Compare and contrast:
The Telegraph on the A&E targets:
The graph that shows Labour is to blame for the pressures on A&E
and
Migrants partly to blame for A&E waiting times, Tory MP says
In 2004 Labour introduced GP contracts that paid them more for less work…resulting in patients going to A&E instead…and of course immigrants were ‘swamping’ the country by then as well, making use of the NHS.
The BBC on A&E targets:
NHS ‘misses A&E waiting time target’
Right at the end, the very last sentence, it slips in this:
‘But the government has in part blamed a “disastrous” legacy from Labour, including the renegotiation of GPs’ contracts which allowed them to opt out of providing out-of-hours care.’
imagine what it will be like in a few years time when the projected population in england will rise to 75 million due to mass uncontrolled immigration.a bloody nighmare awaits us.
Alan,
“The graph that shows Labour is to blame for the pressures on A&E”
Actually, no it doesn’t. It’s an utterly shameless example of dishonesty by the current government, via their friends at the Daily Telegraph.
Here is the original graph from the King’s Fund from which it was produced:
http://goo.gl/UJxDc
It shows that from 2003-04 the way the data was recorded was changed – so that it included visits to “walk in centres” & “minor injuries units”.
[more details here: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/node/3744 ]
The actual number of people attending A&E units has hardly changed since 2004.
In fact the number of people turning up at A&E has remained fairly constant since 1987.
Or in other words, the longer waiting times for people in A&E have nothing to do with GP contracts or increased demand.
Got it yet?
There – has – not – been – an – increase – in – demand – at – A&E – units.
But never mind eh? Just keep on blaming immigrants for anything you can think of…
For anyone interested there is a slide show of the King’s Fund report:
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/node/3839
What has the King’s Fund got to do with it? The DT makes it quite clear that the Dept of Health is the source. You chose the King’s Fund because it suits your purpose.
The original data is here:
Dez’s annotation is misleading: the Kings Fund graph is based on the same DH data that the Telegraph chart uses. But it crucially includes annotations that illustrate the reason why there’s an apparent sharp jump – a different set of data also started to be included.
All of this is clarified by the link that Dez provides, which correctly identifies the Department of Health as the source for the data.
Alan, gullibly and predictably, has swallowed a government and media line that reinforces his own prejudices. Again.
Even if this is the case – it would only account for A SINGLE increase in the number of admissions, not the steady increase seen since 2004.
Exactly.
Oh the joys of statistics.
Three questions arise from this.
1. Did the walk in centres and minor injuries units exist before 2004? If not then there is a spike in A&E not explainable by data collection methods.
2. What accounts for the rise in usage of Type 2 A&E between 2004 and 2010?
3. If Type 2 A&E refer to Type 1 A&E what methods were used to make sure there was no double counting?
The data used by the DT & the King’s Fund are both sourced from the DoH. The point being made is that the DT (and Alan) have omitted to explain that the figures from 2004 onwards are not directly comparable with those of previous years due to the ““walk in centres” & “minor injuries units” being included in the later years.
When the figures are adjusted to show only A&E visits no increase in attendance is seen. As such the DT article and Alan’s post are both flawed.
You’ve ignored John Wood’s clarification completely. It isn’t just about the step in 2004.
Both Alan and the DT are clear that they are talking about A&E Units specifically. The data clearly shows little change in A&E Unit visits.
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/annual-attendances-in-english-a-and-e-units.jpg
You are conveniently ignoring the “break in data series” annotation which confirms that post 2002-3 the figures are drawn from a different data set.
Surely it’s obvious that “A&E” was being used in its widest sense. The fact remains, demand for treatment continued to increase, unless there were also procedural changes in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011.
Are we comparing like with like data? – No.
Did either the DT or Alan advise that we are not comparing like with like data? – No.
No matter which way you want to spin it the DT article and Alan’s post are flawed.
“Spin”?
Are you saying that demand didn’t increase?
Hold on a fact twisting minuet ‘walk in centres” & “minor injuries units’ are,in effect A&E units
The reason they were established, was to give the GP some where else to to refer patient with more than a head ache to, rather than sending him straight to A&E
The farce is further compounded by the fact (based on experience) that walk in clinics refer any one with more than a head ache to A&E any way
Either way A&E has been overloading since GP contract reform
I’m still struggling to see what BBC bias there is here. This blog sounds more like a desperate echo chamber everyday – hence the dwindling numbers of comments.
wow so croaky jerk ‘dwindling comments ‘ lol so that would be why these thread are so empty of debate and chatter oh and trolls who don’t debate ?
The bias is that the BBC will only ever report a negative story about the ‘envy of the world’ in terms of ‘Tory Cutz’ regardless of evidence
But you knew that anyway, and I suspect applaud their pro statist agenda
Honestly now don’t you?
