surely they have comapny cars and reserved parking spaces. weymouthfox
  • Score: 3

3:56pm Tue 26 Aug 14

WykeReg says...

The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter. WykeReg
  • Score: -2

4:06pm Tue 26 Aug 14

February1948 says...

It's not the cost of parking that I object to - it's the lack of parking space at DCH. I had a six-month checkup after heart surgery; there was nowhere to park; I ended up in Williams Avenue and got a £60 fine which I could ill afford to pay. I suspect many others did that day as well as Williams Avenue was quite full of other parked cars. I arrived at the cardiac clinic in a state of anxiety, which did not help, having driven around for ages looking for a space and then rushing from Williams Avenue, by then late for my appointment. Get rid of the shrubberies as a first step may help. A parking permit with the appointment letter would also go a long way towards easing the problem.
It's not the cost of parking that I object to - it's the lack of parking space at DCH. I had a six-month checkup after heart surgery; there was nowhere to park; I ended up in Williams Avenue and got a £60 fine which I could ill afford to pay. I suspect many others did that day as well as Williams Avenue was quite full of other parked cars. I arrived at the cardiac clinic in a state of anxiety, which did not help, having driven around for ages looking for a space and then rushing from Williams Avenue, by then late for my appointment. Get rid of the shrubberies as a first step may help. A parking permit with the appointment letter would also go a long way towards easing the problem. February1948
  • Score: 13

4:20pm Tue 26 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

WykeReg wrote:
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
Those techniques and practices (or equivalent) are used by many of the commissioners in charge of seeing that al NHS services are safely and economically delivered - where their directors will allow. The arrogance and big egos of many directors, senior managers, consultants and surgeons, who frequently just plough on with what they want to provide, rather than with what the commissioners' research indicate is needed by the communities they serve, are what wastes the most resources.

Unfortunately the frequent cuts and reorganisations forced on the NHS has left many of these middle managers under severe strain. Bad recruitment policies and practices ('jobs for the boys' and 'face fits/doesn't fit' instead of 'best candidate for the position') ensures that people who could - and would - bring beneficial change to CCGs are often overlooked in favour of those who will allow the status quo to remain.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.[/p][/quote]Those techniques and practices (or equivalent) are used by many of the commissioners in charge of seeing that al NHS services are safely and economically delivered - where their directors will allow. The arrogance and big egos of many directors, senior managers, consultants and surgeons, who frequently just plough on with what they want to provide, rather than with what the commissioners' research indicate is needed by the communities they serve, are what wastes the most resources. Unfortunately the frequent cuts and reorganisations forced on the NHS has left many of these middle managers under severe strain. Bad recruitment policies and practices ('jobs for the boys' and 'face fits/doesn't fit' instead of 'best candidate for the position') ensures that people who could - and would - bring beneficial change to CCGs are often overlooked in favour of those who will allow the status quo to remain. JackJohnson
  • Score: 4

8:18pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ksmain says...

portlandboy wrote:
It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment.
If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.
Oh dear my man - are you really only worried about shelling out a few pence to park somewhere? Nothing costs nothing these days and you are lucky in this country that all your hospital/GP visits cost you nothing whenever you step through their doors - apart from a few pence on your tax. Most other countries charge for their health service, or it just isn't there - just look at the USA - if you have no insurance for years you got nothing (even those with really serious illnesses), and they are only just turning round that mistake now but look at the effort required to do that.

The problem with DCH is it's situation - right smack in the middle of Dorchester with no room to expand. Perhaps the answer is to build a carpark upwards - but no doubt the locals will moan it spoils their view, like they moan when people park in front of their homes when they have nowhere to park at the hospital - so I am not sure the hospital administrators can win.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment. If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.[/p][/quote]Oh dear my man - are you really only worried about shelling out a few pence to park somewhere? Nothing costs nothing these days and you are lucky in this country that all your hospital/GP visits cost you nothing whenever you step through their doors - apart from a few pence on your tax. Most other countries charge for their health service, or it just isn't there - just look at the USA - if you have no insurance for years you got nothing (even those with really serious illnesses), and they are only just turning round that mistake now but look at the effort required to do that. The problem with DCH is it's situation - right smack in the middle of Dorchester with no room to expand. Perhaps the answer is to build a carpark upwards - but no doubt the locals will moan it spoils their view, like they moan when people park in front of their homes when they have nowhere to park at the hospital - so I am not sure the hospital administrators can win. ksmain
  • Score: 5

8:22pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ksmain says...

WykeReg wrote:
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.[/p][/quote]Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad. ksmain
  • Score: 0

6:47am Wed 27 Aug 14

La Vigneron says...

Portlandboy wrote:
Just to be clear, Patient Govenors are unpaid, voluntary positions. All Foundation Trusts have to have them as representatives of the patients and for the patients. Each Patient Govenor represents their own area within the hospital's 'catchment' area.
They attend meetings with the hospital management and put forward issues that may arise on wards or in any hospital department - basically the patiens' voice.

I stand corrected, I was not aware of the mechanics of the post, only that it was yet another, to me, new one.
Portlandboy wrote: Just to be clear, Patient Govenors are unpaid, voluntary positions. All Foundation Trusts have to have them as representatives of the patients and for the patients. Each Patient Govenor represents their own area within the hospital's 'catchment' area. They attend meetings with the hospital management and put forward issues that may arise on wards or in any hospital department - basically the patiens' voice. I stand corrected, I was not aware of the mechanics of the post, only that it was yet another, to me, new one. La Vigneron
  • Score: 5

8:49am Wed 27 Aug 14

Big Jimbo says...

