At one point in the Magic Roundabout feature "Dougal and the Blue Cat" (essential watching!), the Blue Cat shouts at Zebedee: "Silence! Little springing fool!".
For _some reason_ that line always comes to mind whenever anyone mentions BBC 'Verify'.
The target is 92% referred to treatment within 18 weeks, the only way to measure performance is against the target ie in weeks. The target hasn't been met since 2015. To measure any other way is dishonest, sadly I see a lot of dishonesty in the Health Industry.
Streeting says NHS doesn't receive the additional £25bn until April, so I expect zero improvement in the 18 week figures until at least mid year, regardless of these dishonest performance figures that have been published.
Perhaps a politician could ask the Health Secretary, in Parliament, for them to furnish - in say, 5 days times, a breakdown of the numbers showing exactly how this number was arrived at? I won't hold my breath for the question - and my guess is I'll be a pile of dust by the time any answer is forthcoming......
Intriguing claim. On the ground it doesn’t feel much different from last year and urology waiting times are still 2 years. Minor surgery 1 year. Autism assessment for children with additional educational support needs in excess of 2 years. For adults ADHD assessments we stopped counting because the system broke under the weight of referral requests.
Whenever politicians make claims that are out of kilter with reality I have learned that the devil is usually in the details. What is their definition of an appointment? With whom? Real or virtual? Human or AI? How do they define ‘extra’? Compared to what? If you reduce capacity by 25% for a few years then increase it by 15% presumably you can claim a 15% increase in capacity even though it is a reduction. You do right to be sceptical.
The term "appointment" can be made to include almost any NHS contact, including phone contacts and appointments with nurse - run services.
We are told what it includes "chemotherapy, radiotherapy, endoscopy, and diagnostic tests" for instance, but not what it excludes; examples might include nonmedical primary care contacts, counselling and other psychiatric care, and A&E visits and GP phone contacts.
I know somebody who, in the past month, fell on the stairs and developed pain in their hip. They phoned their primary care surgery for an appointment but were told to attend at a local hospital. They phoned the hospital in question to be told to attend at a different hospital, A&E. When seen at this second hospital, they were told to go to a third hospital in the same town. At this third hospital, they waited a number of hours before being seen by a nurse practitioner.
I wonder if this is what they mean by "an NHS fit for the future".
Working in the NHS for the last 25y I’ve noticed that the solutions arrived at to meet demand always seem to be ‘economies of scale’, centralisation and increasingly complex multi-layered triage services, plus super specialisation of doctors (no general physicians anymore except geriatricians and GPs) and increasingly super specialisation of nurses. For some things this works ok, occasionally very well. But sadly your friend’s experience is now quite unexceptional. If it takes 3 ‘appointments’ (phone/app based/virtual) to do the job that used to be done in 1 appointment is that a trebling of capacity? Or is it just inefficient, frustrating and expensive?
Staff were told that outside contractors were being brought in to reduce waiting lists. Apparently this was at 3x the rate paid to consultants willing to work overtime.
When local consultants objected they were told the order came from Whitehall and could not be questioned.
All that has happened is that patients booked for assessment were seen and planned treatment was booked ie they were put on another waiting list.
It is just very expensively kicking the can down the road.
When I first read this announcement I was confused. It lacked any context. I read it as appointments, so was wondering if these were face to face, zoom or telephone. And with whom? A consultant, GP, nurse, health practitioner?
'Faster and Further....building an NHS, Fit for the Future'. If they repeat the same letter often enough, they might brainwash us into believing them. Reminds me of 'Build Back Better'.
I can only speak from personal experience, as my wife has been undergoing medical investigations in the last few weeks. Generally speaking here near Glasgow, Scotland for non-emergency but urgent internal investigations and tests such as endoscopy, X rays etc, the system seems to be working reasonably well with quite short delays of a couple of weeks between referral and treatment/investigation.
I have no doubt, that someone is (hopefully) paying attention to TTE in the government, and considers them a thorn in their side, with the possible consolation that they hope,perhaps, TTE's information won't be paid attention to or understood by those responsible for informing the public. (I would love to quote Jim Royal about BBC Verify here, but this is a polite platform) And, so once again we breath a heavy sigh and recall the old joke about politicians, lies and lips moving.
"Examining NHS statistics is a minefield; despite the billions spent on NHS Data, they are not user-friendly. "
that seems to be the message from the US too as the DoGE teams look under the hood; one senses very elderly, clunky computer systems all around; (or just full in your face paper systems as in the limestone mine where all retiree data is stored!!)
..as the DoGE teams look under the hood; some of what they find is like a very old "candid camera" episode where the car had no engine under bonnet ........ bemusing mechanics ....
rather than work on improving these systems, it seems the cash has flowed overseas in vast sums to support a variety of very questionable adventures; of extremely doubtful provenance.
The thing I love about TTE substack is it is free entertainment! Better than any stand up or other form of comedy. I know the subjects you deal with are important, but you always manage to tell your stories with a twinkle in your eyes💝thank you
Am I the only one out of step? Surely we want fewer appointments. More of them suggests we have a very unhealthy population. Now what could be causing that?
All I see (as an outsider) is a totally inept PM clutching at straws - who cares where it comes from as long as it sounds good and allows him to pat himself on the back. Thanks again for taking a bit of time and effort to provide the real story behind the window dressing!!
So, where is BBC Verify on this? They are very quick to jump on other things, usually nothing to do with this country.
At one point in the Magic Roundabout feature "Dougal and the Blue Cat" (essential watching!), the Blue Cat shouts at Zebedee: "Silence! Little springing fool!".
For _some reason_ that line always comes to mind whenever anyone mentions BBC 'Verify'.
