Too posh to wash?

Chambers Dictionary definitions of "apolitical":

1. indifferent to political affairs
2. uninvolved in politics

If you include #1 in your understanding, my use of it in this thread makes sense as you are clearly not indifferent to political affairs, even if you'd rather they weren't so party political.

I love all the extra connotations words have.

Gosh, what? I don't understand.

PS I think you making a lot of assumptions about jess's DiL. I think jess is currently in the antipodes.

I am in western australia at the moment orca and it is a public holiday - but she is very organised at all times.

Gosh...*Bags*?

Define 'apolitical' Bags in my (albeit rather limited and naive little world ) it means that I don't take any party's line on what I believe. If you can find a better term I will be happy to substitute that

We get lots done, actually. Compare now with a hundred years ago.

PS I don't think my DIL would appreciate me having a long chat with her so early in the morning Jess especially as she has children to get to school and work to get to. Yours must be very organised

I realise that's what you were saying, Orca, just pointing out that it's still politics, even when one doesn't want it to be party political, so you aren't apolitical. #precisionofmeaning (what you might call "nit-picking" ).

Politics affects nearly every aspect of our daily life, so you'd effectively be banning me from posting .. which I'm sure (well nearly sure) is not your intent Bags. What I'm trying to say is let's rise above party lines on this particular issue and work towards a solution for the common good.
Jess I wasn't telling you what to do.....when I posted 'let's not'...I chose my words carefully ...let us not...myself included...a suggestion...not a command. Chill.
Any number of people can hold opinions, but we as a nation can bogged down in debates that go back and forwards and never get anything actually done.

The trouble is both the main parties critises the other when in opposition about not enough being spent on the NHS and how nursing staff is being cut, but once in power cuts the budget further while claiming to have increased the number of nurses and doctors. Somebody is fibbing.

You can't say you're apolotical if you take part in discussion about things that politics affect. Politics is simply how people (that us, orca, unless you're not a person, but even other social animals have what might be called political systems) organise themselves.

orca you can call me cynical about politicians if you like, but don't tell me not to politicise the debate. Health care is and always has been a political football. When I was working in the NHS there was a care scandal of some kind and the minister (might have been Dobson) responded by imposing a whole new pay structure on the nursing profession without consultation.
Cameron promised to protect the NHS but in the regulations attached to the recent legislation they slipped in a requirement that every hospital will have to bid (against other hospital and/or private sector) for every service they offer. This will take up a lot of management time that could have been devoted to improving care.
I fear that this "blame the nurses" strategy is a case of politicians pretending to care about patient care but only really being interested in grabbing a low common denominator quick fix that will appeal to voters.
In the same week we have had Gove saying that teachers need to work longer.
Just had a long chat with DIL (experienced nurse) about the issue. She elected to work as a ward assistant before starting training but does not see value in making everyone do this, as it does come into training. She points out that nursing is very much more technical than it was 30 years ago - drains, cannulas, morphine pumps etc. are routine parts of the job. These were dealt with by doctors in the past.
I would also point out that 30 years ago the average hospital was far less sick than today's patients - because the average hospital stay, after surgery for instance, was much longer.

I'm pleased we are returning to thought-out solutions to the issue of nurse training and do believe that project 2000 escalated the problem. Elegran nurses might return to the NHS if they felt they were working in a better environment and valued. Nanaej I like your idea, especially if trainee nurses could get a qualification midway through a four-year course. It could also be possible, if after a couple of years experience there were courses which led to higher nursing qualifications.
Jess let's not politicise this. The emphasis on targets, to the detriment of basic patient care, was behind at least 200 deaths at Stafford. This meant that all these men, woman and children actually lost their lives unnecessarily. Nobody like the quick solution and it may be ill thought out at the moment, but give credit where it is due. People are at least trying to improve patient care. Perhaps if the RCN worked with the government something better could come out of this.

nanaej - [like] emoticon.

Nice posts nanaej and elegran. I am concerned that this crude and unthought out suggestion (a year on the wards) is not going to improve patient care. I feel weary with the way ministers, particularly the current govt, come up with quick fix ideas that make a good headline and then rush to implementation without consulting those who understand the issues, and without careful trials and pilot studies. The current NHS "reorganisation" is a prime example.

Maybe the training could be graduated as opposed to graduate!

Year one = practical personal nursing care leading to nursing care support qualification (with at least a day a week over the year in college based tutorials/lectures etc)

Year two = practical medical nursing care leading to assistant nurse qualification (with equivalent of a day a week over the year in college based tutorials/lectures etc)

Year three & four = combined management/administration / technical /specialist medical qualification leading to qualified nurse with the equivalent of 2 days a week college based training over each year)

People could stop or continue training to any level and pay would reflect level.

True. There would be a year's gap in the supply of newly trained nurses though - and they leave the profession at an alarming rate. Most wards are short-staffed as it is. They would need to be supervised when they had had no training at all, and not used as skivvies - though that is traditional for beginners on the wards.

That is another factor in skimpy care - under-staffing and time off sick with bad backs and stress and colds and tummy bugs.

Surely a year spent hands on doing routine ward work would give a prospective nurse time unpressured time to get to grips with hospital routines. Time to observe the nurses and doctors. Time to make minor mistakes in patient interaction and learn empathy without the pressure of course work, exams and decisions hanging over them.

It does add another year to their training. Maybe three placements (one each year) of a month each would show them if they are not cut out for caring work? i believe ward work is already a part of their training.

The amount of paperwork has increased tremendously, and the numbers of staff on duty has decreased, and the reorganisation of the hierarchy means that the fear of matron's tongue has been removed. A manager is not the same at all.

Reddevil

And I agree with you too.

I worked in NHS hospitals for about 30 years. The start of the rot was when Project 2000 started in the early 90's.
Student nurses spent their first 18 months in college, then started in hospital having never even touched a patient. The majority of the ones I met, treated experienced staff from other departments with total arrogance.

In the olden days of ward orderlies, SENs (who were wonderful practical nurses who could upgrade their training to SRN), SRNs -either staff nurses or ward sisters and MATRON, hospitals were much happier, efficient, caring, cleaner places.

Yes, I think nowadays when nurses have to get degrees, a lot of them think that basic caring IS beneath them. The idea of bringing in a compulsory year of working as an HCA is an excellent idea imho. ( and Cameron agrees with me!)

I disagree with the OP's original implication or reference to an implication that nurses do not do their jobs well anymore.

My experiences are that the vast majority of nurses are caring and hardworking. The job has changed dramatically with huge increases in the range of medication, treatment and technology and on top of that successive governments' edicts about paperwork, 'accountability' & 'targets'.

Patients' well managed and empathetic personal care is an essential and basic expectation for anyone in hospital. It should be undertaken by any member of the medical team: doctor /nurse/ancillary carer etc when needed but it also important to make sure that there is good and sufficient deployment of well trained staff.

When I was ill in hospital most recently I did not mind who assisted me as long as they were thoughtful and sensitive! I had good experiences of nurses and ancillary staff throughout my 10 days.

I have occasionally witnessed thoughtless behaviour by all levels of staff in hospitals but overwhelmingly I have been impressed by the level of care I or my family and friends have received.

Interesting g. Especially on "what the weather is doing" threads.

j08 Wapping or Windsor, Epping or Edinburgh, Paris or Plymouth, Madrid or Manchester – what difference does it make to anything?