“When you read the licence conditions it becomes clear that the ONLY definition of ‘improving quality for patients’ that can be found within this document is ‘encouraging competition between providers’.
So, competition to ‘improve’ services – but ‘improvement’ is measured only by whether there’s increased competition.
Talk about circular (and sneaky) reasoning. The Emperor’s (particularly hideous and harmful) new clothes, anyone..?
Thanks, Steve.
That private hospitals are better or safer than the NHS is one of the biggest myths in this area. This article shows the cracks very well. Problems with the private sector include – you always see the consultant but he/she has no challenge/correctives (ie reduced teamwork), no teaching or research happens to any extent, facilities are often lacking, medical cover on site is also often lacking etc.
If you find this a bit hard to believe just ask yourself the question – why does the private sector cherry-pick the easiest cases and why, when it goes pear-shaped, is the patient rapidly transferred to the NHS?
And all of this despite the fact that they can set the price (if you work in the NHS the price is set for you) inclusive of making a profit for shareholders and if it’s getting a bit tough, go into receivership and re-appear a few months later with a different name (oh yes they do!)