Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From NHS Managers Net, some useful advice (as kindly pointed out, CQC stands for Care Quality Commission):


Should you be taken ill, I recommend having pinned to your waistcoat a twenty pound note and a list. This list should be compiled of hospitals you do not wish to be conveyed to and the twenty pound note should be enough for a taxi to take you to where you do want to be looked after.


Take my advice, always use a licensed taxi and use this list of hospitals you should avoid:


Scarborough Hospital; Milton Keynes Hospital; Royal Cornwall Hospital; Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust in Liverpool; Queen's Hospital, Romford; Stamford & Rutland Hospital; Southampton General Hospital; Croydon University Hospital; Bodmin Hospital, Cornwall; Northampton General Hospital; St Peter's Hospital, Maldon; Queen Mary's Hospital, London; Chase Farm Hospital, London; Westmorland General Hospital; Pilgrim Hospital, Leicestershire; St Anne's House, East Sussex; and Princess Royal Hospital, West Sussex.


Should you be having a baby; don't be delivered to, or at, Queen's Hospital in Romford, Essex and if a mental health issue befalls you dodge going to Ainslie and Highams Inpatient Facility, London; The Campbell Centre, Bedford; Forston Clinic, Dorset; The Cavell Centre, Peterborough; The Bradgate Mental Health Unit, Leicestershire; Avon and Wiltshire NHS Mental Health Trust; Blackberry Hill Hospital, Bristol; and Park House, Manchester. If dementia knocks on your door don' t go into Milton Keynes.


How can I give this advice? These services have been found wanting; not that the CQC made it public. The Labour opposition team forced them into fessing-up using FoI procedures. As recently as November the CQC has been telling these Trusts, incomprehensibly, it seems, in secret, that in parts of their services staffing levels are dangerous.

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

    • - had all the wrong connections at the wrong time - fraternised with some well dodgy blokes or rather one at least   - smart and  smooth talker - he has all the smoothness and ability to flatter - he is highly polished - skilled at making personal connections - never liked or trusted the chap, reminiscent of a slime ball
    • A friend has asked me to recommend Juliene for regular cleaning as she has some slots available. Her phone number is 07751426567
    • I'd put short odds on that but who would be his likely successor?
    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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