 |
 |
I assume the > above fudging of "trolley waits" will now be > consigned to history. The Audit > Commission report foregoes this definition, and > replaces it with the "wait > for admission" which it defines simply as the "time > from arrival in A&E to > admission to a hospital bed". The commission states > that the "wait for > admission" will supesede the "trolley wait" in the > NHS plan. This "wait for > admission" will naturally include the "wait to see a > doctor", but also the > diagnosis time, the referral time and the admission > time (only the latter > being roughly equivalent to the old "trolley wait"). > Good news for us I > think... > > Adrian Fogarty A long rant. Sorry. I'm not so sure Adrian..be watchful, especially if you have a medical admissions unit or similar. Our trust are refusing to count patients in such a unit (ours is called EDAU cos we run it) as it is possible(quite legally within the defintion laid down by the DoH) to call it a ward area, so those things the patietns lie on with black mattresses and an x ray bucky can be considered as beds for reporting purposes. The big advantage of this is for managers is that all you have to do with your ED patients who are approaching the max wait is move them in to the EDAU or MAU and the clock stops! The consequence for us is that the EDAU ceases to function as a low acuity GP referral & assessment unit and becomes a holding bay for people brought in some hours ago (over 50h on occasion), awaiting admission to a bed, but held in an unwordly state, in a sort of virtual ward where they don't show in the figures (the ward of the 'unbed'?) I am amazed there has not been a major expose of the trolley wait figure fudge issue - journalists know it goes on but don't seem to find it newsworthy. A trust in the SouthWest sent false reports to region for several years, it would appear with the connivance of individuals there and centrally, and then the hospital senior management all left for extremely prestigious posts, having pleased their DoH bosses. The beleaguered ED staff throughout this period mistakenly believed the senior management were doing their utmost to help win the necessary resources for the trust to address this - you can imagine how betrayed they feel. The patients, the ones who really suffer, don't know anything about it. I think this a scandal as serious as any health story, when seen through the eyes of the bloke on the trolley all night and the children who have to be resuscitated on the floor. Regarding the issue of why don't trusts hold their hands up and say 'we have a serious problem here'(cant remember who raised that, sorry), I think it is starting. Four have done this in the SW (it would be unfair of me to name them) reporting projected deficits of around 10 million each for this year. Two are DGHs, for whom this represents 10% overspend. Steve Meek Finally, whoever it was, please don't attack the likes of John H and Iain A over the lack of publicity for the specialty- we currently have the most progressive leadership the specialty has ever had. If you think you could do better, stand for office. I know I coulnt so I just write emails. --- Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com