Blogs and writing
|Posted on August 23, 2016 at 11:15 AM||comments (0)|
Today I was introduced to someone extraordinary: a newly recruited nurse who is not from continental Europe, but from the UK - Taunton to be more precise. In the hospital where I work 20% of the registered nurses are from overseas, the majority from the European Union (EU). Chatter in the common room is a mongrel mix of Spanish, Italian, Greek and even Catalonian. To help them communicate with our local population I have encouraged them to use some West Country expressions. Hearing a nurse from Barcelona tell the patient that we have done a ‘proper job’ always makes us giggle.
In his commencement address at Yale University in 1962 John F Kennedy said: “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie; deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth; persistent, persuasive and unrealistic…”
I doubt that many voted to leave the EU because they really believed that this would result in a massive cash boost for the NHS, but this is precisely what was promised. Up to £350 million per week extra was promised at one stage of the campaign. This was downgraded to £100 million per week later on when the leave campaigners realised the sums did not add up. And as the referendum day drew near this amount was reduced even further or not discussed at all. Now that the vote to leave has been won and our new Prime Minister clearly intends to follow Brexit through, no one in power is talking about extra investment in the NHS.
According to an analysis by the independent think tank, The Health Foundation, any potential savings the UK might make in payments to the EU “would be more than cancelled out” by the economic consequences of leaving. It said that even if the UK remained in the European Economic Area (EEA) after leaving the EU, the NHS could have a funding shortfall of at least £365m a week. But if the UK does not remain part of the EEA, the report said that this could be as high as £540m a week. Anita Charlesworth, director of research at the Health Foundation, said: “The recent decision for the UK to leave the EU will create additional challenges both in terms of finances and the ability to attract and retain valuable European staff. It is widely anticipated that leaving the EU will lead to lower economic growth, and when the economy sneezes, the NHS catches a cold. The NHS is already half way through its most austere decade ever, with finances in a truly dire state—it cannot afford to face another hit.”
Despite these dire warnings, the government has consistently reassured us that the NHS is adequately funded (it isn’t), adequately staffed (it isn’t) and the cause of the huge deficit is lack of ‘financial discipline’ (it isn’t). Patients are given high expectations (such as seven day access to a GP) and then encouraged to complain when they fail to materialise.
The Health Foundation report highlights that the NHS is short of 28,000 nurses, 2,300 consultants and 2,500 junior doctors. The EU has provided rich pickings for employers looking to fill vacant nursing and medical posts. So can we expect our new Prime Minister to encourage overseas recruitment? It seems unlikely. The Daily Telegraph described her speech at last October’s Conservative Party Conference as a cynical bid to scapegoat immigrants, whip up anger at foreigners in order to win support as a leadership candidate.
If you voted to leave the EU to reduce immigration, how did you think gaps in hospital staff would be filled? We certainly cannot do it from our local population. Even if we massively expanded medical school places in the UK today, we would not see any expansion in home grown hospital consultants or General Practitioners until 2033 at the earliest. There is understandable concern amongst the EU workforce already working for the NHS as to what will happen after Article 50 is triggered. People are planning their futures and thinking about where they want to be in two to three years' time and I doubt they will wait to find out. We need to move on from simply reassuring our EU workforce that they are valued to giving them some security and certainty should they choose to remain in this country. If we don’t we could see a lot of people who are already here leaving. And it seems certain that many EU nationals who were considering a future working in the NHS will think again. And if you voted Brexit for a much-needed massive cash injection for the NHS you may well see exactly the opposite. All the talk now is of further cuts in public spending.
JFK concluded his address: “…too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”. If you had the chance to vote again, would you still vote leave?
|Posted on March 18, 2016 at 11:10 AM||comments (0)|
According to a recent European study, I am one of the 4%; I do it every day (well, almost every day). If you never do it, you are amongst the majority of UK residents (69%). In Holland the picture is strikingly different, 27% do it every day and only 13% never do it. I am referring to cycling, of course. But why on earth would anyone want to cycle on West Country roads? Well, I’ll tell you why I do it.