We now live in an age of 'professional polititions most of whom put Thier financial future first. They are reluctant to raise taxes a few pence for fear they will be voted out of office and lose Thier very comfortable jobs. Unfortunatally this dichotomy affects , not only the crucial N.H.S. but also most of our political system. Compared,for instance,to a cup of tea or coffee, a few pence is a small part of any income how ever low that may be.
We now live in an age of 'professional polititions most of whom put Thier financial future first. They are reluctant to raise taxes a few pence for fear they will be voted out of office and lose Thier very comfortable jobs. Unfortunatally this dichotomy affects , not only the crucial N.H.S. but also most of our political system. Compared,for instance,to a cup of tea or coffee, a few pence is a small part of any income how ever low that may be. Big Jimbo
  • Score: 0

9:23am Wed 27 Aug 14

Douglas Mc says...

February1948 wrote:
It's not the cost of parking that I object to - it's the lack of parking space at DCH. I had a six-month checkup after heart surgery; there was nowhere to park; I ended up in Williams Avenue and got a £60 fine which I could ill afford to pay. I suspect many others did that day as well as Williams Avenue was quite full of other parked cars. I arrived at the cardiac clinic in a state of anxiety, which did not help, having driven around for ages looking for a space and then rushing from Williams Avenue, by then late for my appointment. Get rid of the shrubberies as a first step may help. A parking permit with the appointment letter would also go a long way towards easing the problem.
That is the problem. Inadequate car parking spaces at the Hospital leading to anxiety for patients and their relations and missed appointments costing DCH.

Now if more parking is free the problem will get worse as cars will stay longer and without car parking revenue the Trust won't be able to afford to provide more spaces.

Car parking charges do result in more cars using the available spaces - a greater turnover.
[quote][p][bold]February1948[/bold] wrote: It's not the cost of parking that I object to - it's the lack of parking space at DCH. I had a six-month checkup after heart surgery; there was nowhere to park; I ended up in Williams Avenue and got a £60 fine which I could ill afford to pay. I suspect many others did that day as well as Williams Avenue was quite full of other parked cars. I arrived at the cardiac clinic in a state of anxiety, which did not help, having driven around for ages looking for a space and then rushing from Williams Avenue, by then late for my appointment. Get rid of the shrubberies as a first step may help. A parking permit with the appointment letter would also go a long way towards easing the problem.[/p][/quote]That is the problem. Inadequate car parking spaces at the Hospital leading to anxiety for patients and their relations and missed appointments costing DCH. Now if more parking is free the problem will get worse as cars will stay longer and without car parking revenue the Trust won't be able to afford to provide more spaces. Car parking charges do result in more cars using the available spaces - a greater turnover. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 2

9:31am Wed 27 Aug 14

Douglas Mc says...

Big Jimbo wrote:
We now live in an age of 'professional polititions most of whom put Thier financial future first. They are reluctant to raise taxes a few pence for fear they will be voted out of office and lose Thier very comfortable jobs. Unfortunatally this dichotomy affects , not only the crucial N.H.S. but also most of our political system. Compared,for instance,to a cup of tea or coffee, a few pence is a small part of any income how ever low that may be.
Not the politicians but the Treasury, Bank of England, IMF etc. The theorists advise that raising tax can actually reduce the gross tax take.

More a question of choices - what should the tax take be spent on? But with an aging population and medical advances costs are rising - NHS, Pensions etc.
[quote][p][bold]Big Jimbo[/bold] wrote: We now live in an age of 'professional polititions most of whom put Thier financial future first. They are reluctant to raise taxes a few pence for fear they will be voted out of office and lose Thier very comfortable jobs. Unfortunatally this dichotomy affects , not only the crucial N.H.S. but also most of our political system. Compared,for instance,to a cup of tea or coffee, a few pence is a small part of any income how ever low that may be.[/p][/quote]Not the politicians but the Treasury, Bank of England, IMF etc. The theorists advise that raising tax can actually reduce the gross tax take. More a question of choices - what should the tax take be spent on? But with an aging population and medical advances costs are rising - NHS, Pensions etc. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 1

10:14am Wed 27 Aug 14

sunny1966 says...

I would still like someone to justify (A Parking Charge) ie how do you workout a parking charge. Im sure these charges are just plucked out of the air. What actually is a minutes parking charge costed at and how did they come to that charge. somone please explain the breakdown.
I would still like someone to justify (A Parking Charge) ie how do you workout a parking charge. Im sure these charges are just plucked out of the air. What actually is a minutes parking charge costed at and how did they come to that charge. somone please explain the breakdown. sunny1966
  • Score: 2

10:30am Wed 27 Aug 14

Big Jimbo says...

Douglas Mc says Treasury.B of E .I.M.F. Control Taxes ? Not true. Parliament raises taxes his comments smack of obfuscation.
Douglas Mc says Treasury.B of E .I.M.F. Control Taxes ? Not true. Parliament raises taxes his comments smack of obfuscation. Big Jimbo
  • Score: 0

11:01am Wed 27 Aug 14

hoopeybird says...

'Actually wards and clinics issue permits for relatives on request that will allow extended parking for no additional cost. DCH car parking - though ridiculously inadequate in terms of capacity - is very lenient and inexpensive relative to other trusts. After all, it is about the only thing anybody is asked to pay for - just about everything else is free for the vast majority particularly the over 60's. I find it fairly extraordinary that people can moan about paying £1,60 for a parking slot then happily accept thousands of pounds worth of free treatment over the years the cost of which is likely to be in excess of any amount they may have shelled out in tax during their working life. As it is 'free' the service will be inevitably abused -eg missed appointments or 'no-shows'. and wastage of expensive medications. One downside is that the system is not sustainable and will collapse at some point. Then there really will be something to worry about.'