The target is 92% referred to treatment within 18 weeks, the only way to measure performance is against the target ie in weeks. The target hasn't been met since 2015. To measure any other way is dishonest, sadly I see a lot of dishonesty in the Health Industry.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/rtt-waiting-times/rtt-data-2024-25/ select the month and then I usually go to Incomplete Commissioner, need to use the tabs on the bottom to better define what you want to see.
Streeting says NHS doesn't receive the additional £25bn until April, so I expect zero improvement in the 18 week figures until at least mid year, regardless of these dishonest performance figures that have been published.
Perhaps a politician could ask the Health Secretary, in Parliament, for them to furnish - in say, 5 days times, a breakdown of the numbers showing exactly how this number was arrived at? I won't hold my breath for the question - and my guess is I'll be a pile of dust by the time any answer is forthcoming......
Intriguing claim. On the ground it doesn’t feel much different from last year and urology waiting times are still 2 years. Minor surgery 1 year. Autism assessment for children with additional educational support needs in excess of 2 years. For adults ADHD assessments we stopped counting because the system broke under the weight of referral requests.
Whenever politicians make claims that are out of kilter with reality I have learned that the devil is usually in the details. What is their definition of an appointment? With whom? Real or virtual? Human or AI? How do they define ‘extra’? Compared to what? If you reduce capacity by 25% for a few years then increase it by 15% presumably you can claim a 15% increase in capacity even though it is a reduction. You do right to be sceptical.
I can't agree more.
The term "appointment" can be made to include almost any NHS contact, including phone contacts and appointments with nurse - run services.
We are told what it includes "chemotherapy, radiotherapy, endoscopy, and diagnostic tests" for instance, but not what it excludes; examples might include nonmedical primary care contacts, counselling and other psychiatric care, and A&E visits and GP phone contacts.
I know somebody who, in the past month, fell on the stairs and developed pain in their hip. They phoned their primary care surgery for an appointment but were told to attend at a local hospital. They phoned the hospital in question to be told to attend at a different hospital, A&E. When seen at this second hospital, they were told to go to a third hospital in the same town. At this third hospital, they waited a number of hours before being seen by a nurse practitioner.
I wonder if this is what they mean by "an NHS fit for the future".
Working in the NHS for the last 25y I’ve noticed that the solutions arrived at to meet demand always seem to be ‘economies of scale’, centralisation and increasingly complex multi-layered triage services, plus super specialisation of doctors (no general physicians anymore except geriatricians and GPs) and increasingly super specialisation of nurses. For some things this works ok, occasionally very well. But sadly your friend’s experience is now quite unexceptional. If it takes 3 ‘appointments’ (phone/app based/virtual) to do the job that used to be done in 1 appointment is that a trebling of capacity? Or is it just inefficient, frustrating and expensive?
On behalf of nurse practitioners….please don’t discount us🥲🥲many thanks
I think it might mean “an NHS fit up for the future.”
Agreed.
I attended a meeting where I work.
Staff were told that outside contractors were being brought in to reduce waiting lists. Apparently this was at 3x the rate paid to consultants willing to work overtime.
When local consultants objected they were told the order came from Whitehall and could not be questioned.
All that has happened is that patients booked for assessment were seen and planned treatment was booked ie they were put on another waiting list.
It is just very expensively kicking the can down the road.
When I first read this announcement I was confused. It lacked any context. I read it as appointments, so was wondering if these were face to face, zoom or telephone. And with whom? A consultant, GP, nurse, health practitioner?
Are they talking about procedures?
Throw in the strike dates.
My goodness I have become such a sceptic 🤨….
Me too👍
'Faster and Further....building an NHS, Fit for the Future'. If they repeat the same letter often enough, they might brainwash us into believing them. Reminds me of 'Build Back Better'.
I can only speak from personal experience, as my wife has been undergoing medical investigations in the last few weeks. Generally speaking here near Glasgow, Scotland for non-emergency but urgent internal investigations and tests such as endoscopy, X rays etc, the system seems to be working reasonably well with quite short delays of a couple of weeks between referral and treatment/investigation.
Good to hear.
I have no doubt, that someone is (hopefully) paying attention to TTE in the government, and considers them a thorn in their side, with the possible consolation that they hope,perhaps, TTE's information won't be paid attention to or understood by those responsible for informing the public. (I would love to quote Jim Royal about BBC Verify here, but this is a polite platform) And, so once again we breath a heavy sigh and recall the old joke about politicians, lies and lips moving.
Well, here in Scotland, we got a flyer through the door saying that First Minister John Swinney is going to fix the NHS so what are we worrying about?
"Examining NHS statistics is a minefield; despite the billions spent on NHS Data, they are not user-friendly. "
that seems to be the message from the US too as the DoGE teams look under the hood; one senses very elderly, clunky computer systems all around; (or just full in your face paper systems as in the limestone mine where all retiree data is stored!!)
..as the DoGE teams look under the hood; some of what they find is like a very old "candid camera" episode where the car had no engine under bonnet ........ bemusing mechanics ....
rather than work on improving these systems, it seems the cash has flowed overseas in vast sums to support a variety of very questionable adventures; of extremely doubtful provenance.
The thing I love about TTE substack is it is free entertainment! Better than any stand up or other form of comedy. I know the subjects you deal with are important, but you always manage to tell your stories with a twinkle in your eyes💝thank you
Am I the only one out of step? Surely we want fewer appointments. More of them suggests we have a very unhealthy population. Now what could be causing that?
When you mentioned TTE would have a peek at the number flung out by Starmer and the nhs, I have to admit thinking….I can’t wait to see this doozie 💖
All I see (as an outsider) is a totally inept PM clutching at straws - who cares where it comes from as long as it sounds good and allows him to pat himself on the back. Thanks again for taking a bit of time and effort to provide the real story behind the window dressing!!
Brilliant detective work!