Firstly, I enjoy it; even though England seems to have replaced winter with a monsoon season and there are times when it feels like I am cycling in a war zone. The rhetoric of road war is fuelled by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, labeling cyclists as “lycra Nazis” and “pushbike Bolsheviks”. And asking the question…"When will people understand that roads are for cars and that there is no danger at all from speeding motorists if walkers and cyclists steer clear?" I can also put up with the abuse I get, indeed the often-heard taunt: “you don’t pay any road tax” is false: I do, and when I’m on my bike and my car is in the garage I’m doing much less damage to the roads and the environment.
Secondly, it is the fastest way to travel in cities, especially during peak hours. There used to be an annual ‘commuter challenge’ from the outskirts of London to the city centre. An average cyclist was pitted against a taxi, or public transport. Every year the bike won easily – even after a helicopter was introduced into the competition.
Thirdly, cycling is the healthy way to travel. When I bump into colleagues in the corridor at work wearing my cycling gear, many feel the need to justify why they do not cycle to work. Safety usually appears high on their list of reasons. But the risks of cycling are overestimated. A cyclist would need to commute every day for 8,000 years before they would be killed on the roads. The extra years of life gained by the regular exercise of cycling far outweighs the risks of death. I appreciate that cycling in the UK can feel dangerous, but it needn’t be like that. Hop across the Channel and you will find cities full of people on bikes wearing everyday clothes and almost none wearing helmets. Space for pedestrians and cyclists is frequently shared and no one seems to get het up about it. So why is cycling such a popular means of travel on the continent, but not in the UK? Of course, some countries have the advantage of being as flat as a pancake whereas it is almost impossible to travel any distance in Devon and Cornwall before being confronted with a hill to climb. More importantly, these countries have invested heavily in separating bikes from cars (and more crucially lorries) making it feel a lot safer.
Finally, it is clearly the right thing to do from an environmental perspective. If you are physically capable, you should walk or cycle short trips (40% of all journeys in the UK of less than two miles are made by car). We read about the harm caused by rising levels of CO2 and exhaust pollutants almost every day, but this discourages few from motoring. I suspect this is because they are not directly affected by global warming. If the water level in your house rose an inch every time you turned the ignition key in their car, I bet you would take climate change more seriously.
What is needed is a change in mindset and this requires a change in legislation. For starters we need laws that protect cyclists. In Holland if there is a collision between a car and a bike, the motorist is held responsible unless he can prove he is innocent. Penalties for injuring cyclists are severe. Open a car door in Amsterdam in the path of a passing cyclist and you may well end up in jail. In the UK, the law favours the motorist, the onus for safety is put squarely on the shoulders of those who choose to cycle.
Cyclists should be allowed to pass through red traffic lights if the road is clear. This is widely considered to be dangerous, but the greatest risk to cyclists comes from lorries turning left at junctions, so allowing the bike to go ahead would improve road safety. This fact has been grasped by many European cities, including Paris, and even some in the USA, the spiritual home of the motorcar. Also, employers should have schemes that encourage their staff to cycle to work, providing secure cycle storage and facilities for workers to shower and change clothes.
You might feel that such changes are unconscionable, but just reflect on what has happened to smoking. There was a time when it was deemed perfectly OK to smoke almost anywhere you liked; including pubs, cinemas, restaurants and even on airplanes. But all that has changed and the same could happen for cycling. Am I dreaming? Well, maybe not. The day after the BBC sacked Clarkson (no, that’s not in my dream); journalists mobbed him leaving his home … riding a bike. Surely if he can do it, so can you.
|Posted on February 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM||comments (0)|
|Posted on October 14, 2015 at 11:25 AM||comments (0)|
The government seems to be dismantling our treasured health service
There is never a good time to be sick, but if that is your destiny, I suggest you do it sooner rather than later. Why? Because there is a perfect storm brewing and if your illness is bad enough to need admission to hospital, there is every chance you will get caught up in it. Firstly, so-called ‘winter pressures’: the inevitable influx of emergency admissions that swells our hospitals is about to start. Despite attempts to stem the tide, the number of admissions increases year on year. So much so that hospital managers have been forced to invent a state of readiness beyond ‘red alert’: they call it ‘black alert’. What lies beyond black is anyone’s guess, but when your hospital is already bursting at the seams it is hard to imagine things getting any worse, but they can. During black alert, all non-urgent admissions are cancelled to make room for the emergencies. If you are unfortunate enough to be admitted to hospital during a black alert, you may find yourself on a ward staffed by a highly skilled team of nurses, doctors and therapists, it’s just that they are not necessarily skilled in looking after your ailment. It’s rather like a football manager asking his top striker to act as goalkeeper for a while. He might be OK, but he is not really playing in his best position.