Very well said.
'Actually wards and clinics issue permits for relatives on request that will allow extended parking for no additional cost. DCH car parking - though ridiculously inadequate in terms of capacity - is very lenient and inexpensive relative to other trusts. After all, it is about the only thing anybody is asked to pay for - just about everything else is free for the vast majority particularly the over 60's. I find it fairly extraordinary that people can moan about paying £1,60 for a parking slot then happily accept thousands of pounds worth of free treatment over the years the cost of which is likely to be in excess of any amount they may have shelled out in tax during their working life. As it is 'free' the service will be inevitably abused -eg missed appointments or 'no-shows'. and wastage of expensive medications. One downside is that the system is not sustainable and will collapse at some point. Then there really will be something to worry about.' Very well said. hoopeybird
  • Score: 7

11:38am Wed 27 Aug 14

Douglas Mc says...

Big Jimbo wrote:
Douglas Mc says Treasury.B of E .I.M.F. Control Taxes ? Not true. Parliament raises taxes his comments smack of obfuscation.
No Parliaments set tax in line with expert advice and the need to remain competitive with other Countries. There is a limit to how much can be taken before receipts actually fall as businesses etc leave our shores (for tax purposes anyway).
[quote][p][bold]Big Jimbo[/bold] wrote: Douglas Mc says Treasury.B of E .I.M.F. Control Taxes ? Not true. Parliament raises taxes his comments smack of obfuscation.[/p][/quote]No Parliaments set tax in line with expert advice and the need to remain competitive with other Countries. There is a limit to how much can be taken before receipts actually fall as businesses etc leave our shores (for tax purposes anyway). Douglas Mc
  • Score: 0

11:57am Wed 27 Aug 14

whatever66 says...

Solution is simple pay the nursing staff a wage inline with inflation have them clean the wards like back in the day there was no germs or nasty bugs going round then and the wards was immaculate get rid of all these odd jobs in hospital with the money saved employ more nurses that do a top quality job
Solution is simple pay the nursing staff a wage inline with inflation have them clean the wards like back in the day there was no germs or nasty bugs going round then and the wards was immaculate get rid of all these odd jobs in hospital with the money saved employ more nurses that do a top quality job whatever66
  • Score: 1

12:45pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Dorset Boy says...

Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients. Dorset Boy
  • Score: -3

1:15pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Techie says...

Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what? Techie
  • Score: 7

2:29pm Wed 27 Aug 14

arlbergbahn says...

Techie wrote:
Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?
[quote][p][bold]Techie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?[/p][/quote]That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed? arlbergbahn
  • Score: -2

2:38pm Wed 27 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Techie wrote:
Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?
It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints.
The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available).
I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount.
The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this.
As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues.
As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge.
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?[/p][/quote]That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?[/p][/quote]It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints. The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available). I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount. The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this. As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues. As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge. JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

2:38pm Wed 27 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Techie wrote:
Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?
It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints.
The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available).
I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount.
The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this.
As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues.
As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge.
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?[/p][/quote]That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?[/p][/quote]It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints. The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available). I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount. The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this. As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues. As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Wed 27 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Techie wrote:
Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?
It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints.
The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available).
I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount.
The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this.
As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues.
As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge.
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?[/p][/quote]That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?[/p][/quote]It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints. The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available). I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount. The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this. As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues. As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Wed 27 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

Sorry, didn't mean to reply in triplicate :-(
Sorry, didn't mean to reply in triplicate :-( JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

2:55pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Techie says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Techie wrote:
Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?
IT, telephones, admin, HR, payroll, contracts management and finance functions are all pretty essential. The point about performance management and monitoring is potentially a valid one, however much of this work is to feed the beast of the NHS internal market which neither of the main political parties seem to want to abolish.

It's also worth pointing out that out that the NHS has been rated as the most efficient healthcare system by the Commonwealth Fund when they compare (as they do every few years) the healthcare systems of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. It's worth a read: http://www.commonwea
lthfund.org/publicat
ions/fund-reports/20
14/jun/mirror-mirror
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?[/p][/quote]That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?[/p][/quote]IT, telephones, admin, HR, payroll, contracts management and finance functions are all pretty essential. The point about performance management and monitoring is potentially a valid one, however much of this work is to feed the beast of the NHS internal market which neither of the main political parties seem to want to abolish. It's also worth pointing out that out that the NHS has been rated as the most efficient healthcare system by the Commonwealth Fund when they compare (as they do every few years) the healthcare systems of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. It's worth a read: http://www.commonwea lthfund.org/publicat ions/fund-reports/20 14/jun/mirror-mirror Techie
  • Score: 1

2:59pm Wed 27 Aug 14

mr commonsense says...

If only many of the people writing comments would understand how the NHS works we could all get on and make sensible suggestions.
Much of the NHS has been provided by the private sector for years, your GP does not work for the NHS, he/she is a private contractor working for profit and there are many other examples within the service.
James Young is correct in much of what he says, and I am sure there is no person in Dorset who can understand what the NHS actually provides. When you go into a pub, by law, a price list of what is available has to be publicly displayed. When you visit a restaurant there is a menu.
Much of what the public demands from the service is not what it was designed for in the 1940's and I totally agree that many procedures should not be offered for free.
The car parking is another matter and as others have said DCH is like most hospitals in not having thought through the way to solve the problem. Get rid of flower beds, use a bar code system for patients appointment, add another tier and within 3 months the problem is solved. When I go for a check up I do not wish to spend 5 minutes more in the place, so finding a space, using it and getting out quickly is the order of the day. There are not enough spaces the hospital buries the problem and all these members of the public who sit on committees only make the problem worse. We do not need them, we need strong management from the top to sort this sorry mess out.
If only many of the people writing comments would understand how the NHS works we could all get on and make sensible suggestions. Much of the NHS has been provided by the private sector for years, your GP does not work for the NHS, he/she is a private contractor working for profit and there are many other examples within the service. James Young is correct in much of what he says, and I am sure there is no person in Dorset who can understand what the NHS actually provides. When you go into a pub, by law, a price list of what is available has to be publicly displayed. When you visit a restaurant there is a menu. Much of what the public demands from the service is not what it was designed for in the 1940's and I totally agree that many procedures should not be offered for free. The car parking is another matter and as others have said DCH is like most hospitals in not having thought through the way to solve the problem. Get rid of flower beds, use a bar code system for patients appointment, add another tier and within 3 months the problem is solved. When I go for a check up I do not wish to spend 5 minutes more in the place, so finding a space, using it and getting out quickly is the order of the day. There are not enough spaces the hospital buries the problem and all these members of the public who sit on committees only make the problem worse. We do not need them, we need strong management from the top to sort this sorry mess out. mr commonsense
  • Score: 1

