Cash-hit hospital to lay off 1,000 workers
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 17/03/2006)
A debt-ridden hospital announced yesterday that it was laying off 1,000 workers, including 250 nurses, as it tackles a £15.5 million deficit.
The University Hospital of North Staffordshire said 750 redundancies would be compulsory.
Fifteen consultants are expected to lose their jobs, along with 120 midwives.
The hospital trust maintained that patient services would not be affected, but the decision provoked fury among workers and unions.
Pat Powell, Unison's secretary at the hospital, said staff would not accept the redundancies.
She said: "We have lodged a dispute with the hospital, which means the consultation period over redundancies cannot start until we have some answers.
"This is a very bleak day. I know of no other hospital getting rid of so many staff and I blame Government policy.
"The cuts will definitely have an impact on patient care."
Ann Leedham-Smith, West Midlands regional secretary for the Royal College of Nursing, said: "This is appalling. I don't see how they can say it won't affect services. Every hospital in the country is flat out.
"How can you work more efficiently with fewer nurses?"
In January the Department of Health "named and shamed" the Stoke-on-Trent hospital in a list of 18 trusts with substantial financial problems and sent in "turn-around teams".
The cuts amount to about one in seven of the 7,500 work-force at the 1,300-bed hospital where the debt is expected to rise unless savings of £30 million are made.
The trust said it intends to offset the loss of workers by reducing "above-average" lengths of stay and increasing the number of operations carried out as day cases.
Last year, as the debt hit £18 million, a recruitment freeze was imposed and staff were asked to volunteer for redundancy, early retirement and to reduce working hours.
As a result, £1 million was saved but operations have been postponed and waiting lists have begun rising.
A consultation document issued to staff yesterday said that 370 nurses and midwives would go, along with 15 senior doctors, 200 health-care support staff, 73 scientists, 180 administrators, 63 senior managers, 30 therapists and 60 ancillary staff.Antony Sumara, the trust's chief executive, said: "We hope once this most difficult part of the changes is completed the vast majority of staff who remain can begin to feel more secure.
"This is a very good hospital and I know it is only through the tremendous efforts of our staff that we have met our targets and made changes to our working practices that have so improved life for patients.
"Once this process is over, we will be a very strong trust, able to go forward confidently and provide first class services for our patients."
But Prof Calum Paton, who resigned as hospital chairman last December after admitting financial errors were made, said the trust faced a "bloody big challenge."
He blamed the deficit on poor management and receiving "less income than we expected" from the local primary care trust.
"It's like fantasy supermarkets, where you run in with a trolley, fill it up and throw a bit of loose change at the cashier - that's the NHS business model."
Joan Walley, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, said the debt was due to rise to £30 million next year, making the situation "untenable".
A Department of Health spokesman said: "The trust has made it clear they plan to improve efficiency without cutting patient services and that they are consulting on any possible redundancies.
"We continue to work with the most challenged organisations, sending in turn-around teams to help them get on top of their financial problems.
"We expect all NHS organisations to live within their budget while providing patients with better services, and the majority are."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/17/nhosp17.xml-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously much to comment on regarding the overall state of the NHS but the one thing here that I found absolutely staggering, and probably a big reason for the amount of waste and inefficient use of funds is the following:
"A consultation document issued to staff yesterday said that 370 nurses and midwives would go, along with 15 senior doctors, 200 health-care support staff, 73 scientists, 180 administrators, 63 senior managers, 30 therapists and 60 ancillary staff."
1. When there is a shortage of nurses and doctors, how on earth can they be being made redundant? Where is the logic in that?
2. If one hospital, and I don't care how large it is, is making redundant 180 adminsitrators and 63 SENIOR managers, then how many of these categories did they have in the first place. How on earth can there be a need for 63 senior managers in total.
No wonder they are running out of funds and having to cancell operations etc. when there is such a huge level of "management" in a hospital. It seems like the future of hospitals in this country is for front lien staff to be replaced by admin and management staff and then a reduction in the level of care to make the numbers balance so not only is it costing us all more through higher taxes but we get a worse service also!!!
