Comments on: Herald backs health targets

By: thehawkreturns

thehawkreturns — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:29:39 +0000

Tony Ryall – isn’t he the same chap who is bringing in 6 hour targets to emergency departments?

The “gaming” has already begun! Our ED is having beds “redesignated” as “adult assessment” beds – this means patients
are moved a few metres along the corridor from ED and “hey presto” they are no longer there!. Of course, they are still being looked after by the same ED docs and nurses…. This experiment was a dismal failure in the UK and is being cheered on by certain ex-NHS CEO’s here in Godzone. If there was a God he would know why.

Lung cancer “targets” will soon mean that surgeons radiologists and pathologists will have to treat lung cancer patients as a priority over any other clinical need. Lung cancer is the new breast cancer perhaps? Little import is given to the almost complete lack of benefit in treating lung cancer over the last 40 years.

By: Kimble

Kimble — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:16:37 +0000

“I just hope that these 6 goals do not simply shift resources away from other areas, in order to satisfy the 6 KPIs at the expense of patients suffering from conditions that are not Ryall’s flavour of the month”

I could see that happening under Labour, but with Nationals drive to reduce waste and cut fat there should be some slack in the rope that can be taken up.

By: Ratbiter

Ratbiter — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:30:10 +0000

This is all very well – I just hope that these 6 goals do not simply shift resources away from other areas, in order to satisfy the 6 KPIs at the expense of patients suffering from conditions that are not Ryall’s flavour of the month.

I agree with the general view that Labour’s plethora of touchy-feely goals created a socialist’s paradise of middle-management paper-shufflers all creating work for each other, instead of fixing sick people. This was the unanimous view of 2 relatives who work in clinical roles in NZ public hospitals…

(Not that I was any more of a fan of Shipley’s “Please take a number and have your credit card ready” model, where hospitals were “Crown Health Enterprises” not hospitals, and patients were “clients” or “end product users” not patients, and the general level of bureaucracy was the same, only it was reams of corporate BS not reams of socialist BS that the black suit brigade inflicted upon those who were actually trying to heal the sick…)

By: Grant Michael McKenna

Grant Michael McKenna — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:15:48 +0000

“You can’t trust individuals – once you start doing that, society will crumble.”

Chances that someone will misquote this ironic statement at some future date: 100%

Validity of statement as a summary of socialist mindset: 100%

By: bharmer

bharmer — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:09:47 +0000

Putting on my tin hat, I would love to see a zero based recalculation along the following lines:
(1) How many doctors, nurses, radiographers, therapists, cooks, orderlies, cleaners, launderers and other front line carers are needed to deliver the level of service required by the community?
(2) Assuming one manager at the top, what is the minimum possible number of necessary administrators, technical specialists and accountants necessary to positively support (in the sense of being on the same side, with the same objectives) these front line carers.
No PR, HR, lawyers, or media specialists need apply.

Similar considerations should apply to universities.

By: Bogusnews

Bogusnews — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:29:14 +0000

As was confirmed not that long ago, there are now more administrators/managers/analysts in health (all on very healthy salaries) than we have hospital beds.

This is why under Labour, even though we spent approximately 3.5Bil a year more on hospitals the waiting list doubled.

It was an incredibly expensive mistake for New Zealand to vote in Labour, and then we compounded the problem by voting them in twice more.