Secondly, cuts in funding to the NHS (The government calls this £22bn of ‘efficiency savings’ have left the regions hospitals massively overspent. This is a situation hospital trusts clearly want to avoid (the penalties can be severe) but when you have already trimmed off off all the visible fat, what is there left to cut? If you reduce the number of frontline staff, you pose a risk to patient safety and if you fail to satisfy a Care Quality Commission inspection you may find your hospital subjected to ‘special measures’, something to be avoided at all costs. To compound the situation, cuts in social care funding are having a significant negative impact on the health service. About one quarter of all patients who are admitted as an emergency are detained in hospital despite being medically fit to be discharged, there is simply nowhere safe for them to go.
And finally, the junior doctors who will attend you if you are admitted to hospital may be about to go on strike. And I wouldn’t blame them if they did. From August next year the government intends to impose a new employment contract upon them that will extend their standard working hours and reduce their pay by up to 15%. Those who work unsocial hours providing emergency services will be hit the hardest. Even if they decide not to strike, do you really want to be seen in your hour of need by doctors who feel exhausted, undervalued and demoralized? If we continue to treat our doctors in this shabby fashion, the exodus from this country will accelerate. There are already about 500 trainee emergency doctors who qualified from UK medical schools working abroad (mostly in Australia and New Zealand). More than 90% of these have no intention of returning home. A quick glance at their working conditions, their prospects for training and their quality of life will make you understand why.
Those who choose to stay in this country have already seen an attack on their pensions such that junior doctors face the prospect of having to work well beyond the age of 65 and pay higher contributions. Also a heavy-handed approach to the introduction of seven-day working for hospital consultants (as if most of us are not doing this already) has made them feel enough is enough.
Although this government repeatedly states its commitment to the NHS, it appears to be systematically dismantling it. Behind a smokescreen of good fiscal governance, it is starving hospitals of essential funding, claiming that more efficiency measures are all that are needed to maintain (indeed improve) standards of care while selling off the profitable bits to the private sector. Yet the UK spends just over half as much on health as in the privately funded system of the USA and still (despite ‘Obama care’ a significant proportion of their population have no access to the sort of healthcare that we take for granted in this country.
So is there anything you can do? Well, bear in mind that this government has a slender majority of 12 seats. It would only require a minor backbench rebellion to make them think again. So why not write to your MP today? Unless you live in Exeter, he or she will be a member of the ruling party. Let them know how you feel about the disintegration of our public health service. The NHS is a national treasure to be cherished. Over the last few years this gem has become rather tarnished, but rather than buff it up it looks as if this government is determined to prise it out and send it to the pawnbrokers. So stay healthy this winter, if you can.
Western Morning News October 14th 2015
|Posted on October 3, 2015 at 11:40 AM||comments (0)|
In the 21st century it is time to carve a new name with pride
If you ignore the saintly carvings on the cathedral wall, you can count the number of statues in Exeter on the fingers of a deformed hand. Yet one member of this elite group and possibly the most prominent figure isn’t even an Exeter man. I pass Redvers (pronounced Reevers) Buller almost every day on my way to work, sitting proudly on his horse adjacent to Exeter College, but at times he is a sorry site. A few weeks ago he was garlanded with a blazing orange tutu and carried the best part of a rowan tree over his shoulder. His horse, ‘Biffen’ sported the ubiquitous traffic cone on his ear. It might seem like a cruel fate for such a senior ranking British army officer, but there was a time when he was described as ‘…one of the bad jokes of Victorian military history’ because of his tactical ineptitude in the Boer war. The positioning of his statue now seems like another strategic blunder, parked on the main route between Exeter city centre and the university campus. The challenge to mount the pedestal of Cornish granite, scramble up Biffen and plant a trophy on Buller’s noggin must seem irresistible to students returning from their nighttime revelry.
