Fast track for Urgent Care?

T

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Sat in Urgent Care in Hartlepool (TSSJr1 poorly).

Obviously they triage to a point, but none of the patients are life threatening otherwise they'd be in A&E in Stockton. It's seeing an out of hours doctor for stuff like croup and reassurance.

Been here since 8.30am, queues have steadily built since that time.

I wonder whether they could introduce a fast track service like they do at the airports; charge more at peak time all money reinvested back into the NHS.

It would have to be to bring an additional doctor in, not to undermine the current system. £50 so you don't wait 3 hours wouldn't be a bad price

I'm sure they know when peak demand is to finesse the times when it's available and if it's quiet then they just take the next on the list like the other doctors.

I probably wouldn't go so far as a new waiting area (airport equivalent of the lounge) but again, it might help.

Or are we so wedded to a free at point of use universal system, something as simple of this would be politically unacceptable?

My guess is people would take advantage of it but we'd not implement it.

Edited to add: still here, it would be helpful to have an app which shows where you are in the queue. Having no idea makes people really unhappy.

Simple customer care stuff; I know it all costs money and we are shit are large scale IT stuff; but still.
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
Sat in Urgent Care in Hartlepool (TSSJr1 poorly).

Obviously they triage to a point, but none of the patients are life threatening otherwise they'd be in A&E in Stockton. It's seeing an out of hours doctor for stuff like croup and reassurance.

Been here since 8.30am, queues have steadily built since that time.

I wonder whether they could introduce a fast track service like they do at the airports; charge more at peak time all money reinvested back into the NHS.

It would have to be to bring an additional doctor in, not to undermine the current system. £50 so you don't wait 3 hours wouldn't be a bad price

I'm sure they know when peak demand is to finesse the times when it's available and if it's quiet then they just take the next on the list like the other doctors.

I probably wouldn't go so far as a new waiting area (airport equivalent of the lounge) but again, it might help.

Or are we so wedded to a free at point of use universal system, something as simple of this would be politically unacceptable?

My guess is people would take advantage of it but we'd not implement it.

Edited to add: still here, it would be helpful to have an app which shows where you are in the queue. Having no idea makes people really unhappy.

Simple customer care stuff; I know it all costs money and we are shit are large scale IT stuff; but still.
Click to expand...
No TSS. there is an issue and it's to do with funding and staff retention. I too would be getting wee'd off sat for ages in A&E but your suggestion is not the right one.
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
Sat in Urgent Care in Hartlepool (TSSJr1 poorly).

Obviously they triage to a point, but none of the patients are life threatening otherwise they'd be in A&E in Stockton. It's seeing an out of hours doctor for stuff like croup and reassurance.

Been here since 8.30am, queues have steadily built since that time.

I wonder whether they could introduce a fast track service like they do at the airports; charge more at peak time all money reinvested back into the NHS.

It would have to be to bring an additional doctor in, not to undermine the current system. £50 so you don't wait 3 hours wouldn't be a bad price

I'm sure they know when peak demand is to finesse the times when it's available and if it's quiet then they just take the next on the list like the other doctors.

I probably wouldn't go so far as a new waiting area (airport equivalent of the lounge) but again, it might help.

Or are we so wedded to a free at point of use universal system, something as simple of this would be politically unacceptable?

My guess is people would take advantage of it but we'd not implement it.

Edited to add: still here, it would be helpful to have an app which shows where you are in the queue. Having no idea makes people really unhappy.

Simple customer care stuff; I know it all costs money and we are shit are large scale IT stuff; but still.
Click to expand...
You say £50 would not be a bad price, for some that is a lot of money.
 
It was tonsillitis, and another queue in Boots to get the antibiotics - got the last they had so that was quite lucky.

It was just a muse, whilst sat waiting, to think how you could do things differently.

I get clinical triage, but given the differentiation between A&E and Urgent Care, how much difference would it make to clinical outcomes - no idea.

I do think there's a reasonable argument about it heading to a two tier system, which wouldn't be right.
 
But that's where its going.
A few weeks ago, Bruges nagged me into getting a prostate check up. Phoned our GP, was hanging on for nearly 2 hours,gave up. Same the next day, gave up.
Went on line for a local private hospital, got straight through and an appointment in 2 days.
All clear (though he was concerned about my liver after a blood test but hey).
Yes, it cost £250 but for peace of mind, worth it.
This is the line we are being forced down folks.
 
TSSeasider said:
It was tonsillitis, and another queue in Boots to get the antibiotics - got the last they had so that was quite lucky.

