In the UK's public healthcare system, more than half of nursing home residents denied basic care

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 6:39 PM GMT
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9126976/More-than-half-care-home-residents-denied-basic-care-unpublished-data-shows.html

    More than half of elderly and disabled people in care homes are being denied basic health services while staff are failing to to do enough to preserve their dignity, according to an official review.

    Some older people routinely have to wait up to three months for formal checks for painful conditions such as bed sores, according to figures from the health care watchdog.

    A quarter were not given a choice of male or female staff to help them use the lavatory and more than a third of care homes surveyed admitted delays in getting medication to residents.

    Campaigners blamed NHS bureaucrats showing a “lack of interest” and failing to provide expert assessments for conditions as basic as incontinence.

    The findings emerged after almost 1,000 elderly people yesterday descended on Parliament to lobby their MPs calling for a radical overhaul of the social care system.

    Paul Burstow, the care minister, signalled that a widely anticipated white paper of the future of social care had been delayed until next month insisting: “Getting it right is better than rushing it out and getting it wrong.”


    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/03/10/50-of-uk-nursing-home-patients-abused-by-government-health-care/

    Fans of government health care keep telling us that government can do the job, and they point to countries like the UK as examples where single payer, government run health care systems deliver high quality, compassionate care.

    They are either grossly ignorant or they are lying through their teeth.
    A recent study by a British healthcare regulator finds that half of all elderly people in Britain’s nursing homes are being denied basic health services.
    Half.

    Some older people were forced to wait months for a doctor or nurse to treat simple health problems. No doubt they were waiting for the Bureau of Bedsore Management to review the proper procedures before issuing a bandage-changing permit.

    Over the polite grumbling of many advocacy groups, the British Parliament can be faintly heard tinkering away at some far overdue legislation. No doubt the grannies will get some relief just as soon as the House of Commons passes some new laws, the House of Lords (whoever they have there now that they have chased the actual, you know, Lords out of it) sagaciously tinkers with it, the Queen signs it, the bureaucrats get all the regulations nicely written, and the memos and administrative procedures get delivered to the proper offices.

    Of course, the National Health Care service has been around since the 1940s and somehow these lingering little problems haven’t quite been cleared up yet. It’s obviously just a question of getting the right regulations in place and any century now the system will by running like a fine tuned machine and there won’t be any problems at all.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 11, 2012 7:07 PM GMT
    I hate when things like this are turned into propaganda..

    Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs is this: Nursing home care sucks in a lot of places. It sucks in America. Many patients are denied basic care here...the same everywhere else:

    http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7717.pdf

    Also, some studies from UCSF have shown that for-profit chains of nursing facilities actually suffer more deficiencies than their counterparts:
    http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/11/11037/low-staffing-and-poor-quality-care-nations-profit-nursing-homes

    This problem is, unfortunately, endemic to the geriatric care and residential health system and not one created by any one particular form of healthcare system..

    These patients are complex, they are frustrating, they have multiple needs and require extensive care...It's hard to maintain RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and even MDs to take care of these patients because - in order for it to be a profitable system, companies must downsize work staff which leaves healthcare staff understaffed on these complex and need intensive patients.

    This is an issue in any health system, tragically...One that I don't think we are going to have answer to any time soon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 7:15 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidI hate when things like this are turned into propaganda..

    Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs is this: Nursing home care sucks in a lot of places. It sucks in America. Many patients are denied basic care here...the same everywhere else:

    http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7717.pdf

    Also, some studies from UCSF have shown that for-profit chains of nursing facilities actually suffer more deficiencies than their counterparts:
    http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/11/11037/low-staffing-and-poor-quality-care-nations-profit-nursing-homes

    This problem is, unfortunately, endemic to the geriatric care and residential health system and not one created by any one particular form of healthcare system..

    These patients are complex, they are frustrating, they have multiple needs and require extensive care...It's hard to maintain RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and even MDs to take care of these patients because - in order for it to be a profitable system, companies must downsize work staff which leaves healthcare staff understaffed on these complex and need intensive patients.

    This is an issue in any health system, tragically...


    Um - they are saying they have been deficiencies in private care in the US. I'm trying to decipher the data but this idea that because facilities are understaffed they must therefore be getting inadequate care is a curious one - that says more about those who did the study whereas the study for the NHS in the UK shows outright negligence. I'd be more interested in seeing direct comparisons - but certainly it looks worse at this point for the NHS than private providers in the US based solely on the deficiencies cited versus the denial of BASIC care for more than half of residents in the UK.

    As for propaganda? Your hypocrisy on these issues is curious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 7:20 PM GMT
    It's funny because riddler knows nothing about healthcare.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 11, 2012 7:23 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI hate when things like this are turned into propaganda..

    Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs is this: Nursing home care sucks in a lot of places. It sucks in America. Many patients are denied basic care here...the same everywhere else:

    http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7717.pdf

    Also, some studies from UCSF have shown that for-profit chains of nursing facilities actually suffer more deficiencies than their counterparts:
    http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/11/11037/low-staffing-and-poor-quality-care-nations-profit-nursing-homes

    This problem is, unfortunately, endemic to the geriatric care and residential health system and not one created by any one particular form of healthcare system..

    These patients are complex, they are frustrating, they have multiple needs and require extensive care...It's hard to maintain RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and even MDs to take care of these patients because - in order for it to be a profitable system, companies must downsize work staff which leaves healthcare staff understaffed on these complex and need intensive patients.

    This is an issue in any health system, tragically...


    Um - they are saying they have been deficiencies in private care in the US. I'm trying to decipher the data but this idea that because facilities are understaffed they must therefore be getting inadequate care is a curious one - that says more about those who did the study whereas the study for the NHS in the UK shows outright negligence. I'd be more interested in seeing direct comparisons - but certainly it looks worse at this point for the NHS than private providers in the US based solely on the deficiencies cited versus the denial of BASIC care for more than half of residents in the UK.

    As for propaganda? Your hypocrisy on these issues is curious.


    Understaffing only partially contributes to lower quality of care, but the above study uses many of the same quality measures, including incontinence and bed sore care...

    Also how am I promoting any form of propaganda by stating that the care of geriatric patients is a complex one and can't be squarely rooted in a form of healthcare system? I know you'd like to point a finger and be like "blame socialized medicine," but quality of nursing home facilities has been terrifying. Thank god there was reform in the 1980s that required federal and state regulation of patient assessment and outcomes.. Things are terrible now, but have gotten a lot better since then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 7:23 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidIt's funny because riddler knows nothing about healthcare.


    He knows he gets his for free... icon_cool.gif
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 11, 2012 7:30 PM GMT
    Also, I feel it necessary to explain why understaffing is a huge issue in patient healthcare, since you contend that it is one:

    Depending on the needs of particular hospital units, there are designated "staffing ratios." Sometimes, certain patients even get decreased patient:nurse ratios in these units because they have certain care needs.

    On a general floor, it isn't uncommon for 1 nurse to be in charge of the care of 3 - 4 patients. On a telemetry or step-down floor, the number is closer to 2-3. In an ICU, you often times see 1-2 patients per nurse.

    If a healthcare facility is understaffed, these ratios change...Because a nurse may have more patients than she can feasibly care for, lab draws, procedures, sanitation (including changing and sanitation around various lines and foleys), turning, other bed sore prevention, medicine application, etc may occur... Nurses, being human, if run too hard are also likely to make more mistakes or forget things completely (one can only multi-task so much when the patient is shouting one thing, the doctor another, and there are 30 scheduled things going on).

    Understaffing can lead to significant problems with patient care for this reason...A human being has limits on the amount of care they can provide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI hate when things like this are turned into propaganda..

    Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs is this: Nursing home care sucks in a lot of places. It sucks in America. Many patients are denied basic care here...the same everywhere else:

    http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7717.pdf

    Also, some studies from UCSF have shown that for-profit chains of nursing facilities actually suffer more deficiencies than their counterparts:
    http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/11/11037/low-staffing-and-poor-quality-care-nations-profit-nursing-homes

    This problem is, unfortunately, endemic to the geriatric care and residential health system and not one created by any one particular form of healthcare system..

    These patients are complex, they are frustrating, they have multiple needs and require extensive care...It's hard to maintain RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and even MDs to take care of these patients because - in order for it to be a profitable system, companies must downsize work staff which leaves healthcare staff understaffed on these complex and need intensive patients.

    This is an issue in any health system, tragically...


    Um - they are saying they have been deficiencies in private care in the US. I'm trying to decipher the data but this idea that because facilities are understaffed they must therefore be getting inadequate care is a curious one - that says more about those who did the study whereas the study for the NHS in the UK shows outright negligence. I'd be more interested in seeing direct comparisons - but certainly it looks worse at this point for the NHS than private providers in the US based solely on the deficiencies cited versus the denial of BASIC care for more than half of residents in the UK.

    As for propaganda? Your hypocrisy on these issues is curious.


    Understaffing only partially contributes to lower quality of care, but the above study uses many of the same quality measures, including incontinence and bed sore care...

    Also how am I promoting any form of propaganda by stating that the care of geriatric patients is a complex one and can't be squarely rooted in a form of healthcare system? I know you'd like to point a finger and be like "blame socialized medicine," but quality of nursing home facilities has been terrifying. Thank god there was reform in the 1980s that required federal and state regulation of patient assessment and outcomes.. Things are terrible now, but have gotten a lot better since then.


    How are you promoting any form of propaganda? From a guy so quick to jump on socializing contraception? Really?

    I'm pointing a finger to the fact that socialized medicine is not a viable solution. And as for understaffing only partially contributing to lower quality of care - I recognize that this is what the studies are saying but this also presumes equal productivity for all staff. Do you believe all doctors and nurses have equal productivity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI hate when things like this are turned into propaganda..

    Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs is this: Nursing home care sucks in a lot of places. It sucks in America. Many patients are denied basic care here...the same everywhere else:

    http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7717.pdf

    Also, some studies from UCSF have shown that for-profit chains of nursing facilities actually suffer more deficiencies than their counterparts:
    http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/11/11037/low-staffing-and-poor-quality-care-nations-profit-nursing-homes

    This problem is, unfortunately, endemic to the geriatric care and residential health system and not one created by any one particular form of healthcare system..

    These patients are complex, they are frustrating, they have multiple needs and require extensive care...It's hard to maintain RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and even MDs to take care of these patients because - in order for it to be a profitable system, companies must downsize work staff which leaves healthcare staff understaffed on these complex and need intensive patients.

    This is an issue in any health system, tragically...


    Um - they are saying they have been deficiencies in private care in the US. I'm trying to decipher the data but this idea that because facilities are understaffed they must therefore be getting inadequate care is a curious one - that says more about those who did the study whereas the study for the NHS in the UK shows outright negligence. I'd be more interested in seeing direct comparisons - but certainly it looks worse at this point for the NHS than private providers in the US based solely on the deficiencies cited versus the denial of BASIC care for more than half of residents in the UK.

    As for propaganda? Your hypocrisy on these issues is curious.


    Understaffing only partially contributes to lower quality of care, but the above study uses many of the same quality measures, including incontinence and bed sore care...

    Also how am I promoting any form of propaganda by stating that the care of geriatric patients is a complex one and can't be squarely rooted in a form of healthcare system? I know you'd like to point a finger and be like "blame socialized medicine," but quality of nursing home facilities has been terrifying. Thank god there was reform in the 1980s that required federal and state regulation of patient assessment and outcomes.. Things are terrible now, but have gotten a lot better since then.


    How are you promoting any form of propaganda? From a guy so quick to jump on socializing contraception? Really?

    I'm pointing a finger to the fact that socialized medicine is not a viable solution. And as for understaffing only partially contributing to lower quality of care - I recognize that this is what the studies are saying but this also presumes equal productivity for all staff. Do you believe all doctors and nurses have equal productivity?


    Socialized medicine is really the only way to go. I mean most private insurance won't even cover dialysis treatments/transplant/transplant care, the government pays 80% of it.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 11, 2012 7:35 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo saidI hate when things like this are turned into propaganda..

    Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs is this: Nursing home care sucks in a lot of places. It sucks in America. Many patients are denied basic care here...the same everywhere else:

    http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7717.pdf

    Also, some studies from UCSF have shown that for-profit chains of nursing facilities actually suffer more deficiencies than their counterparts:
    http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/11/11037/low-staffing-and-poor-quality-care-nations-profit-nursing-homes

    This problem is, unfortunately, endemic to the geriatric care and residential health system and not one created by any one particular form of healthcare system..

    These patients are complex, they are frustrating, they have multiple needs and require extensive care...It's hard to maintain RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and even MDs to take care of these patients because - in order for it to be a profitable system, companies must downsize work staff which leaves healthcare staff understaffed on these complex and need intensive patients.

    This is an issue in any health system, tragically...


    Um - they are saying they have been deficiencies in private care in the US. I'm trying to decipher the data but this idea that because facilities are understaffed they must therefore be getting inadequate care is a curious one - that says more about those who did the study whereas the study for the NHS in the UK shows outright negligence. I'd be more interested in seeing direct comparisons - but certainly it looks worse at this point for the NHS than private providers in the US based solely on the deficiencies cited versus the denial of BASIC care for more than half of residents in the UK.

    As for propaganda? Your hypocrisy on these issues is curious.


    Understaffing only partially contributes to lower quality of care, but the above study uses many of the same quality measures, including incontinence and bed sore care...

    Also how am I promoting any form of propaganda by stating that the care of geriatric patients is a complex one and can't be squarely rooted in a form of healthcare system? I know you'd like to point a finger and be like "blame socialized medicine," but quality of nursing home facilities has been terrifying. Thank god there was reform in the 1980s that required federal and state regulation of patient assessment and outcomes.. Things are terrible now, but have gotten a lot better since then.


    How are you promoting any form of propaganda? From a guy so quick to jump on socializing contraception? Really?

    I'm pointing a finger to the fact that socialized medicine is not a viable solution. And as for understaffing only partially contributing to lower quality of care - I recognize that this is what the studies are saying but this also presumes equal productivity for all staff. Do you believe all doctors and nurses have equal productivity?


    Do they have equal productivity? Of course not...but please see above.. Even the best nurses (and I work with some awesome ones) can only do but so much..

    All I'm saying is that this isn't as much of an issue of socialized medicine vs private payer as much as it is of the sad state of affairs with geriatric patient care.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 12:09 AM GMT
    Riddler said, "I'm pointing a finger to the fact, (EDIT: replace 'fact' with 'personal ideology'); that socialized medicine (EDIT: replace 'socialized medicine' with 'socialized anything') is not a viable solution."



    ...and of course he knows carehomes in the UK are understaffed. He has a computer and knows how to use it.


  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 12, 2012 12:52 AM GMT
    As hard as this sound, I think Americans need to experience it (socialized medicine) and live with it. Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed. I have less and less at stake in this argument each and every day.

    Having said that, I applaud you in your effort Riddler.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 1:04 AM GMT

    "Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed."


    Exactly. In other words, rich enough to afford to do so.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 1:11 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    "Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed."


    Exactly. In other words, rich enough to afford to do so.





    Or simply the ability to choose. In Canada there aren't even those options in many services. In the developing world many purchase their healthcare too - even the poorest. The primarily problem for government healthcare being the one sized fits all approach when that's just not how healthcare works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 1:15 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    "Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed."


    Exactly. In other words, rich enough to afford to do so.





    Or simply the ability to choose. In Canada there aren't even those options in many services. In the developing world many purchase their healthcare too - even the poorest. The primarily problem for government healthcare being the one sized fits all approach when that's just not how healthcare works.


    Well, leeches probably aren't very expensive... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 1:20 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    "Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed."


    Exactly. In other words, rich enough to afford to do so.





    Or simply the ability to choose. In Canada there aren't even those options in many services. In the developing world many purchase their healthcare too - even the poorest. The primarily problem for government healthcare being the one sized fits all approach when that's just not how healthcare works.


    Well, leeches probably aren't very expensive... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Which just goes to show how ignorant you are of healthcare in the developing world - which is probably just as intelligible as your knowledge of finance in the first world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 2:38 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    "Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed."


    Exactly. In other words, rich enough to afford to do so.





    Or simply the ability to choose. In Canada there aren't even those options in many services. In the developing world many purchase their healthcare too - even the poorest. The primarily problem for government healthcare being the one sized fits all approach when that's just not how healthcare works.


    Well, leeches probably aren't very expensive... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Which just goes to show how ignorant you are of healthcare in the developing world - which is probably just as intelligible as your knowledge of finance in the first world.


    Oh, I'm familiar enough with it. I'm just mocking you because you're being ridiculous - as usual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2012 3:31 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    "Those of us who can purchase health services in the global arena are blessed."


    Exactly. In other words, rich enough to afford to do so.





    I have my own Private Health Care. Maybe I go without on other things to have this. or maybe it's more about choice. Yet I also have to still pay a medicare levy for those who do not have private health care; thus I get hit twice, and don't get anything back in return.

    Look at all those gays who can afford the best of everything, like clothing, lifestyle, and so on, yet say they can not afford private health Cover; crap.

    Oh and the Pommy's are going to have to change their health care System, because it's going under, and with the very big problem England is faced with all those illegal immigrants, is not helping either.