3:07pm Wed 27 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

JamesYoung wrote:
arlbergbahn wrote:
Techie wrote:
Dorset Boy wrote:
Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.
Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?
That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?
It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints.
The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available).
I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount.
The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this.
As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues.
As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge.
For large numbers of parking spaces on a small plot of land there's more than just 'up'. Underground parking is also an option. The amount of underground parking in Munich is unbelievable (though I suspect most of the groundwork around the Hauptbahnhoff was done by Lancaster rather than JCB).

Another option would be hydraulic systems for stacked parking. They are commercially available. This might even be cheaper than building an above- or below-ground multi-storey. An additional advantage would be that no space would be required for up/down ramps.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset Boy[/bold] wrote: Save money. Get rid of the jobs worth admin staff, use the hospital for what it is meant for looking after the sick, lame and infirm patients.[/p][/quote]Right, so you've sacked all the administrative staff and are now presumably using doctors and nurses to fix the computers and the telephones, plan the theatre lists and the outpatients clinics, run the HR and payroll, manage the external contracts and financials, plan new services and check existing ones are running as well as they can be, plus the myriad other things that need to be done behind the scenes of a busy hospital. Now what?[/p][/quote]That reply says it all about what's the whole problem with the NHS. How much of all that stuff is actually necessary for providing the basic and essential service? How much of it is padding or manufacturing jobs to keep consultants and Experts employed?[/p][/quote]It's an interesting point. If you stripped away the requirement to provide statistics (many of which are really only needed for political purposes) what are you left with? We are all the problem, in a sense, in that we all like to moan about the NHS and thus the government has to spend time and money fielding those complaints. The NHS used to run with nurses doing a job that is split across 2 or 3 roles today. That, to me, introduces issues of cleanliness (when my wife was in hospital, vomit in the ward toilet was not cleaned for several hours because no cleaner was available). I suspect that what is actually needed is not Six Sigma or Kanban or whatever, but a return to roots. Lifesaving, rehabilitating or pain-relieving care free at the point of delivery. Anything - and i mean anything - other than this would cost money. So artificial insemination, breast implant removal, transgender operations, etc, etc - which, depending on postcode, can cost the NHS a fair amount. The trouble is that every minority or special interest group demands that all its demands are met in full. The NHS does not have the money to do this. As another poster has pointed out, most of us won't pay in what we take out. It's estimated that you have to earn £27k a year before you start making a net contribution. So it's no surprise that we have these issues. As for parking, i've said it before and i'll say it again - you can install a metal parking deck within a week or two. Do it. A ticket machine costs the same whether it is servicing 50 spaces or 500 - the bigger the car park, the greater the profit on a smaller parking charge.[/p][/quote]For large numbers of parking spaces on a small plot of land there's more than just 'up'. Underground parking is also an option. The amount of underground parking in Munich is unbelievable (though I suspect most of the groundwork around the Hauptbahnhoff was done by Lancaster rather than JCB). Another option would be hydraulic systems for stacked parking. They are commercially available. This might even be cheaper than building an above- or below-ground multi-storey. An additional advantage would be that no space would be required for up/down ramps. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

3:41pm Wed 27 Aug 14

tarka says...

portlandboy wrote:
It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment. If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.
'Permits should be issued to all regular patients'
Is this like a BOGOF you get discount the more times you are sick.
Does not seem a good deal to me. I dont want to pay but then I dont want to be regulary sick either.
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment. If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.[/p][/quote]'Permits should be issued to all regular patients' Is this like a BOGOF you get discount the more times you are sick. Does not seem a good deal to me. I dont want to pay but then I dont want to be regulary sick either. tarka
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Wed 27 Aug 14

WykeReg says...

ksmain wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.
Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle.

A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.
[quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.[/p][/quote]Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.[/p][/quote]Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle. A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases. WykeReg
  • Score: -1

4:34pm Wed 27 Aug 14

wurzelbasher says...

La Vigneron wrote:
One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space.
'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses!
Well said: this country is management mad in all walks of life and especially the NHS where much of it is quite extraneous. Just as you say, get rid of much of it and put the money saved where it is really needed!
[quote][p][bold]La Vigneron[/bold] wrote: One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space. 'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses![/p][/quote]Well said: this country is management mad in all walks of life and especially the NHS where much of it is quite extraneous. Just as you say, get rid of much of it and put the money saved where it is really needed! wurzelbasher
  • Score: 1

5:23pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Techie says...

WykeReg wrote:
ksmain wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.
Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle.

A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.
Yes despite all this inefficiency, the NHS still manages to be more efficient than healthcare systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA, and ranks first in nine out of the thirteen criteria set out by the Commonwealth Fund in their comparison of the healthcare systems of the above countries.

How could this possibly be?
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.[/p][/quote]Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.[/p][/quote]Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle. A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.[/p][/quote]Yes despite all this inefficiency, the NHS still manages to be more efficient than healthcare systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA, and ranks first in nine out of the thirteen criteria set out by the Commonwealth Fund in their comparison of the healthcare systems of the above countries. How could this possibly be? Techie
  • Score: 1

6:06pm Wed 27 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

WykeReg wrote:
ksmain wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.
Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle.

A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.
If you think the NHS is inefficient with it's vast army of managers, you /really/ don't want to find out what it would be like without them.

