I was told about Sir George's remarks, but, cynic that I am, I simply
thought of a certain previous speech.
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A S Lockey
Sent: 27 November 2002 23:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: See and Treat
Rowley - at the FAEM conference in Plymouth, Sir George Alberti agreed
that the 4 hr turnaround is impractical and dangerous in some cases
(e.g. asthmatics waiting review after nebs, awaiting CDU investigations
that may avoid admission etc). He intimated that this 'target' is going
to be revisited and stratified so that it is only pertinent to
conditions that you would expect not to be in the department for longer
than 4 hours. Incidentally, he seemed to talk a lot of sense and also
LISTENED to views and opinions. I must admit to being sceptical about a
non-A&E doc taking on this role but I was pleasantly surprised by his
enthusiasm and knowledge and feel more comfortable about his
involvement. Another comment made that he made note of was the complaint
that we are being constantly bombarded with new strategies and that we
are only just getting to grips with streaming when "see and treat" is
coming in.
Incidentally, in our unit, we do not need to talk to medical SHOs to
admit medical patients. We have an agreement that if any A&E doc thinks
a patient should be admitted medically, the nursing staff pass the
details on to the MAU and the patient gets admitted. If the A&E doc is
unsure or feels that a more immediate opinion is needed, the medical
middle grade then sees the patient in A&E. Surprisingly, this works very
well. There are very few inappropriate referrals and the few that do
slip through are accepted by the medics as inevitable with such a
system. Most importantly, there are no battles with junior medics over
admissions and no copious amounts of needless investigations to justify
a referral.
Naturally, our version of Utopia still has a hospital with too few beds!
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rowley Cottingham
Sent: 27 November 2002 23:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: See and Treat
Thank you John; you bring me on to another issue with which I disagree -
the UK Government have decided to set targets for patient transit
through Emergency Departments. Next April 90% of patients are to be out,
April 2004 100%. I have great clinical unease about this - there are
seriously ill unstable patients who may take more than 4 hours to sort
before they are safe to move. I know of no clinical evidence that there
is benefit to this, and I meant to take this up with the advisers. I
know Mike Lambert reads this list, and I think my friend Matthew Cooke
looks in occasionally too. Matthew - can you bring my clinical concerns
to the DH and try and get it stopped at the 90% 4 hours level and say
100% at 8 hours?
After all, you can wait 4 hours in an airport lounge between flights and
no Government is jumping up and down about it!
R.
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chambers
Sent: 27 November 2002 22:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: See and Treat
The problem is that in patient beds are always under pressure and
medical and surgical registrars have this optimistic hope that by the
time they see a referred ED patient the symptoms and signs will have
vanished and the patient can be discharged - and this does happen in a
few patients each day, time is a great healer! You must have some
sympathy of registrars from the in patient specialties . They are given
a hard time if they "fill" the wards with "soft admissions" both from
their own bosses and their hard nosed peers. They do not really care or
lose sleep worrying what the ED middle grade staff think about them.
Conversely if the ED staff could admit and seemed to be filling the
wards with "soft admissions" Rowley's prediction is quite right - the in
patient specialists would simply refuse to take responsibility for these
patients. Our ED works as the "hub" of the hospital where all the
referral and admitting takes place. Patients only go to the ward with
all drugs charted and treatment plan complete. Works pretty well but you
do need staff and space. We work as a team alongside specialty
registrars and try and avoid duplicating the same steps of the admitting
process. Simple quick direct ward admissions by ED middle grade and
senior staff are a bit of a dream rather than an achievable reality -
would come back and bite you big time. JohnC PS in many Australasian
Hospitals there is rather too much repeat clerking. The grass is not
always greener!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Brendan Conway [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 11:31 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: See and Treat
I'm re-sending this as it didn't appear on the list...
The single best way to reduce inpatient waits is for A&E middle grades
and consultants to have the authority to admit patients directly to
wards. This would have a dramatic impact on patient comfort, reducing
trolley occupancy, and preventing work being repeated. The current
system of clerking after clerking is a mess!
Opinions, please!
B Conway
SpR Medway
I'm using Vodafone Mail - to get your free mobile email account go to
http://www.vodafone.ie Use of Vodafone Mail is subject to Terms and
Conditions http://www.vodafone.ie/terms/website
######################################################################
Attention:
This e-mail is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete the message and notify the sender. Any views or
opinions presented are solely those of the author.
######################################################################
|