The Buller family seat was originally in Morval in Cornwall and they owned extensive land in both that county and Devon. His home was in Downes, Crediton and it must have been a blow for the ‘Kirtonites’ of 1905 to see the statue unveiled with Biffen’s rear end facing their hometown. He fought in many campaigns including; the second opium war, the Ashanti campaign, the Xhosa wars, the Anglo-Zulu war, the first Boer war, the Egypt campaign, the Madhist war and the second Boer war. He was awarded the highest military honour for valour during the British defeat at the battle of Hloabane during the Anglo-Zulu war. However, his heroism as a junior officer was overshadowed by later failings, he was described by one historian as “…an admirable captain, an adequate major, a barely satisfactory colonel and a disastrous general”.
Even so, you may feel that the students should show more respect to a war hero. For all his failings as a military leader, you don’t get awarded the Victoria Cross for doing nothing and more recent historical texts suggest that his skills as a military leader have been harshly judged. But I suspect he is a stranger to most of the passing students, representing a time of Empire, colonialism and stark social division. Perhaps it is time to replace him with a contemporary and true Exeter hero, but who? It is a real struggle to think of suitable candidates. My vote would be for another military man: Trooper Jack Sadler born in Exeter and killed in the war in Afghanistan in 2007. This might seem a strange choice for a statue on a major student thoroughfare and there are many who may feel that his sacrifice was in vain, but not me. He fought men who believe that women who aspire to improve themselves through education need a bullet in the head rather than a place in college. He was 21 years old when he died, so by virtue of age alone he would be a recognizable figure for the passing students. Also he was an old Exonian, whereas Buller was an old Etonian. His statue would be a fitting tribute to the brave young men and women who have been killed in this conflict and from what I have learned about Jack, he would definitely see the funny side of a traffic cone on his head.
Western Morning News October 3rd 2015
|Posted on September 23, 2015 at 12:00 AM||comments (0)|
What is it about cancer? Hardly a week goes by without a newspaper headline telling us that some celebrity has ‘lost their brave fight’ against it. We are encouraged to raise money to finance ‘the war against cancer’ helping researchers ‘battling’ to find cures. It seems almost impossible to use the word ‘cancer’ without linking it to a military metaphor, but when did this all start and is it appropriate?
Most sources credit US president Richard Nixon with firing the first shot in ‘the war on cancer’ when he introduced the National Cancer Act of 1971. But he never used this expression in his State of the Union address or any related speeches and the words are not included in the act itself, which boosted cancer research in the USA by $100 million with the stated aim ‘to conquer this dread disease’. It appears that the war metaphor was conjured up by contemporary journalists - and it has stuck. Cowboy actor John Wayne stated his intention to beat the ‘big C’ when diagnosed with lung cancer in 1964. He survived removal of one lung and four ribs, but ultimately succumbed to stomach cancer in 1979. His posthumous web site still encourages us to; ‘saddle up and help bring courage, strength and grit to the fight against cancer’. Many cancer victims feel duty bound to declare their intention to fight their disease. This is all very odd, because cancer is one of the few diseases where an individual can do very little to affect the final outcome. If your aim is to live longer, fighting is not required; submission is best. Better to yield to the surgeon’s knife, submit to the oncologist’s venom and expose yourself to the radiotherapist’s rays. Once diagnosed with cancer, your chances of survival are not improved by lifestyle modification or a positive mental attitude.
Also the one thing that cancer consistently does is debilitate its victims, who usually don’t feel at all like fighting. While receiving treatment for oesophageal cancer, Christopher Hitchens says in his book ‘Mortality’ “… you feel swamped with passivity and impotence: dissolving in powerlessness like a sugar lump in water.” And for those overwhelmed by this torpor, the failure to fight leads to frustration and depression in sufferers and relatives alike.
