Is it just me who is puzzled?

sandelf

growstuff Oh I do agree - not 'consequential' meetings. Meetings to discuss your treatment options/way ahead are part of your treatment - not 'meetings' in this sense. All the very best.

But they are meetings. That's how it works.

Mollygo

^Meetings to discuss your or my current treatment options are part of treatment plans treatment^ I do hope they would not be regarded as non-essential.

And I hope the clinicians involved would be sitting down with all the relevant information in front of them - not standing up in a five minute meeting.

Of course the meeting will be important, but if there were to be an emergency (such as a major motorway accident) when the meeting was scheduled to take place, I would imagine the priority would be to use every available member of staff to deal with the emergency. It wouldn't be essential that the MDT meeting happened at such and such a time.

4allweknow

Goodness, if non essential why were the activities planned in the first place.

I've just explained.

Meetings generally are essential, but it's a question of priorities.

I can't be the only one who divides my own daily tasks into different priorities. Some things need doing as soon as possible. Some things need doing within a day or two and others still need doing, but can wait - it's a question of language, but I wouldn't call them 'essential' at the time.

However, if there's an emergency, I drop everything and attend to the emergency. In that case, I suppose it could be argued that none of my planned tasks were essential.

That's what seems to have happened in this hospital. There were reports that A & E was overwhelmed, so emergency procedures were put in place. I expect all clinical staff were expected to help out. In those circumstances meetings about strategy or budget wouldn't be essential - saving people's lives would be.

However, no organisation (including a hospital) can run like that permanently. There have to be strategy meetings at some point - they are essential.

I really don't understand why it's so hard to understand that.

The problem seems to have arisen as a result of sloppy use of language - maybe the hospital senior staff should have a meeting to decide which meetings are essential in a crisis.

Non essential does not mean unimportant 4allweknow, it means it’s not critical that that meeting/activity happens this week.
An example might be a meeting to discuss improving the information on referral forms from Orthopaedics to Radiology. Ultimately that would improve patient care so it is important , but it isn’t a critical activity for this week.

Goodness, if non essential why were the activities planned in the first place.

No AutieE.
I was simply wondering why non-essential meetings had been set up, and now cancelled since the hospital is under pressure.
Can you cancel something that doesn’t exist.

Yes, you have misunderstood I think AuntieE, clinicians refers to all professions involved directly in the care of patients, not just doctors.
What I believe, with the benefit of a long NHS career, is that they are saying that the designated sessions professionals have for seeing patients will be protected, and not used for meetings or other activities.

Mollygo

I was reading about the new hospitals planned for Lancashire. Reading further, I read that Lancaster infirmary is under incredible pressure at the moment.
Steps being taken to deal with this included the following paragraph.
Cancellation of non-essential meetings/activities in order to redirect clinician time to patient facing activities.

Under current pressures, why were these non-essential meetings/activities being set up?

Now I am confused too, Mollygo. To me the sentence you quote in italics means that the activites mentioned are being cancelled so there will be more time for "clinicians" - why not medical personnel? can spend more time actually seeing patients!

So these activities are not being set up, but cancelled.

Or have I mistaken this convoluted civil servant English?

Meetings to discuss your or my current treatment options are part of treatment plans treatment I do hope they would not be regarded as non-essential.

growstuff Oh I do agree - not 'consequential' meetings. Meetings to discuss your treatment options/way ahead are part of your treatment - not 'meetings' in this sense. All the very best.

sundowngirl

growstuff

sandelf

I once worked for a place where all routine meetings were held standing up and no tea 'n bickies. Didn't half cut down on the time expended listening to folk who only attend to hear themselves talk!

I doubt if these are routine meetings or briefings. I've never worked for the NHS, but I can imagine the kind of issues which are discussed. Some of them undoubtedly involve millions of pounds and serious consequences for patient care. I don't think it would be appropriate for such meetings to be discussed standing up.

As for routine meetings ... there's going to be a routine meeting next Monday to discuss treatment for my own melanoma. A number of specialists will be involved. I would hope that it will be treated a bit more seriously than something to be discussed in a couple of minutes while people are standing up.

When I worked for a very large organisation (not NHS) we had a new director who held all meetings standing up and I agree with sandelf, they did improve efficiency and cut down on the time wasted.
And yes Growstuff, these were routine meetings and briefings.

I can understand that briefings can be held standing up, but did this include hour-long meetings to discuss improvements, including possible changes in systems and budgetary implications? Did the directors stand when board meetings were held?

growstuff

sandelf

I once worked for a place where all routine meetings were held standing up and no tea 'n bickies. Didn't half cut down on the time expended listening to folk who only attend to hear themselves talk!