Certainly there's dead wood. A perfect opportunity to weed most of it out was missed with the introduction of CCGs. Instead of getting rid of the majority of the dead wood, too many of the good, conscientious workers were forced to leave the NHS and a disproportionate amount of the dead wood ones were allowed into posts where they would not disrupt. or were even complicit in, the practices of senior managers, consultants and surgeons with agendas that have more to do with their own pockets than with saving money and serving the public.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get be granted your wish.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.[/p][/quote]Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.[/p][/quote]Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle. A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.[/p][/quote]If you think the NHS is inefficient with it's vast army of managers, you /really/ don't want to find out what it would be like without them. Certainly there's dead wood. A perfect opportunity to weed most of it out was missed with the introduction of CCGs. Instead of getting rid of the majority of the dead wood, too many of the good, conscientious workers were forced to leave the NHS and a disproportionate amount of the dead wood ones were allowed into posts where they would not disrupt. or were even complicit in, the practices of senior managers, consultants and surgeons with agendas that have more to do with their own pockets than with saving money and serving the public. Be careful what you wish for. You might get be granted your wish. JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Rod Well says...

@WykeReg:
"I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle."

This is good bar-room talk. Or are you a taxi driver?
@WykeReg: "I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle." This is good bar-room talk. Or are you a taxi driver? Rod Well
  • Score: 2

8:22pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ksmain says...

WykeReg wrote:
ksmain wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.'

The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS.

Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.
Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.
Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle.

A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.
'A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting'.

The above is exactly what I mean about people comment on a subject they know nothing about.

The NHS already does do zero- base budgeting (and has done for years) - the financial year is 1 April-31 March. The budget-setting process is carried out Novemeber-February - and is carried out on all revenue and capital budgets.

So now you know.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: The NHS is gifted an obscene amount of money every year by the taxpayers (at least 100 billion quid or £1,600 for every living Briton). To add the insult of parking charges when patients and visitors arrive at the hospital is utterly wrong. Parking should also be 'free at the point of need.' The NHS doesn't need a penny more on the budget; it needs to drastically overhaul its operating efficiency and live within its means. Whether the issue is one of organization structure and levels of non-productive management and staff, or a question of applying Quality tools and techniques to streamline processes and slash costs, the NHS needs some serious work done it. Applying TQM or Six Sigma quality programs is hardly a new idea. Industry has been working with such initiatives for at least 30 years and the origins of these programs goes back to WWII. But still a mystery to the NHS. Instead of getting its house in order, it is less effort simply to stiff people for parking charges to raise yet more money. The NHS has totally lost sight of patients - the ones who pay for their services. For the overpaid chiefs it's a triumph of mind over matter - they don't mind and we don't matter.[/p][/quote]Actually that is a pretty good price per head - if you had the faintest idea what quite a number of operations (including minor ones) cost you would understand why. £140 per person per month - not bad.[/p][/quote]Seems like you have entirely missed the point. I was not talking about the cost of surgical operations or medical treatments. I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle. A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting. This requires managers to justify the funding for each part of the organization each year - starting from scratch and proving its value for money. The way it is now, each year is nothing more than last year's budget plus whatever increase NHS managers can get away with. No reductions, always increases.[/p][/quote]'A possible solution might be zero-base budgeting'. The above is exactly what I mean about people comment on a subject they know nothing about. The NHS already does do zero- base budgeting (and has done for years) - the financial year is 1 April-31 March. The budget-setting process is carried out Novemeber-February - and is carried out on all revenue and capital budgets. So now you know. ksmain
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ksmain says...

Has anyone considered another rationale for hospitals charging for use of their carparks - to deter those to whom a free hospital parking space would mean a free car parking space to go shopping in Dorchester town centre. Having worked elsewhere you would be surprised at how many use to do this - even at hospitals like Salisbury, for example, a couple of mils outside the city centre to which people would then catch the bus in. And how would you stop them?

So stop moaning people - wise up and pay your few pence.
Has anyone considered another rationale for hospitals charging for use of their carparks - to deter those to whom a free hospital parking space would mean a free car parking space to go shopping in Dorchester town centre. Having worked elsewhere you would be surprised at how many use to do this - even at hospitals like Salisbury, for example, a couple of mils outside the city centre to which people would then catch the bus in. And how would you stop them? So stop moaning people - wise up and pay your few pence. ksmain
  • Score: 1

8:45pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ksmain says...

Rod Well wrote:
@WykeReg:
"I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle."

This is good bar-room talk. Or are you a taxi driver?
Perhaps WykeReg would like to give specific examples. Maybe he hasn't considered that some of the 'inefficient processes' may be derived from government policy the NHS has to follow - some of which the governments past and present have derived from public feedback? Perhaps he would like to have the NHS pushed to the private sector out of government control - but then he would have to pay for that, wouldn't he?
[quote][p][bold]Rod Well[/bold] wrote: @WykeReg: "I was complaining about the inefficient operation of the organization under a vast army of managers who spend their days tripping over each other along with inefficient administrative processes that cost money but don't deliver value. The fact that any health care is delivered at all in this nightmare organization is a major miracle." This is good bar-room talk. Or are you a taxi driver?[/p][/quote]Perhaps WykeReg would like to give specific examples. Maybe he hasn't considered that some of the 'inefficient processes' may be derived from government policy the NHS has to follow - some of which the governments past and present have derived from public feedback? Perhaps he would like to have the NHS pushed to the private sector out of government control - but then he would have to pay for that, wouldn't he? ksmain
  • Score: 0

11:57pm Thu 28 Aug 14

La Vigneron says...