Recently the British Heart Foundation launched its own military campaign: ‘Fight for Every Heartbeat’. It seems that these days every charity needs a war cry to successfully raise funds. “We're fighting cardiovascular disease through world class research”, they claim. Conjuring up a vision of laboratory workers clad in battle fatigues and armed guards protecting their secrets. Yet nothing could be further from the reality of medical research whether it is investigating a cure for cancer, heart disease or any other ailment. The systematic testing of new treatments, the rejection of failed therapies and the cautious introduction of new ideas could hardly be described as a war. And I have yet to meet a medical researcher who feels that they have enlisted in an army.
Unlike cancer sufferers, you seldom hear people with heart disease speak of fighting their illness. But strangely this is a disease worth fighting. If you stop smoking, lose weight, take more exercise, eat a healthy diet, overcome your distaste about taking regular medication and you can significantly prolong your life expectancy. This is just one example of many illnesses where a change in lifestyle and mental attitude can result in a positive outcome both in terms of preventing disease progression and improving quality of life. Sadly, cancer is not one of them.
That’s not to say that you cannot achieve great things following a diagnosis of incurable cancer. Take Kate Granger for example. Based on her own pitiful experiences she has launched a highly successful Twitter campaign (#hellomynameis) to encourage health care workers to introduce themselves by name when they first meet their patients. I was amazed when she told me this hardly ever happened when she was treated as a patient in the hospital where she also works as a doctor. Her campaign “…to encourage and remind healthcare staff about the importance of introductions in the delivery of care” has swept across the country and been adopted enthusiastically by most hospitals in the South West including my own in Exeter. She goes on to say; “I firmly believe it is not just about knowing someone's name, but it runs much deeper. It is about making a human connection, beginning a therapeutic relationship and building trust. In my mind it is the first rung on the ladder to providing compassionate care” But Kate is not really fighting her cancer, just making the best of what life is left to her. And isn’t that what we all should do, cancer or not?
Western Morning News 23rd September 2105
|Posted on May 5, 2015 at 11:15 AM||comments (0)|
Opposition from the medical profession to my BMJ article seems to take two forms; firstly (and most commonly) there are those who believe it is perfectly possible to behave ethically in private practice. They almost all accept that conflicts exist and can name doctors who have abused the system, but it does not happen to them. Many express either pity or scorn for me that I lacked the moral fibre (which they hold in spades) to resist the substantial financial incentives.
Secondly, there are a few who simply cannot understand my misgivings. Private practice is a business. And like any business, the name of the game is to make as much profit as possible. As long as the police and the GMC are not interested in your affairs, what’s the problem? Go ahead and make as much money as you can.
I do not hold strong views on healthcare models in other countries apart from the general comment that anyone who consults a doctor working on a fee for service basis faces a dilemma, whether the doctor’s main focus is on the patient’s health or their chequebook. This statement is often greeted with outrage but it seems self-evident to me. I accept that most patients across the globe face this dilemma.
Also I am not unduly concerned about doctors who devote all their time to private practice. My main point is that it is difficult to work in both the private and public sectors at the same time. There are two further reasons why I believe this to be unethical, but did not have space to mention in my article. Firstly, it divides the profession, splitting us into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. Is it purely coincidental that the specialties that have the greatest recruitment problems are those where the opportunity for private work is very low or non-existent? And yet these disciplines (emergency medicine, geriatrics, acute medicine, palliative care etc.) are exactly those that desperately need more doctors to cope with the ever-increasing tide of emergency admissions to hospital and care for our aging population.
Secondly, it divides the medical profession from the allied professions (nurses, radiographers, ODA’s etc.). A consultant carrying out a private procedure in an NHS hospital will receive a substantial fee, whereas the team assisting him will be paid standard NHS rates, even if this procedure is done outside normal working hours. A bag of doughnuts doesn’t really address this imbalance.
My comment that private practice ‘…is largely a con’ has proved particularly inflammatory, I cannot see why. For sure, if you want to have your piles fixed in a facility with a private room where you can order a bottle of claret with your evening meal, you will not get this on the NHS. But if you really believe that private hospitals offer safe, quality care I would urge you to read the https://chpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CHPI-PatientSafety-Aug2014.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">CHPI report and think again.