I doubt if these are routine meetings or briefings. I've never worked for the NHS, but I can imagine the kind of issues which are discussed. Some of them undoubtedly involve millions of pounds and serious consequences for patient care. I don't think it would be appropriate for such meetings to be discussed standing up.

As for routine meetings ... there's going to be a routine meeting next Monday to discuss treatment for my own melanoma. A number of specialists will be involved. I would hope that it will be treated a bit more seriously than something to be discussed in a couple of minutes while people are standing up.

When I worked for a very large organisation (not NHS) we had a new director who held all meetings standing up and I agree with sandelf, they did improve efficiency and cut down on the time wasted.
And yes Growstuff, these were routine meetings and briefings.

I was due to have a scan. I raised a question about the advice in the appointment letter, which was contrary to what the specialist had said. Result: several (not just me) cancelled scans and a meeting which should have been a quick telephone call.

sandelf

I once worked for a place where all routine meetings were held standing up and no tea 'n bickies. Didn't half cut down on the time expended listening to folk who only attend to hear themselves talk!

I doubt if these are routine meetings or briefings. I've never worked for the NHS, but I can imagine the kind of issues which are discussed. Some of them undoubtedly involve millions of pounds and serious consequences for patient care. I don't think it would be appropriate for such meetings to be discussed standing up.

As for routine meetings ... there's going to be a routine meeting next Monday to discuss treatment for my own melanoma. A number of specialists will be involved. I would hope that it will be treated a bit more seriously than something to be discussed in a couple of minutes while people are standing up.

I once worked for a place where all routine meetings were held standing up and no tea 'n bickies. Didn't half cut down on the time expended listening to folk who only attend to hear themselves talk!

Mollygo

Not sure why you’re pressing this, but whatever.

It's your OP. Didn't you want anybody to reply?

It doesn't seem at all puzzling to some of us.

Not sure why you’re pressing this, but whatever.

growstuff

Mollygo

Some meetings are essential. It didn’t say those meetings would be cancelled, just the non-essential ones.

I know. I read the article.

My point is that some meetings are essential, but it's a question of priorities. If there are hundreds of people waiting for treatment now, the priority is to treat those people not discuss how A & E could be made more efficient in the future. Nevertheless, meetings about efficiency are essential and will need to take place at some time. Without coherent meetings to discuss long-term planning, everything ends up being short-term with everybody on the back foot all the time. Sadly, that happens too often, which is why there is so much short-termism.

Those forward long term planning meetings are actually essential to best use clinical time and resources and flag up potential issues to be resolved. they may not be essential that week, but without them best practice won't take place.

There has to be liaison and best planning with that mixture of clinical and admin/resource managing.

Mollygo

Some meetings are essential. It didn’t say those meetings would be cancelled, just the non-essential ones.

I know. I read the article.

My point is that some meetings are essential, but it's a question of priorities. If there are hundreds of people waiting for treatment now, the priority is to treat those people not discuss how A & E could be made more efficient in the future. Nevertheless, meetings about efficiency are essential and will need to take place at some time. Without coherent meetings to discuss long-term planning, everything ends up being short-term with everybody on the back foot all the time. Sadly, that happens too often, which is why there is so much short-termism.

Some meetings are essential. It didn’t say those meetings would be cancelled, just the non-essential ones.

I didn't have the impression that cancelling meetings was to be permanent, so would be unlikely to result in more ftf consultations, apart from in A & E on a short term basis.

I found an article about this. My impression was that cancelling meetings was a temporary solution to a crisis. A & E was under severe pressure and just couldn't cope. It seemed to me, from reading the article, that it was a question of 'all hands to the deck'.

Some meetings are essential for forward planning (eg. how to improve systems, staffing needs, budget savings, etc etc) but it's a question of prioritising. Long-term planning meetings are essential, but not when there are hundreds of potentially very sick people in A & E.

It could be any of those mentioned by Allira or Casdon and others. I don’t suppose we will hear, which leaves us free to guess or hypothesise.
If it really does mean more opportunity of face to face time with a doctor then it seems like a good idea.

It could be any meetings or activities which impinge on their designated clinical sessions. For example, Education and supervision meetings, seeing reps, meetings about clinical trials, interviews, meetings with other specialties to discuss new treatment pathways and access, cross Divisional meetings for patients with multiple diagnoses, internal Directorate meetings. Meetings organised by Management would be much less frequent than the activities controlled by the clinicians themselves. All consultants do have designated admin sessions built into the weekly timetable, it’s when these activities take place when they should be seeing patients rather than in their admin sessions that the impact is on waiting lists/times.

Cancellation of non-essential meetings/activities in order to redirect clinician time to patient facing activities.

Were these non-essential meetings set up by managers and clinicians were requested to attend but perhaps the clinicians have politely declined so that they can get on with their real work?