James Young and mr commonsense Have raised an interesting point. The NHS was designed to treat patients with diseases and accidents not of their own making. Treating some lazy greedy slob who eats too much for a weight related problem should never be part of it. Nor problems caused by smoking. Women who are unable to have children, however distressing it undoubtedly is, should not get treatment on the NHS; that can and should be sought privately at their own expense. The whole raft of 'cosmetic' surgery needs to be scrapped from the NHS.
In the services 'self inflected' injury and illness generated punishment. That would not work for civilians so, don't treat them for free.
Further, no person who has not worked and paid taxes in the UK for a minimum of 5 years should be entitled to free NHS treatment, in Europe one pays for doctors and hospital admission. the NHS was the envy of the world, now the world has arrived to use it for themselves.
James Young and mr commonsense Have raised an interesting point. The NHS was designed to treat patients with diseases and accidents not of their own making. Treating some lazy greedy slob who eats too much for a weight related problem should never be part of it. Nor problems caused by smoking. Women who are unable to have children, however distressing it undoubtedly is, should not get treatment on the NHS; that can and should be sought privately at their own expense. The whole raft of 'cosmetic' surgery needs to be scrapped from the NHS. In the services 'self inflected' injury and illness generated punishment. That would not work for civilians so, don't treat them for free. Further, no person who has not worked and paid taxes in the UK for a minimum of 5 years should be entitled to free NHS treatment, in Europe one pays for doctors and hospital admission. the NHS was the envy of the world, now the world has arrived to use it for themselves. La Vigneron
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Fri 29 Aug 14

portlandboy says...

ksmain wrote:
portlandboy wrote:
It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment.
If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.
Oh dear my man - are you really only worried about shelling out a few pence to park somewhere? Nothing costs nothing these days and you are lucky in this country that all your hospital/GP visits cost you nothing whenever you step through their doors - apart from a few pence on your tax. Most other countries charge for their health service, or it just isn't there - just look at the USA - if you have no insurance for years you got nothing (even those with really serious illnesses), and they are only just turning round that mistake now but look at the effort required to do that.

The problem with DCH is it's situation - right smack in the middle of Dorchester with no room to expand. Perhaps the answer is to build a carpark upwards - but no doubt the locals will moan it spoils their view, like they moan when people park in front of their homes when they have nowhere to park at the hospital - so I am not sure the hospital administrators can win.
Here's the thing ksmain, I have appointments at 5 different clinics every month. That means that I travel a minimum of about 100 miles every month to get there and back. I am actually entitled to FREE hospital transport but, since I realise just how expensive that is for every tax payer to fund, I use a private vehicle. I am not allowed to drive so I also rely on a family member to get me there for each visit and they also do it for nothing.
So no, I'm not only worried about shelling out a few pence. It costs me a bloody fortune and all I ask in return is not to be charged to park the vehicle that I use when, by the system that exists, I could cost everyone else a whole lot more than I do.
[quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: It's about time the system of subsidsing your own care costs through NHS parking charges was dealt with. Hospitals have been using the over-inflated parking charges to balance their inadequacies in financial management for too long. The NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use, but anyone who HAS to park nearby for treatment is being charged for their treatment. If this is not the case, then permits should be issued to all regular patients via the clinics they attend and the reduction in charges will have no effect on the hospitals' budgets.[/p][/quote]Oh dear my man - are you really only worried about shelling out a few pence to park somewhere? Nothing costs nothing these days and you are lucky in this country that all your hospital/GP visits cost you nothing whenever you step through their doors - apart from a few pence on your tax. Most other countries charge for their health service, or it just isn't there - just look at the USA - if you have no insurance for years you got nothing (even those with really serious illnesses), and they are only just turning round that mistake now but look at the effort required to do that. The problem with DCH is it's situation - right smack in the middle of Dorchester with no room to expand. Perhaps the answer is to build a carpark upwards - but no doubt the locals will moan it spoils their view, like they moan when people park in front of their homes when they have nowhere to park at the hospital - so I am not sure the hospital administrators can win.[/p][/quote]Here's the thing ksmain, I have appointments at 5 different clinics every month. That means that I travel a minimum of about 100 miles every month to get there and back. I am actually entitled to FREE hospital transport but, since I realise just how expensive that is for every tax payer to fund, I use a private vehicle. I am not allowed to drive so I also rely on a family member to get me there for each visit and they also do it for nothing. So no, I'm not only worried about shelling out a few pence. It costs me a bloody fortune and all I ask in return is not to be charged to park the vehicle that I use when, by the system that exists, I could cost everyone else a whole lot more than I do. portlandboy
  • Score: 0

10:08am Sat 30 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

mr commonsense wrote:
If only many of the people writing comments would understand how the NHS works we could all get on and make sensible suggestions.
Much of the NHS has been provided by the private sector for years, your GP does not work for the NHS, he/she is a private contractor working for profit and there are many other examples within the service.
James Young is correct in much of what he says, and I am sure there is no person in Dorset who can understand what the NHS actually provides. When you go into a pub, by law, a price list of what is available has to be publicly displayed. When you visit a restaurant there is a menu.
Much of what the public demands from the service is not what it was designed for in the 1940's and I totally agree that many procedures should not be offered for free.
The car parking is another matter and as others have said DCH is like most hospitals in not having thought through the way to solve the problem. Get rid of flower beds, use a bar code system for patients appointment, add another tier and within 3 months the problem is solved. When I go for a check up I do not wish to spend 5 minutes more in the place, so finding a space, using it and getting out quickly is the order of the day. There are not enough spaces the hospital buries the problem and all these members of the public who sit on committees only make the problem worse. We do not need them, we need strong management from the top to sort this sorry mess out.
Strangely enough in the early 90's i worked fo
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: If only many of the people writing comments would understand how the NHS works we could all get on and make sensible suggestions. Much of the NHS has been provided by the private sector for years, your GP does not work for the NHS, he/she is a private contractor working for profit and there are many other examples within the service. James Young is correct in much of what he says, and I am sure there is no person in Dorset who can understand what the NHS actually provides. When you go into a pub, by law, a price list of what is available has to be publicly displayed. When you visit a restaurant there is a menu. Much of what the public demands from the service is not what it was designed for in the 1940's and I totally agree that many procedures should not be offered for free. The car parking is another matter and as others have said DCH is like most hospitals in not having thought through the way to solve the problem. Get rid of flower beds, use a bar code system for patients appointment, add another tier and within 3 months the problem is solved. When I go for a check up I do not wish to spend 5 minutes more in the place, so finding a space, using it and getting out quickly is the order of the day. There are not enough spaces the hospital buries the problem and all these members of the public who sit on committees only make the problem worse. We do not need them, we need strong management from the top to sort this sorry mess out.[/p][/quote]Strangely enough in the early 90's i worked fo JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:09am Sat 30 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

