Nhs = Raf

[Bluntend]

Ok, if you changed the words ‘Health’ for ‘Defence’, ‘Hospital’ for ‘Station’, ‘Patient’ for ‘Operation’, ‘NHS’ for ‘RAF’, ‘Consultant’ for ‘Officer’ and ‘Nurse’ for ‘Airman’, how believable would this report by the BBC be?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4754355.stm

[shoutingwind]

yep its true!

[Wing boy]

lmao nice one fella

[monobrow]

might use the old find and replace on word and post it up.

Be right back!!!

here we go, doesn't read that well, but using bluntends guidelines, here it is in edited form..........

Defence reforms 'wasted millions'

Some key government Defence reforms have been criticised for costing millions of pounds but bringing few benefits. A new contract for top Station doctors cost £90 million more than expected and has contributed to RAF deficits, says a report by think tank the King's Fund. And schemes to build RAF Stations with the private sector will leave companies with windfall profits of £3.3bn, pressure group Defence Emergency claims.

The Department of Defence said operations were benefiting from its reforms. The King's Fund looked at what happened at five London Station trusts after the contracts were signed in 2003. It said implementation was rushed and that the amount of work carried out by Officers was seriously underestimated. The contract had aimed to "properly reward Officers so that more RAF operations benefit from their time and skills" and was designed to use a "reward strategy" to secure benefits for operations. But the report found that despite substantial increases in pay - a 50% rise between 2001 and 2005 - there was little evidence of changes to working practices.

A lack of guidance made it difficult for Stations to use the contract to improve operation care, it said. "There has been a tendency by managers in some trusts to regard the contract as a compliance issue - a box to be ticked - rather than a mechanism for change," it added. 'Motivated' However, some advantages were won including greater transparency about Officers' hours and their duties.

Report author James Buchan said there needed to be more guidance on how to use it as a tool to benefit operations. "That may be by looking more closely at Officers' working patterns and ways for managers to help Officers to work more productively." He called for clear guidance on how to ensure the contract worked for operations and for RAF trusts to link job plans with their own goals.

The Department of Defence said RAF pay reform including the new contract had motivated staff to deliver real benefits to operations. A spokeswoman said it was true there was still some way to go before the full benefits were realised, but said trusts were becoming more proactive in their planning. 'Bleeding millions' "To ensure that operations get as much access to Officers in the RAF as possible, the new contract requires that Officers should offer up any additional capacity to their RAF employer before undertaking any private work, " she added.

The British Medical Association, which represents Officers, said the report was based on a small sample and was inaccurate in places. Dr Paul Miller, chairman of the Officers' committee said: "The new contract pays Officers for the work they do - something that was not done under the old contract. The harder Officers work, the more they get paid. "The government got its sums wrong because it underestimated just how hard Officers are working for the RAF."

The RAF Employers, which represents Defence service employers, said the contract remained a good tool for rewarding Officers and improving local services. Implementation had not been easy, but the focus was now turning to operation benefits. But it recognised the way funding was allocated caused real problems for some organisations and that costs were higher than expected.

Shadow Defence secretary Andrew Lansley called for a "turnaround team" to be sent into the Department of Defence. He said: "For the vast amount of extra money going into the RAF, we are not nearly getting the increase in productivity required. Lib Dem Defence spokesman Steve Webb said local trusts were picking up the bill for a failure by the government to negotiate and budget effectively.

The report comes as Defence Emergency claims firms involved with RAF projects under New Labour's flagship Private Finance Initiative are "bleeding" millions of pounds in profits. Three recently approved PFI schemes - where the government pays private firms to build facilities through a sort of long-term mortgage - in London, St Helens and Birmingham would net the companies £440 million in profits, the report predicted.

The Department of Defence said the group had got its figures wrong and that PFI was delivering for operations. "Where new Station PFI schemes are affordable to the RAF, meet operation needs and provide value for money, they will be built as we continue to rectify under-investment in RAF facilities," a spokesman said

best bit edited....

The report comes as Defence Emergency claims firms involved with RAF projects under New Labour's flagship Private Finance Initiative are "bleeding" millions of pounds in profits.

he he!!!

[grumpy sumpy]

A quote extracted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5055450.stm
by Dr. Ian wilson

"But even more money has been wasted. We are talking about billions and billions of pounds being wasted on management consultancy fees, and on failed attempts to bring in computer systems.
Lean and JPA???:PDT_Xtremez_42:

"The debt could be wiped out almost overnight if the government would listen to those that work in the service, and make the changes needed to benefit patients.

Why ? It's the magic elves that fix the cabs in the middle of the night we just make the place look untidy.

On a drive around camp today I saw more people in suits swanning around with Rupert's up their bums than tradesmen. What is going on??

[fat lazy techie]

The problem with the NHS debt isn't down to the fact there are too many nurses getting too big a pay rise (capped at around 2% this year I think). It's down to the fcuking government insisting that patients get sent to private hospitals to reduce waiting lists, pointless managerial posts, rediculous policies, trust directors on scandalous wages, large amounts wasted on consultancy fees and general miss-management. I can see where this ties in with the RAF (or military in general). It's time something constructive was done. Remove the excessive fat from the top.

Another comparison is overstretch. Nurses being made redundant, posts not being filled and an unrealistic workload to manage. Not only that but morale is just as low.

Come the revolution.:PDT_Xtremez_28: