Creeping Policies

Rarely does a week pass without me being required to absorb and react to some new policy or other. The variety is bemusing and the volume is breathtaking. Being an awkward sort of sod, every now and again I ask:

"Why?".

If an answer appears (sometimes), and if it makes sense (rarely), the usual justification is "Standards for Better Health" which is a government White Paper. This justification is almost inevitably unfounded. Here's a typical example: Last year we were instructed by our PCT to obtain Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on all our employees. "Its a new policy".

"Why?"
"To protect children and vulnerable adults and anyway, it's part of Standards for Better Health. We're checking all our staff; it's best practice."

"Please show me where it says that."
(Six months later) "Um, er, it doesn't but it's good practice and that's why we're doing all our staff."

"These checks cost £36 a pop. Why should I do this for my caretaker and the lady that hoovers reception?"

(Three months later)"Please answer the last question"
"Um, actually we've stopped checking everyone because we're short of money and it doesn't make sense to do everyone."

"Now please tell me what I do if someone has a criminal record. Your policy doesn't mention that!"
"Well, it all depends"

I won't go on. It's too painful but it is the typical approach of our so-called managers. They are quite happy to spend the best part of £20,000 of someone else's money rather than think something through. When challenged, they waffle on about putting patients first when what they mean is avoiding acting like a competent manager and making sensible decisions. If there is a micrometre of doubt, they'll spend the money. After all, it's not real money, is it? It's certainly not theirs.

Good for You Patricia

The dust has settled and they've swept away the debris from the annual conferences of Nurses and Unison (the health workers' union). The Secretary of State survived her "ordeal" of heckling, jeering and slow handclaps. Everyone can be pleased and none more so than Her Secretaryship. Frankly, anyone who has shimmered her way so far up the greasy pole would find being politely heckled by nurses about as awful as not having the correct change for a newspaper. In the meantime, her Macmillan-like "best year ever" attack served its purpose.

Imagine that it's you sitting in Health HQ, knowing that the nurses and the unions are going to make, and the press will be delighed to print the headlines about how bad it all is. Attack is still often the best means of defence and that's exactly what the Mem Sahib did. She set the agenda and no matter how much ridicule her attack generated, it still took the wind out of the sails of her opponents. Now that's what I call effective senior management!

The Deputy Prime Minister's troubles also wiped the debate completely from the public's low-capacity consciousness too. Who say's "It's an ill wind ..."?