Skip to main content

Local Hospital Most Important to Patients

The national survey of patients into patient choice of hospital has been released. Unsurprisingly 57% of people (79,000) think that the location is an important issue.
22% were concerned about the waiting times, 18% about the hospital's "reputation", 17% about the quality of care, 15% about cleanliness, 8% about quality of staff and 6% about car parking.

The reputation of the consultation for a specialism was less important than car parking. There were a number of other minor issues as well.

In Eastern Birmingham 26% of patients remembered being offered a choice.
This figure was 18% for Heart of Birmingham, 37% for North Birmingham and 19% for South Birmingham.

Everyone was supposed to have been offered a choice from Jan 2006.

Comments

Stephen Booth said…
Do you have a link to more details about this survey, maybe with details of the demographics and correlations between responses and the demographic groups and type of care recieved?

3 members of my immediate family have recieved hospital treatment over the last 12 months (myself 3 times as an out patient, my father once as an in patient for 10 days and subsequently repeated out patient followup visits and my neice once as an in patient overnight; it's been a bad year for us, we're looking forward to it being over), none of us were asked to contribute to any survey and certainly my priorities would be different. One of my visits was for an altered mole that both myself and my GP thought might be turning cancerous. I wasn't given a choice of hospital, just referred to City Hospital later that week to see a specialist. My priorities were getting the examination/treatment I needed from someone who knew what they were doing as quickly as possible. If I'd had to travel to London, Edinburgh or where-ever to get it then I'd have done so. Perhaps someone who needed more frequent and routine treatment, especially if they were insecurely employed or on fixed income, might value locality more. Hence the interest in correlating responses to demographics and treatment received.
john said…
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/14/05/24/04140524.pdf

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…