If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Star Ratings Published...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Just type your postcode in the box on the right here to see how your local services matched up...
Not a good year, number of three stars down as Trusts struggle with targets...
Not a good year, number of three stars down as Trusts struggle with targets...
0
Comments
Sorry, Welsh Assembly
Bucks hospitals ok, AV PCT, not so great.
Good job i nicked off to uni innit.
Oh well... so long as I remain without need of using it...
At the end of the day I still think personal experience differs from patient to patient and that there can be poor care and quality in a 3 star environment and excellent care and quality in a 1 star environment (and vice versa of course!)
West Country? Bristol area?
Also have to agree with BumbleBee, star ratings only assess aginast "targets" and only a small proportion of it relates to Patient Focus. I would even question that element because I'm not sure how it is recorded...
Surrey and Sussex area.
The PCTs who provide Stopes with most of their abortion referrals got 2 stars (Ealing, Hammersmith and Harrow).
s'ok
better, however, than the abysmal mid yorkshire hospitals which i had the misfortune of dealing with as a student.
however, my PCT got 2 stars, and does pretty well. Definitely one of the best in the area, looking at that. i've never had a problem at that level, anyway.
The ting about these Stars is that the targets have changed every year, each time harder to achieve.
It's interesting to note that if the targets had been the same as two years ag0, every single NHS trust would be at least two stars...
Of course, the media won't mention that bit...
It's the main part is that those standards are higher and no-one issed by a country mile, everyone was close...
Shame its all a crock though really...
Not saying if that happens or not, but it does happen at schools. Like, schools get graded based on the average amount of GCSEs students achieve. Some schools therefore enter students into triple science (which is the same coruse content as double) so there's an extra exam and they get an extra GCSE. Wont matter really at employment / university or anything, just maens the school gets better ratings...
Interestingly Bucks mental health got 0 stars which might explain why I felt they didn't do owt for me in 2 years' treatment.
if that's true for the mid yorkshire hospitals, i can only imagine the targets were 'be able to spell NHS' and 'wear white coats'. i don't know how the targets relate to patient experience, but i have never once heard anything positive about them.
i jest about the leeds teaching hospitals being bad, but considering the volume of people they cope with, they do pretty well. and once you reach the end of the waiting list (the biggest downfall, in my experience) they do sort you out.
Doctors still wear white coats in that neck of the woods then
Many of the targets are related to waiting times, two years ago the target was that no-one would wait more than 12 months for surgery and a few struggled. Today the target is seven months, and although a few may miss that, it doesn't reach the 12 month level. Therefore everyone would have achieved that target.
As for relating to paient experience, we that's a tough one. Patients only see the NHS as a single entitty, but that isn't the case. I'm very much aware that patients have gripes about the services delievered, and sometimes I agree with them, but I also believe that they have unrealistic expectations sometimes.
As for the specific hospital I couldn't comment because I don't know them.
This is one of those areas where patients see one thing, and we see another. Waiting Lists. There isn't just one - althoughthe Govt target now is that this will be the case.
At present the limits are 13 weeks before you must be seen in outpatients and seven months for surgery. There is no limit on diagnosticss (scans, x-rays etc) and yet the public considers this to be waiting.
I agree with them.
Between now and 2008 the task is to get the wait from GP referral to surgery down to 18 weeks. In 1997, there was no limit and it would not have been unusual for people to wait 18 months just for an outpatient appointment.
I'm also aware that there is much questioning of whether the targets have actually lhad any "patient focus". Given that the patient consultation which took place in 1997 highlighted that the biggest concern at the time was waits then I'd say the fact that in 2/3 of hospitals less than 2% oe people wait more than four hours in hspoutal and in 99% of hospitals people wait less than 13 weeks for outpatinet ans seven months for surgery, then this has been addressed.
I'd also argue that it answers your point about patient experience, to a degree.
It happens as freeangels comment about " shes fed up of having paients admited to her ward before they are ready" shows.
That isn't the fault of the target, it's the fault of the managers implementation of that target.
People tend to look at the surface, look at the one thing they are trying to achieve and only aim for that.
I look for the root cause, to find out why something happens and solve that. I've taken some shit from the DoH for not changing things quickly, but I'm proud to say that everything I have changed has been sustained and in some cases built upon. I'm proud that things I have done have been adopted by the health service in France because it was better than anything they did.
Funnily enough, I have been to events where a hospital has been presenting some "good practice" and it's amazing how one pertinent question can pull their whole strategy apart. Doesn't always make me popular though
aye, they have to, or you can't tell them apart from the drying out clinic next door
sometimes they probably will, but in that particular trust's case, the failed expectations are something like this: wait less than a year for surgery, and then when you have it, have the correct surgery. wait less than 11 months for your outpatient appointment, and then when you are seen, wait less than 3 hours in the waiting room, and the receive treatment for the disease you have been diagnosed with, and not something entirely different. wait less than 4 hours in A&E (acheived!) but then don't get sent home to 'sleep it off' when actually you have a brain haemorrage, and will be rushed back into hospital (thankfully a different one) in hours and nearly die.
however, i think this possibly has more to do with incompetence. not sure if that's a target or not.
i think you're probably right. although i know that waiting 13 weeks to be seen may seem quick in the scheme of things, to you guys, but it's a lifetime when you're ill, or in agony every day, or losing your quality of life.
i know that the hospitals deal with a massive volume of patients, and they do the best they can, but it's not very easy to be objective when you're suffering.
sorry to just pick out these points - it's because i agree with everything else.
In my area most of the Sunderland Royal consultants also consult privately for BUPA at their hospital in Washington. Perhaps if there was an incentive to avoid private work they could offer at least two more surgeries a week to the NHS?
Oh, did you read the story last week about how private hospitals are worrying about the loss of income as waiting times come down. At least they are being open about it...
Competence isn't measured. If you can find out how we do that, then perhaps we should. It would be a more realistic measure of improvement...
Absolutely. I didn't say that 13 weeks was quick, I said it was an improvement
I do worry about expectations though, as waiting times drop, I wonder how far the public wants them to go. You know some people complain about waiting three hours in A&E for a minor thing these days...
Nor would I expect people to be really objective. Just realistic, and if you have sunburn (for example), don't expect the nursing staff to run around after you...