Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anybody been watching the Channel 4 programme '24 hours in A&E'?


It follows the daily life at Kings College A&E department over 24 hours.

I could'nt believe the sort of dregs of the erath people that are treated there, byt that i mean, drug addicts, alcoholics, hooligans.

All of them wasting NHS funds - OUR taxpayers funds.... i really felt sorry for those dedicated Doctors/Nurses/Porters that have to deal with all those low-life scum everyday. There really is a case for all these self-inflicted ailments they come in with (dragged in with, by the Police mostly...)- should be made to pay for the medical treatment given - if its possible!.

The abuse and violent threats the Staff have to put up with there on a daily basis is very sad and unfortunately symptomatic of some parts of our society.


Unfortunately Kings Hospital is the main reception point for certain areas all around East Dulwich/Dulwich Central/Village, which have higher crime figures, especially when it comes to stabbings. It receives the highest stabbing victims of any Hospital in Europe apparently! That was a shocking and sad fact.


Now i know where some of our NHS funds are wasted on..!

Provision of care to the destitute, the marginalised, is left to junior doctors; just another rung that must be climbed on the route up and out to a BUPA consultancy in leafy Surrey.


Or: Don't feel too sorry for the KCH A&E personnel. If you choose that life you're in it for one of two things: Either the money (the fellow who sewed me up the last time I came off my bicycle, one Sunday morning at King's not too long ago, was moonlighting for considerable quantities of dosh; his day job was as a plastic-surgery registrar north of the river) or the adrenaline thrills of move-'em-in, patch-'em-up, move-'em-out, and no tedious outpatient-clinic aftercare / doctor - patient relationships.

SOrry DJKQ, I can't resist...


Poppyluck - some of these 'low-life scum' come from terrible backgrounds and have not been able to break out of the vicious cycle. They can be challenging to manage in hospital and in the communituy. However, they should not be confused with those who on the weekend decide they want to go out on a binge drinking mission and start some fights just for kicks and expect everyone else to deal with the mess.


Alex K - a medical degree takes 6 years, which is a lot longer than your average degree. Your starting salary as a junior doc (if you work 9am-5pm, 5 days a weeks) is ?22K. I don't think that's great renumeration for the intesity of the work or the responsibilty it entails. It takes a minimum of 8 years to reach consultant level. During these 8 years or more you have to take several exams, paid for out of your own pocket. You also have to attend numerous courses, often paid for our of your own pocket. These amount to several thousand pounds. YOu have to carry out audits and research in your own time (ie. no study leave). Increasingly, junior doctors have to undertake an MD or PhD, which meanes up to 3 years out of training with a substatial cut in salary. The funding for this is extremely competitive. The consultants you speak of frequently worked over 100h/wk as junior docs and not infrequently for over 24h straight with no rest. They now supervise the junior doctors and also work in the outpatients clinics and perform complex procedures. The unltimate responsibility for the patient falls to them.


It's a vocation and many of them love their job but many have also left the profession or the country because of this. I know many would not want their children to enter the profession. University fees (another topic entirely) will not help matters.

a and e kings on a fri or sat night is not a good place to be. BUT it makes you realise how lucky you are- some of the poeple there that need attention are rather sad cases- who you assume are regulars there and see it as a reception area- or refuge even.

Thanks, Moos!


Just to add...

....given the vacuous, celebrity-centric era we live in, I don't blame people for thinking plastic surgery is just boob jobs, tummy tucks etc. There is clearly an increasing demand for these procedures. However, plastic surgery also entails reconstructive surgery e.g following road traffic accidents, burns etc. Perhaps he is going make loads of money doing cosmetic surgey but this, in the main, is not paid for by the NHS.


....finally (I hope), did you ever wonder why there was a need for the A&E dept to hire someone to 'moonlight' for a shift? There is a shortfall of junior drs of varoius grades in numerous specialities around the country. To make up for the gaps in the rota and staff shortages these dept have to hire docs as locums. Locums usually have full-time jobs elsewhere and locum in their spare time, maybe to pay for an exam or to make up for a pay cut during research or maybeto buy an expensive car - and why not?

Thanks srisky / moos -- I'm myself a consultant physician, at King's, and I know from the inside that all that you have set out in your posts is true. The young man wielding the suture needle on me (lovely subcuticular technique, by the way) who was still in plastic-surgery training may elect to spend his life restoring presentability to childhood burn victims. If so, good for him. He may elect to spend his life doing follicular-plug hair transplants, and if so, good for him. I'm not here to judge.


Would it cost the nation less to buy every medical student a Jaguar and a starter flat at the beginning of his or her studies, and to cap medics' pay at ?40K / year thereafter, rather than to let them -- yes, including me -- gouge the public for forty years at ?120K+ / year whilst they and their partners cry the blues about at one time having had to eat baked beans from the tin? Discuss. Certainly front-loading the medical compensation package would ensure that our medics are selected solely from among those who feel the Call, the "vocation", as srisky puts it. And what about me, preaching water and drinking wine? I came to the UK from the USA ten years ago to work in a socialist medical system, gladly taking a 50% salary cut, because I believed and believe in health care free at the point of delivery. To my way of thinking, in the USA I was drinking wine, in the UK I'm drinking wine still, although -- financially speaking -- screwcap (UK) rather than A.O.C. (USA).


Now, as to the psychology / motivations of those who elect A&E work, which were the matter of my post and which your comments have not addressed: I hold that trauma / acute-care medicine is medicine without commitment to the patient. (This opinion applies to anaesthesiology and to intensive-care medicine as well.) The commitment extends to the situation; the patient is handed along for follow-up to a different medical team. Those who make it their career, in medicine or in nursing, are not interested in long-term involvement with those whom they treat. Those who do it as locums, in medicine or in nursing, are well-compensated. For these reasons I suggest that the OP's sympathy toward A&E staff is misplaced. Someone working by choice in A&E beyond student or trainee obligations has, I think, buttered his / her bun, and is happy lying in it.