mr commonsense wrote:
If only many of the people writing comments would understand how the NHS works we could all get on and make sensible suggestions.
Much of the NHS has been provided by the private sector for years, your GP does not work for the NHS, he/she is a private contractor working for profit and there are many other examples within the service.
James Young is correct in much of what he says, and I am sure there is no person in Dorset who can understand what the NHS actually provides. When you go into a pub, by law, a price list of what is available has to be publicly displayed. When you visit a restaurant there is a menu.
Much of what the public demands from the service is not what it was designed for in the 1940's and I totally agree that many procedures should not be offered for free.
The car parking is another matter and as others have said DCH is like most hospitals in not having thought through the way to solve the problem. Get rid of flower beds, use a bar code system for patients appointment, add another tier and within 3 months the problem is solved. When I go for a check up I do not wish to spend 5 minutes more in the place, so finding a space, using it and getting out quickly is the order of the day. There are not enough spaces the hospital buries the problem and all these members of the public who sit on committees only make the problem worse. We do not need them, we need strong management from the top to sort this sorry mess out.
Strangely enough in the early 90's i worked for a new NHS Trust in the management accounts function. I worked for a senior accountant whose task was to "price up" how much each procedure cost. It is astonishing the array of procedures that the NHS is called upon to provide. Imagine a book about 8 inches thick, with two columns on each page, each column providing a brief description (e.g. carpal tunnel release) and a 4/5 digit alphanumerical code.
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: If only many of the people writing comments would understand how the NHS works we could all get on and make sensible suggestions. Much of the NHS has been provided by the private sector for years, your GP does not work for the NHS, he/she is a private contractor working for profit and there are many other examples within the service. James Young is correct in much of what he says, and I am sure there is no person in Dorset who can understand what the NHS actually provides. When you go into a pub, by law, a price list of what is available has to be publicly displayed. When you visit a restaurant there is a menu. Much of what the public demands from the service is not what it was designed for in the 1940's and I totally agree that many procedures should not be offered for free. The car parking is another matter and as others have said DCH is like most hospitals in not having thought through the way to solve the problem. Get rid of flower beds, use a bar code system for patients appointment, add another tier and within 3 months the problem is solved. When I go for a check up I do not wish to spend 5 minutes more in the place, so finding a space, using it and getting out quickly is the order of the day. There are not enough spaces the hospital buries the problem and all these members of the public who sit on committees only make the problem worse. We do not need them, we need strong management from the top to sort this sorry mess out.[/p][/quote]Strangely enough in the early 90's i worked for a new NHS Trust in the management accounts function. I worked for a senior accountant whose task was to "price up" how much each procedure cost. It is astonishing the array of procedures that the NHS is called upon to provide. Imagine a book about 8 inches thick, with two columns on each page, each column providing a brief description (e.g. carpal tunnel release) and a 4/5 digit alphanumerical code. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:24am Sat 30 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

