Too right. Far too much Sauvignon Blanc consumed to continue this thread in
a sensible fashion this evening. But on call for the next four nights so
that's my excuse for just opening my emails at 1am and being daft enough to
reply!
AF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Holiday" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: remuneration for queue bashing
> >Fine, but I was also alluding to the inevitable peaks and troughs of our
> >work. Consultants are a perfect resource to swap over - at a moment's
> >notice - from supervision to "hands on" when there is a sudden peak in
> >demand, although I'll be the first to admit that a peak in demand is
> >often managed best by more supervision! But sometimes you just can't
> >avoid "hands on". A large influx of minors when all else in the
> >department is "under control", but where most of your staff are still
> >tied up sorting out routine majors, is one obvious example. There isn't
> >always a sick patient to supervise. So, even a "lone" consultant ends up
> >queue bashing from time to time, in my experience.
>
> --> This sounds like an excellent set of circumstances for consultant to
> bash queue, i.e. being there with nothing to do and no-one else available.
> I agree 100% with this and with your suggestion that in most cases queues
> and the staff who should see them are better "managed" then taken over by
> consultants. I think that the fact that we CAN describe a situation where
> it WOULD be appropriate, assists us in making the distinction and showing
> that, in the situation originating this threat, it WOULDN'T be.
>
> AND... It is WAYYY too late to talk about this... I'd better go home...
|