It was just a muse, whilst sat waiting, to think how you could do things differently.

I get clinical triage, but given the differentiation between A&E and Urgent Care, how much difference would it make to clinical outcomes - no idea.

I do think there's a reasonable argument about it heading to a two tier system, which wouldn't be right.
Click to expand...
Hope your lads ok. Tonsillitis a nasty beast ☹️
 
Lala said:
Hope your lads ok. Tonsillitis a nasty beast ☹️
Click to expand...
Glad we took him. Temperature of 39.4° this morning when we set off.

The doctor was quite graphic in her description of his tonsils.

Dose up on paracetamol and ibuprofen, bit of rest and the antibiotics should get on top of it all soon enough.
 
TSSeasider said:
It was tonsillitis, and another queue in Boots to get the antibiotics - got the last they had so that was quite lucky.

It was just a muse, whilst sat waiting, to think how you could do things differently.

I get clinical triage, but given the differentiation between A&E and Urgent Care, how much difference would it make to clinical outcomes - no idea.

I do think there's a reasonable argument about it heading to a two tier system, which wouldn't be right.
Click to expand...
But who are we to make a decision about how urgently we need to be seen. Thankfully your child has tonsillitis, horrible but not life threatening, but what if it had turned out to be for example meningitis or a serious bout of Strep A and you were delayed seeing a doctor because you couldn’t pay and those who could were prioritised ahead of you despite being less seriously ill. There is private health care for those who can afford it. The NHS must never be allowed to provide different levels of healthcare based on ability to pay.
Having said all that I’m frustrated by the amount of NHS time wasted by people unnecessarily and would love for someone to come up with some kind of solution that would not penalise or deter genuinely ill from seeking help. Other than education I just don’t know what the answer is.
 
TSSeasider said:
That's interesting; what do people think of it?
Click to expand...
To add to that, prior to relocating to Ireland, we lived in France for over 20 years. There a free basic health service is provided where a certain percentage of costs are borne by the state. Most people then purchase a "mutuelle" top-up insurance to cover additional costs. It is very bureaucratic and wasfeful - you pay the GP 23 € and then claim 21€ back via a chipped card or by filling in a form which you post off to the authorities who eventually reimbourse you and post another piece of paper confirming the transaction.
As an old leftie I have always defended the principle of a NHS free to all at the point if delivery, but I am beginning to question whether that is any longer affordable. I don't have an answer though.
 
TangerineTed said:
Something like this you mean?

Private Walk In Centre Manchester | The Alexandra Hospital | Circle Health Group

The Alexandra Hospital's Private Walk-in Centre in Manchester is a convenient service for accidents, injuries, illnesses & clinical tests for patients.
www.circlehealthgroup.co.uk www.circlehealthgroup.co.uk
Click to expand...
Not quite

I was thinking more like you have in the airport to get through border control.

Turn up; 4 hour queue, pay £50 (or whatever) go in the fast lane to get seen quicker; but that is new money - it couldn't just be to jump a queue for the existing service.

Today they had 2 doctors in. If they offered the 3rd doctor on fast track, it would potentially move some of those away from the first two.

Obviously, it's hard to guarantee demand, but they should be able to predict times when they are normally overrun.

It could only work in Urgent Care as they aren't generally life threatening situations.

The concern about two tier is legitimate, but for me it's not about the quality of the doctors they are mostly very good; it's about the time taken to be seen. The suggestion of a comfy waiting area is a bit tongue in cheek, but paying extra to sit somewhere less overcrowded happens all the time in every other element of our life.

Not sure the NHS would be prepared to contemplate it for fear of opening the door to other things like it - but it just crossed my mind as I sat there this morning.
 
traffordtang said:
But who are we to make a decision about how urgently we need to be seen. Thankfully your child has tonsillitis, horrible but not life threatening, but what if it had turned out to be for example meningitis or a serious bout of Strep A and you were delayed seeing a doctor because you couldn’t pay and those who could were prioritised ahead of you despite being less seriously ill. There is private health care for those who can afford it. The NHS must never be allowed to provide different levels of healthcare based on ability to pay.
Having said all that I’m frustrated by the amount of NHS time wasted by people unnecessarily and would love for someone to come up with some kind of solution that would not penalise or deter genuinely ill from seeking help. Other than education I just don’t know what the answer is.
Click to expand...
All fair points.
 
TSSeasider said:
Not quite

I was thinking more like you have in the airport to get through border control.

Turn up; 4 hour queue, pay £50 (or whatever) go in the fast lane to get seen quicker; but that is new money - it couldn't just be to jump a queue for the existing service.

Today they had 2 doctors in. If they offered the 3rd doctor on fast track, it would potentially move some of those away from the first two.

Obviously, it's hard to guarantee demand, but they should be able to predict times when they are normally overrun.

It could only work in Urgent Care as they aren't generally life threatening situations.

The concern about two tier is legitimate, but for me it's not about the quality of the doctors they are mostly very good; it's about the time taken to be seen. The suggestion of a comfy waiting area is a bit tongue in cheek, but paying extra to sit somewhere less overcrowded happens all the time in every other element of our life.

Not sure the NHS would be prepared to contemplate it for fear of opening the door to other things like it - but it just crossed my mind as I sat there this morning.
Click to expand...
Like Disney lightning lane then…

 
TSSeasider said:
Sat in Urgent Care in Hartlepool (TSSJr1 poorly).

Obviously they triage to a point, but none of the patients are life threatening otherwise they'd be in A&E in Stockton. It's seeing an out of hours doctor for stuff like croup and reassurance.

Been here since 8.30am, queues have steadily built since that time.

I wonder whether they could introduce a fast track service like they do at the airports; charge more at peak time all money reinvested back into the NHS.

It would have to be to bring an additional doctor in, not to undermine the current system. £50 so you don't wait 3 hours wouldn't be a bad price

I'm sure they know when peak demand is to finesse the times when it's available and if it's quiet then they just take the next on the list like the other doctors.

I probably wouldn't go so far as a new waiting area (airport equivalent of the lounge) but again, it might help.

Or are we so wedded to a free at point of use universal system, something as simple of this would be politically unacceptable?

My guess is people would take advantage of it but we'd not implement it.

Edited to add: still here, it would be helpful to have an app which shows where you are in the queue. Having no idea makes people really unhappy.

Simple customer care stuff; I know it all costs money and we are shit are large scale IT stuff; but still.
Click to expand...
Just got to accept that nowadays we aren't an attractive country anymore for foreign doctors and nurses so huge staff shortages will mean longer waits for patients.
 
traffordtang said:
But who are we to make a decision about how urgently we need to be seen. Thankfully your child has tonsillitis, horrible but not life threatening, but what if it had turned out to be for example meningitis or a serious bout of Strep A and you were delayed seeing a doctor because you couldn’t pay and those who could were prioritised ahead of you despite being less seriously ill. There is private health care for those who can afford it. The NHS must never be allowed to provide different levels of healthcare based on ability to pay.
Having said all that I’m frustrated by the amount of NHS time wasted by people unnecessarily and would love for someone to come up with some kind of solution that would not penalise or deter genuinely ill from seeking help. Other than education I just don’t know what the answer is.
Click to expand...
The answer is at least in part probably elsewhere in the social care system but as that's been run down then people end up at the GP because where else do you go?

That's probably not *the* solution but it's definitely at least part of it.
 
BigHandsOliverKahn said:
Just got to accept that nowadays we aren't an attractive country anymore for foreign doctors and nurses so huge staff shortages will mean longer waits for patients.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, the government are investing loads in training a new generation of...

Oh. Wait.

They aren't.
 
TSSeasider said:
Not quite

I was thinking more like you have in the airport to get through border control.

Turn up; 4 hour queue, pay £50 (or whatever) go in the fast lane to get seen quicker; but that is new money - it couldn't just be to jump a queue for the existing service.

Today they had 2 doctors in. If they offered the 3rd doctor on fast track, it would potentially move some of those away from the first two.

Obviously, it's hard to guarantee demand, but they should be able to predict times when they are normally overrun.

It could only work in Urgent Care as they aren't generally life threatening situations.

The concern about two tier is legitimate, but for me it's not about the quality of the doctors they are mostly very good; it's about the time taken to be seen. The suggestion of a comfy waiting area is a bit tongue in cheek, but paying extra to sit somewhere less overcrowded happens all the time in every other element of our life.

Not sure the NHS would be prepared to contemplate it for fear of opening the door to other things like it - but it just crossed my mind as I sat there this morning.
Click to expand...

Don’t really like the sound of your idea. The law of unintended consequences springs to mind.
It seems like a nice simple model, but I’m not sure it would work out so simply in practice.
Maybe a small pilot project somewhere to see what actually happens.
 
Might be an idea for GP’s to do a bit more instead of referring patients to hospitals to deal with.
And more walk-in centres.
 
TSSeasider said:
It was tonsillitis, and another queue in Boots to get the antibiotics - got the last they had so that was quite lucky.

It was just a muse, whilst sat waiting, to think how you could do things differently.

I get clinical triage, but given the differentiation between A&E and Urgent Care, how much difference would it make to clinical outcomes - no idea.

I do think there's a reasonable argument about it heading to a two tier system, which wouldn't be right.
Click to expand...
At the moment there's a huge risk that Urgent Care visits could be life threatening, it would only take one missed, maybe you think that's a necessary risk so people can jump the 'queue'?
 
TSSeasider said:
It was tonsillitis, and another queue in Boots to get the antibiotics - got the last they had so that was quite lucky.

It was just a muse, whilst sat waiting, to think how you could do things differently.

I get clinical triage, but given the differentiation between A&E and Urgent Care, how much difference would it make to clinical outcomes - no idea.

I do think there's a reasonable argument about it heading to a two tier system, which wouldn't be right.
Click to expand...
You got the last antibiotics available?

The obvious question is why the pharmacist ran out?

But leaving that aside, and to test your theory, how would you have felt if someone in the queue behind you had jumped in, offered to pay more and snaffled them? Hacked off? Or would you just have shrugged your shoulders and accepted “that’s the way the market works?”
 
Mexboroseasider said:
You got the last antibiotics available?

The obvious question is why the pharmacist ran out?

But leaving that aside, and to test your theory, how would you have felt if someone in the queue behind you had jumped in, offered to pay more and snaffled them? Hacked off? Or would you just have shrugged your shoulders and accepted “that’s the way the market works?”
Click to expand...
Yes, the woman at the counter said they'd run out, but she had a really deep look and found enough from two separate blister packs which had been cut to size - I assume from someone else's previous prescription who didn't need all of them.

I think we're running low on antibiotics due to the rise in Strep A and the prophylactic use of them - which is potentially down to lockdown and our children not being exposed to the normal amount of bacteria and therefore a compromised immune system - probably an unfortunate unintended consequence of protecting the old and the infirm at the expense of the young.

I don't think your comparison works.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
At the moment there's a huge risk that Urgent Care visits could be life threatening, it would only take one missed, maybe you think that's a necessary risk so people can jump the 'queue'?
Click to expand...
I don't know how something would be missed - they'd get the same level of care from a doctor but would have to wait longer? Not sure a doctor missing something is much to do with the length of wait - rather than just being human - but I don't know as I'm not trained and am only an end user and net contributor of and to the system.

I think the broader point is the primary care service being overwhelmed means people go to Urgent Care first as they know they will get seen - eventually - and that is a bit of a problem.

I have to say, my GP practise is excellent so far. Over the last 20 years, we haven't used them that often as we are generally well - but when we have across the spectrum of services (from 3 pre-birth children to having my mums dressings changed when she came over after her mastectomy to vaccines and so on) we have rarely waited more than a couple of days for an appointment and have had excellent treatment. BUT we are the lucky ones in being generally well and having a really good practice - there a few others who are shamefully poor in the town.
 
TSSeasider said:
Yes, the woman at the counter said they'd run out, but she had a really deep look and found enough from two separate blister packs which had been cut to size - I assume from someone else's previous prescription who didn't need all of them.

I think we're running low on antibiotics due to the rise in Strep A and the prophylactic use of them - which is potentially down to lockdown and our children not being exposed to the normal amount of bacteria and therefore a compromised immune system - probably an unfortunate unintended consequence of protecting the old and the infirm at the expense of the young.

I don't think your comparison works.
Click to expand...
My comparison or example was intended to demonstrate how the “market” in medical treatment can be skewed if you factor in money and the ability to pay (or not).

In the US for instance there are undoubtedly people suffering from illnesses that could be treated, alleviating the suffering and even avoiding death. But they aren’t for the simple reason they can’t afford the cost of the treatment.

In effect the doctors are saying “Yes we could treat you quite easily. And probably save your life. But we’re not going to because you can’t afford to pay us”.

Now fast tracking might not seem the same, because in the end everyone should be treated. But to many people it seems to be the beginning of a journey they’d prefer not to go on.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
My comparison or example was intended to demonstrate how the “market” in medical treatment can be skewed if you factor in money and the ability to pay (or not).

In the US for instance there are undoubtedly people suffering from illnesses that could be treated, alleviating the suffering and even avoiding death. But they aren’t for the simple reason they can’t afford the cost of the treatment.

In effect the doctors are saying “Yes we could treat you quite easily. And probably save your life. But we’re not going to because you can’t afford to pay us”.

Now fast tracking might not seem the same, because in the end everyone should be treated. But to many people it seems to be the beginning of a journey they’d prefer not to go on.
Click to expand...
I can understand why it might feel like the start of something (or more major than paying for our eye tests, dentistry etc) I wouldn't do it if it leads to treatment on the basis of being able to pay for it.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
My comparison or example was intended to demonstrate how the “market” in medical treatment can be skewed if you factor in money and the ability to pay (or not).

In the US for instance there are undoubtedly people suffering from illnesses that could be treated, alleviating the suffering and even avoiding death. But they aren’t for the simple reason they can’t afford the cost of the treatment.

In effect the doctors are saying “Yes we could treat you quite easily. And probably save your life. But we’re not going to because you can’t afford to pay us”.

Now fast tracking might not seem the same, because in the end everyone should be treated. But to many people it seems to be the beginning of a journey they’d prefer not to go on.
Click to expand...
In the US there are people who forego treatment and basic medications, that in most countries are not expensive, because the private sector in medicine becomes an effective monopoly. The profit motive even for so called non profits becomes all encompassing. The analogy to airlines or Disney queues is just not applicable, jumping the airline queue isn't putting others at risk. What would the o/p think if the queue jumping price was 300 quid or 500 or a grand. It could be said to be a ridiculous cost, but to some a grand here or there is nothing but 60 percent of the UK population are living paycheck to paycheck.

I've been looking at the problem for a government although it's still in the research stage, and I really don't know where the project will go. Attempts to gain funding from the US and the EU are stymied by the need to provide access to the market by those countries companies.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
In the US there are people who forego treatment and basic medications, that in most countries are not expensive, because the private sector in medicine becomes an effective monopoly. The profit motive even for so called non profits becomes all encompassing. The analogy to airlines or Disney queues is just not applicable, jumping the airline queue isn't putting others at risk. What would the o/p think if the queue jumping price was 300 quid or 500 or a grand. It could be said to be a ridiculous cost, but to some a grand here or there is nothing but 60 percent of the UK population are living paycheck to paycheck.

I've been looking at the problem for a government although it's still in the research stage, and I really don't know where the project will go. Attempts to gain funding from the US and the EU are stymied by the need to provide access to the market by those countries companies.
Click to expand...
Yes. The op admitted he was lucky enough to get the last antibiotics the pharmacist had available. I asked him how he’d have felt if someone behind him in the queue had offered a premium for that last dose and snaffled it. The op claimed it wasn’t a valid comparison but didn’t explain why he came to that conclusion.

I thought, and still think, that’s exactly the point. Once you introduce the ability to pay into the equation, that blurs what should actually be the primary focus of healthcare. Namely, how to alleviate suffering for whoever is in need.

Go back to fundamentals and ask the question - is it right to withhold medical treatment based on a person’s ability to pay? The answer can only be yes or no. And each answer will take you down a very different path.

Funding will always be an issue. But you need to be clear what path you are on. That’s what “free at the point of delivery” was all about. Clear and unambiguous.
 
Hertsseasider said:
But that's where its going.
A few weeks ago, Bruges nagged me into getting a prostate check up. Phoned our GP, was hanging on for nearly 2 hours,gave up. Same the next day, gave up.
Went on line for a local private hospital, got straight through and an appointment in 2 days.
All clear (though he was concerned about my liver after a blood test but hey).
Yes, it cost £250 but for peace of mind, worth it.
This is the line we are being forced down folks.
Click to expand...
A two tier system of those who can afford it, and those who can't.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Yes. The op admitted he was lucky enough to get the last antibiotics the pharmacist had available. I asked him how he’d have felt if someone behind him in the queue had offered a premium for that last dose and snaffled it. The op claimed it wasn’t a valid comparison but didn’t explain why he came to that conclusion.

I thought, and still think, that’s exactly the point. Once you introduce the ability to pay into the equation, that blurs what should actually be the primary focus of healthcare. Namely, how to alleviate suffering for whoever is in need.

Go back to fundamentals and ask the question - is it right to withhold medical treatment based on a person’s ability to pay? The answer can only be yes or no. And each answer will take you down a very different path.

Funding will always be an issue. But you need to be clear what path you are on. That’s what “free at the point of delivery” was all about. Clear and unambiguous.
Click to expand...
My personal point of view is that the two major priorities of government should be health and education, and it comes from studies from the seventies which concluded that once those two aspects are bought to a high standard then other social issues start to reduce quite drastically. Both factors though are reliant on secondary factors, with health, access to healthy food for example and food production is fundamentally profitised with the profit motive driving consumption of poor quality food. The problem goes way beyond actual access.
 
Thin end of the wedge comes to mind. Treatment according to need, not ability to pay.

Until we sort social care, the NHS doesn't stand a chance, but this rarely gets any prolonged focus. Hospitals end up with a lot of beds containing patients who could cope with external support, or a lower level of care in a different setting. Relieve some of this pressure, and it allows improvements.

Cut out all the PPE costs from NHS spend for the last three years, and see what the cuts have really been..... Replace them. Pay an attractive wage, like every other industry and business, and see the problems flow away. Fast track free visas for health professionals. Review structures and commissioning bodies, reduce numbers of Health Authorities allowing focus on functions and better buying power. Let health professionals run services, provide them with management training rather than bring in non specialists.
 
Wizaard said:
A two tier system of those who can afford it, and those who can't.
Click to expand...
Yes. But it suits a certain agenda for this to become a squabble between those who can pay to go private and those who can’t. Classic divide and conquer.

Many (most?) people who go private don’t particularly want to. They feel they have to for the good of themselves and their loved ones.

The question should be why are people being forced down that route? Especially when they’ve already paid for healthcare through their taxes.
 
I don’t get this argument that charging for medical treatment at the point of delivery will cause a two tier system.

The reality is we already do have this as we have Private Medical care which charges at the point of delivery.

So what is the difference if it’s urgent care?

Why shouldn’t BUPA offer urgent care if people want to and choose to pay??

If you think about it logically the government should be encouraging private health with tax breaks etc as the more people go private the less the NHS has to do.

Although, I do get the argument that the more a doctor does private the less they can do in the NHS - but you could legislate for that.

Just to add - why can’t BUPA rent space at hospitals for this - or is it the fact private healthcare is in a different building and to some degree hidden away makes it ok?

That said, I believe the Vic does have (or did) have a private ward.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Many (most?) people who go private don’t particularly want to. They feel they have to for the good of themselves and their loved ones.
Click to expand...
This, this and this again. My wife's cataracts deteriorated drastically last year, to the extent that she could not see the till at work, kerbs when out walking the dog, oncoming traffic, etc. She had to stop working. The waiting list was well over a year. We are fortunate that we could pay and have them done and she was back at work a month later. We are both approaching retirement, have paid NI and tax 45 years. I'd do it again tomorrow, but resent it no end, and understand how lucky we were, many cannot afford it.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
This, this and this again. My wife's cataracts deteriorated drastically last year, to the extent that she could not see the till at work, kerbs when out walking the dog, oncoming traffic, etc. She had to stop working. The waiting list was well over a year. We are fortunate that we could pay and have them done and she was back at work a month later. We are both approaching retirement, have paid NI and tax 45 years. I'd do it again tomorrow, but resent it no end, and understand how lucky we were, many cannot afford it.
Click to expand...
👍 I was treated on the NHS earlier this year and the service was fine. No complaints at all.

But we’ve tried to make an appointment for a family member for a non urgent, but worrying, condition and the appointment to see the consultant came back for March 2024. We assumed it must be a clerical error but having checked with them - no it really is 2024!!
 
When my sister had some mental health issues during lockdown we couldn’t seem to access any suitable care at all on the NHS !!
She had to pay a fair whack for online psychiatric appointments, and as only a psychiatrist can prescribe certain meds there’s a chance that without paying for private care she may not be here today.

Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be another option, no matter what your principles tell you. Your survival instinct is stronger that your principles, normally.
 
Lala said:
When my sister had some mental health issues during lockdown we couldn’t seem to access any suitable care at all on the NHS !!
She had to pay a fair whack for online psychiatric appointments, and as only a psychiatrist can prescribe certain meds there’s a chance that without paying for private care she may not be here today.

Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be another option, no matter what your principles tell you. Your survival instinct is stronger that your principles, normally.
Click to expand...
There seems to be no other option but that's purely down to political decisions over finance, leading to prioritisation of some fields at the point of access.
 
Not sure if the NHS 111 adverts are national but there are currently on the radio in my area.
Apparently all you need is phone 111 and they will sort you out in 90 seconds.
It's a bit like the United Utilities add that says you can save £400 per annum if you stop your toilet dripping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top