La Vigneron wrote:
James Young and mr commonsense Have raised an interesting point. The NHS was designed to treat patients with diseases and accidents not of their own making. Treating some lazy greedy slob who eats too much for a weight related problem should never be part of it. Nor problems caused by smoking. Women who are unable to have children, however distressing it undoubtedly is, should not get treatment on the NHS; that can and should be sought privately at their own expense. The whole raft of 'cosmetic' surgery needs to be scrapped from the NHS.
In the services 'self inflected' injury and illness generated punishment. That would not work for civilians so, don't treat them for free.
Further, no person who has not worked and paid taxes in the UK for a minimum of 5 years should be entitled to free NHS treatment, in Europe one pays for doctors and hospital admission. the NHS was the envy of the world, now the world has arrived to use it for themselves.
This is certainly a debate worth having. Smokers would argue that they already pay out a lot in indirect tax, although i've never understood the "i'm choosing to make myself ill and i'm paying for it so shut up" argument.
Obesity is clearly becoming a massive problem across the country, particularly for women. However, in a sense it is the NHS that has caused this problem - for the last 30/40 years we've been told to eat low fat food. Low fat generally means that unnatural ingredients and tonnes of sugar have been added to create consistency and taste. More and more scientists and doctors are coming forward to speak out on the low sat fat myth, but still, if you turn up to see a dietician, he or she will advise cutting back on fat. We are all obsessed with cholesterol, despite plenty of evidence suggesting that it is not the bogey man that it is meant to be. Did you know that 75% of heart attack victims have normal or low cholesterol, and at least as many victims have clinically low cholesterol as have high cholesterol? Then there is salt - cut back on salt, we are told, despite there being little evidence that it is harmful to anybody who doesn't have one of several rare conditions. Diabetes - type 2 that is - can be "cured" (or, more accurately, removed as a health concern) by cutting out processed foods and focussing on what we used to consider a healthy diet - this has been proven in controlled trials where EVERYBODY who stuck to the healthy diet recovered. Yet the NHS chooses to spend millions encouraging patients in a downward spiral - first take metformin tablets, then when your diabetes inevitably gets worse, take insulin injections - with the only beneficiary being the drugs companies. If you read about how the digestive system works, you'll quickly realise that fat does not make you fat - not only because that's not how the process works (fat in the diet does not convert automatically to fat in the blood) - but because our systems have built in hunger controls that recognise fat and tell you that you are full when you eat it. Sugar - particularly the fructose part of the sugar molecule - is the problem. Our systems do not recognise fructose - or rather do not tell us to stop eating it - possibly because from an evolutionary perspective it was rare in the diet and it made sense to binge when we had access to it. So when we eat sugar, we get a double bang for our buck - calories that do mostly end up as fat, and a system that tells us we are still hungry, thus pushing us to eat more.
So i think we need two things - as you say, the NHS needs to focus on core life saving surgery. Secondly, we need a return of personal responsibility, but personal responsibility based on accurate health information. And that brings us to the biggest healthcare problem we have: a food and drugs industry awash with cash that is able to create large volumes of research to back up whatever false claim it wishes to make. You only have to see the fines levied on some of them to realise that they are not trustworthy. Until you tackle the misinformation and manipulation of our food supply, then i think we will see all ever increasing rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
[quote][p][bold]La Vigneron[/bold] wrote: James Young and mr commonsense Have raised an interesting point. The NHS was designed to treat patients with diseases and accidents not of their own making. Treating some lazy greedy slob who eats too much for a weight related problem should never be part of it. Nor problems caused by smoking. Women who are unable to have children, however distressing it undoubtedly is, should not get treatment on the NHS; that can and should be sought privately at their own expense. The whole raft of 'cosmetic' surgery needs to be scrapped from the NHS. In the services 'self inflected' injury and illness generated punishment. That would not work for civilians so, don't treat them for free. Further, no person who has not worked and paid taxes in the UK for a minimum of 5 years should be entitled to free NHS treatment, in Europe one pays for doctors and hospital admission. the NHS was the envy of the world, now the world has arrived to use it for themselves.[/p][/quote]This is certainly a debate worth having. Smokers would argue that they already pay out a lot in indirect tax, although i've never understood the "i'm choosing to make myself ill and i'm paying for it so shut up" argument. Obesity is clearly becoming a massive problem across the country, particularly for women. However, in a sense it is the NHS that has caused this problem - for the last 30/40 years we've been told to eat low fat food. Low fat generally means that unnatural ingredients and tonnes of sugar have been added to create consistency and taste. More and more scientists and doctors are coming forward to speak out on the low sat fat myth, but still, if you turn up to see a dietician, he or she will advise cutting back on fat. We are all obsessed with cholesterol, despite plenty of evidence suggesting that it is not the bogey man that it is meant to be. Did you know that 75% of heart attack victims have normal or low cholesterol, and at least as many victims have clinically low cholesterol as have high cholesterol? Then there is salt - cut back on salt, we are told, despite there being little evidence that it is harmful to anybody who doesn't have one of several rare conditions. Diabetes - type 2 that is - can be "cured" (or, more accurately, removed as a health concern) by cutting out processed foods and focussing on what we used to consider a healthy diet - this has been proven in controlled trials where EVERYBODY who stuck to the healthy diet recovered. Yet the NHS chooses to spend millions encouraging patients in a downward spiral - first take metformin tablets, then when your diabetes inevitably gets worse, take insulin injections - with the only beneficiary being the drugs companies. If you read about how the digestive system works, you'll quickly realise that fat does not make you fat - not only because that's not how the process works (fat in the diet does not convert automatically to fat in the blood) - but because our systems have built in hunger controls that recognise fat and tell you that you are full when you eat it. Sugar - particularly the fructose part of the sugar molecule - is the problem. Our systems do not recognise fructose - or rather do not tell us to stop eating it - possibly because from an evolutionary perspective it was rare in the diet and it made sense to binge when we had access to it. So when we eat sugar, we get a double bang for our buck - calories that do mostly end up as fat, and a system that tells us we are still hungry, thus pushing us to eat more. So i think we need two things - as you say, the NHS needs to focus on core life saving surgery. Secondly, we need a return of personal responsibility, but personal responsibility based on accurate health information. And that brings us to the biggest healthcare problem we have: a food and drugs industry awash with cash that is able to create large volumes of research to back up whatever false claim it wishes to make. You only have to see the fines levied on some of them to realise that they are not trustworthy. Until you tackle the misinformation and manipulation of our food supply, then i think we will see all ever increasing rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

9:52pm Sat 30 Aug 14

CoogarUK.com says...

portlandboy wrote:
La Vigneron wrote:
One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space.
'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses!
Just to be clear, Patient Govenors are unpaid, voluntary positions. All Foundation Trusts have to have them as representatives of the patients and for the patients. Each Patient Govenor represents their own area within the hospital's 'catchment' area.
They attend meetings with the hospital management and put forward issues that may arise on wards or in any hospital department - basically the patiens' voice.
That's how it's supposed to work but isn't Mr Julian ex-DCH Top Brass? Hardly an impartial voice!
[quote][p][bold]portlandboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]La Vigneron[/bold] wrote: One hopes that the financial director, paid by the taxpayer, also has to pay for his parking space. 'Gobsmacked' to discover that someone had found yet another way to waste money, a 'patient governor' Just what invaluable service does he/she provide. I was involved in the medical services for 24 years, none of these 'invented' posts existed but hospitals functioned satisfactorily. It is these posts soaking up money which should be used to provide essential services, i.e. doctors and nurses![/p][/quote]Just to be clear, Patient Govenors are unpaid, voluntary positions. All Foundation Trusts have to have them as representatives of the patients and for the patients. Each Patient Govenor represents their own area within the hospital's 'catchment' area. They attend meetings with the hospital management and put forward issues that may arise on wards or in any hospital department - basically the patiens' voice.[/p][/quote]That's how it's supposed to work but isn't Mr Julian ex-DCH Top Brass? Hardly an impartial voice! CoogarUK.com
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree