by wendy » 04 Nov 2008, 14:29
by Sam_B » 04 Nov 2008, 15:19
by wendy » 04 Nov 2008, 15:45
by kenm » 04 Nov 2008, 15:57
by wendy » 04 Nov 2008, 17:04
by ians1 » 05 Nov 2008, 17:14
by Jsmum » 05 Nov 2008, 17:39
by wendy » 05 Nov 2008, 17:53
by annie » 05 Nov 2008, 18:06
by wendy » 05 Nov 2008, 18:07
by chenrezig » 05 Nov 2008, 18:19
by graham » 05 Nov 2008, 18:21
by wendy » 05 Nov 2008, 18:29
by Jsmum » 05 Nov 2008, 18:33
by wendy » 05 Nov 2008, 18:37
by kenm » 05 Nov 2008, 18:42
by maureenho » 05 Nov 2008, 19:01
Norwich City Council has already changed care providers as of 2nd Feb 2009 Westminster Homecare have lost the contract, and the new provider will be Careforce Group
by LizC » 05 Nov 2008, 19:21
by wendy » 05 Nov 2008, 20:31
by Jsmum » 05 Nov 2008, 21:02
by wendy » 05 Nov 2008, 21:08
by Jsmum » 05 Nov 2008, 21:10
by ians1 » 06 Nov 2008, 10:43
The discrimination will continue and people will continue to live and die in misery when they should be helped.
by Jsmum » 06 Nov 2008, 13:37
by ians1 » 07 Nov 2008, 11:24
he consultation's constant theme is the detailing of patients' rights, accompanying that are stated patients' responsibilities.
Under "Access", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* attending agreed appointments."
Under "Respect", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* treating staff with dignity and respect; and
* not physically or verbally abusing staff."
Under "Safety", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* complying with advice on medication and treatment; and
* raising legitimate concerns about the safety of their care."
Under "Communication", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* providing information about their history, current treatment medication and alternative therapies directly or through their family, carer or other nominated supporter;
* informing their healthcare provider of any changes in their condition; and
* taking part actively and constructively in discussion and decisions about their health and health care."
Under "Information", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* seeking and using information appropriately to support their own health, for example to enable self-care for minor conditions; and
* ensuring that they have the information to understand what they need to know about their care, and to provide consent to treatment."
Under "Participation", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for
* asking for further information if there is any uncertainty about their care;
* giving informed consent or not; and
* participating constructively in decisions about healthcare and service where they wish to do so."
Under "Privacy", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* providing the information that is appropriate and relevant to treatment of their condition."
Under "Independent Support and Redress", it states:
"Patients will be responsible for:
* offering feedback on their health services in a positive way as far as possible."
I quoted those responsibilities at length simply to illustrate that, if we strip out the rights, we are left with the most comprehensive and stringent set of patients' responsibilities—indeed, we are left with a pretty draconian patients' responsibilities bill
I have noted regularly in recent debates that the NHS is not an insurance policy in the normal sense. I have talked about leaving the house doors and windows open, being burgled and then finding that the insurance company is not inclined to pay. I have noted that, in the final analysis, no penalty exists within the NHS, so I suppose that I should welcome the responsibilities, but what do they mean? If a patient does not follow
"advice about ... suggested lifestyle changes",
fails to provide "information about their history" or is unable to provide knowingly
"information that is appropriate and relevant to treatment of their condition",
what will happen? How will that be reconciled with the desire to tackle inequalities? Will the patient be sued by the health board or denied further NHS treatment? Will there be a new sanction in law? That is surely inconceivable, but if there is not, what will be the legal and practical purpose of a bill that seeks to establish legal frameworks? In contrast, the existing charters can be updated without the need for primary legislation.