Love this thread- apart from the ridiculous original poster! very interesting points Alex K and srisky. I'd agree with Alex K completely.


And with srisky regarding this:


'some of these 'low-life scum' come from terrible backgrounds and have not been able to break out of the vicious cycle. They can be challenging to manage in hospital and in the communituy. However, they should not be confused with those who on the weekend decide they want to go out on a binge drinking mission and start some fights just for kicks and expect everyone else to deal with the mess. '

Alex K - you speak from a unique perspective.


1. I don't expect you to divulge the details of your salary but how ?120k/y for 40y? A newly qualified Dr starts at ?22k and the NHS consultant salary peaks at ?94k after 7years. Are you including private work? As you know, only consultants do private work and this is optional, so if it feels like the public is being 'fleeced' then don't do any private work. You can always volunteer some of your time in countries that are not as well off as the UK/USA.


2. If people are going into the UK medical profession for money then they are fools. Yes the money is good in the end but the slog is long and you give a lot of your personal time. If it's money they want then they are better off becoming lawyers or accountant, who work very hard too but are renumerated far better and sooner. Also the government (past, present and no doubt future) are not continually messing with them and eroding morale.


3. Interesting suggestion re: starter package and capped salary. However, you may end up with a form of conscription to ensure there are enough people entering and staying within the profession.


4. Agree, various specialities have no long term committment to the patient. However,if every Dr/nurse wanting long continuity of care the no-one would want to become anaesthetists, intensivists, radiologists etc and then where would we be? They care for their patients in the immediacy of the situation. Agree, sympathy is not necessary.


5. Everyone that does something to help others, whether it is professionally or as a volunteer, does it because they get a 'rush' or 'gratification'. If it always felt crap then no-one would do it.

@srisky -- 5), yep; 4), yep, sympathy mis-placed; 3), worth a try, with conscription added if need be, although to relax entry-visa and professional-practice restrictions for medical careworkers from non-European lands would probably take up any slack; 2), agreed, and "eroding morale", oh, my, yes!; 1), the consultant top whack, brutto, that you cite is, I believe, pay before London weighting, on-call premium, and "discretionary points", and, most importantly, is for a ten-session NHS commitment. Many consultants work a twelve-session NHS commitment as well as seeing private patients. After pay for the extra two sessions, before private work is figured in NHS income alone, netto, not brutto!, thus often kisses ?100K / year; from the underside, but even so. Why am I still renting, then? Alimony, child support... Oh, well. **grin**


Private-practice work and keeping one's hands clean: For me to do no private-practice work was not possible, it was explained to me when I moved here, since to refuse it would unduly burden colleagues in a thin rota. Those same colleagues were reluctant to allow fees that I earned for such work to be shared out amongst them; they imagined feeling beholden to me, and disliked the prospect. An accommodation was reached. I turn over all my private-practice fees to King's College London, the academic conjoint twin of King's College Hospital Trust, to support my division's academic work with the purchase of reagents and laboratory kit, books and journal subscriptions, and travel and lodging for visiting students from Third World venues, yadda yadda. Whether any of my consultant colleagues in other divisions does this I can't tell you.


"Details of salary" are an interesting if pornographic topic. At the University of Michigan, an anecdote only but bear with me, please!, every year the student-run campus newspaper printed the salary of every one, EVERY ONE, who worked at the University of Michigan hospitals complex, several tens of thousands of people it was, from surgeon-in-chief through postroom porter. The State of Michigan paid those salaries and they were matters of public record in which the public was expected to take an interest. Why individual NHS workers' salaries and CVs are not also yearly published puzzles me. Transparency of this sort could only be salutary: Jealousies fed on imagination grow fatter than those fed on fact. In addition, market forces work best when information is freely accessible -- otherwise a cartel exploits some advantage against the interests of the public. Is the BMA a cartel, are the Royal Colleges cartels? Are senior NHS management a cartel who justify their own juicy wages more readily by supporting high pay for medics and then saying "But see what THEY'RE paid!"? More questions than answers.

I had no idea that their salaries was not a matter of public knowledge.

I was considering applying to be a governor but the time is not right for me but in the next round I may, and may if I win election try and get this changed.

I have accounts with Nationwide Building Society and just got sent voting forms, and the non exec directors salaries were published within the literature. That was scary, given four local branches have been closed down.

Anyway, thanks for your time educating us all, Alex K!

Ha! I am also planning on fighting re the car park. And I don't have a car!

This thread is good for having highlighted the snobbish holier than thou hypocrites than populate the society and needs to be eradicated out via eugenics. Sorry, I mean they need to be "educated".

AlexK> If PUBLISH THEIR SALARIES is a plank in your platform when you DO stand for election as a hospital / trust governor I shall surely vote for you.


Be ready to face litigation (DPA or FoI) if you take that route as a governor. If you want to challenge policy or practice, the safer route, short of rewriting the acts, would imo be to make FoI requests for such information and appeal against any refusals. And I've not checked, but I'd be surprised if there weren't already a fair number of substantive decisions on the topic already, at least at ICO or tribunal level:


"Example: The Commissioner found that the exact salaries of specialist registrars employed by University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust should not be disclosed. He found that as ?employees who interact with the public? they ?should expect some personal data about them to be released? but that they should expect less scrutiny than senior executives who are ?responsible for policy decisions affecting the public and the expenditure of public funds?. (ICO decision notice FS50092819, February 2007)" [from http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/salaries_v1.pdf]

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...