How objective are the Kings Fund? They appear to make most of their money from selling and conducting Leadership programmes for people working in the NHS. I would therefore assume the NHS is paying for the Kings Fund. It is in the interest for the Kings Fund to raise concerns/ issues so they can create solutions and sell more tickets.
With regards to A&E. Increasing population, which is growing older and the difficultly of getting a doctors appointments will be the likely cause. I would also be interested to see the data between A&E and the 24 hr drinking laws.
Dez mentioned that there has not been an increase in demand at A+E units very clearly and definitely since 1987. I would love to see how other A+E departments are faring but the one which I work in has gone from 37k attendances a year in 2000 (when I started) to nearly 80k currently. I know that the nearby A+Es have also seen these kinds of increases. I have no idea where the basis for the figures remaining the same come from but would be extremely sceptical of their accuracy. My apologies I am not prepared to post where I work for obvious reasons but will gladly let this site owner know via email if he would like this confirming. Regards, Chris.
So you say immigration was not swamping but “swamping.” What DO you call millions of them ?
Coverage of the Gay Marriage debate in the Lords.
Throughout the day on Five Live they dutifully reported that 148 (MOSTLY Conservative – they’re the baddies you see) Peers opposed the Bill.
Thankfully though they then ran an “Equalities” Peer’s speech telling them how nasty they were or that of a male homosexual Peer who explained how he and Rafael just couldn’t wait to tie the knot.
Given this massive bias, some would actually think the BBC had a pro-Gay Marriage agenda. Surely not?
Good of the bBC to remind us (NOT) that Labour increased GP income by 30% while decreasing their workload. (Carlsberg moment: The BMA must be the best union in the world). Bliar said in PMQ’s ‘rejoice we have the best paid doctors in the world. The irony was it was one of the few times he was not lying.
I have a GP mate who said he burst out laughing when the new deal by Labour was offered to them. Labour apparently thought that the money would be used to improve surgeries etc., and did not expect the GPs to behave like MPs.
And here we are today. Just remember, don’t get hospitalised on a Friday evening or over the weekend. My mum had a stroke on a Friday PM. It kicked off convulsions at one or two minute intervals (she was unconscious all through this). On Monday morning, a consultant wanders up and tells us … “your mother is having convulsions”. Well, whooda thunk it?
Alan? hello?
what ? if you have something to say say it !
I’m missing something here.
The government have closed A & E departments across the country.
The remaining units are being overwhelmed.
Isn’t the first the cause of the second?
Casual interviews are showing that immigrants (and we have a lot of them) will go to A&E without bothering to go to the GP first. Also GP’s get much more money than an A&E doctor. I would look at those cases first.
Which government Dave?
The one in power in 2004 when rise began or the one in power now?
BBC-NUJ is very reluctant to discuss the costs to NHS of immigration, be it to hospital A&E departments, or in the form of international ‘health tourism’ to U.K.
BBC-NUJ is inclined to depict immigration and NHS as only a benefit.
A similar BBC-NUJ political attitude pervades reporting of U.K. education and impact of immigration.
This still doesn’t let Labour off the hook. If you think about it: reclassifying into three new types merely allows graph plotters to use three colours instead of one. All those people using Type 2 and 3 units to receive medical attention had been (until 2002) using A&E in hospitals. The fact remains that the number of people using medical services in the NHS rose under Labour – regardless of which particular building they visited.
I suggest evening and night visits could account for many. Even if a GP has locum cover, the locum does not pay a visit. They either fax a prescription or advise you to go to A&E or arrange an ambulance to take you to A&E.
Hang on. In 2013 a total of 21 million people attended casualty in the UK. That’s one third of the official 60 million population.
Really? Can this be true? A third of the population needed emergency care? No wonder the NHS can’t cope.
And how many of those 21million are not ,for whatever reason, not registered with a GP?
How many were repeat admissions?
i.e accident prone or inadequate care previously.
As story a while back: we called an out of hours doctor because my Grandmother collapsed overnight. Dr arrived “nothing to worry about”. It happened again 1 hr later. We called for an ambulance. She was admitted and had to stay in hospital for a month.
Sunni Shia Wahhabism and other putrid words will become common for our grandchildren after they stealthily invade England and it’s establishments. Apart from some recipes and chart music, what is this great contribution we hear of so often that multiculturalism brings?
Point to note to all you left wing defenders of the truth.
1) Has the Population of the UK grown since 1997 above normal.
2) Do immigrants receive free health care in the UK
3) if 1 and 2 are extant, would it result in more pressure on the NHS.
Apparently not according to Dez
‘Nuff said. Blows the lefty argument to shreds in 3 sentences.
I think the bbc is a bunch of crap
apologies this is my son’s comment but I think he’s summed it up quite nicely!
He’s quickly reached the level of debate some of the trolls manage on this site already.
Is that the ‘Left-leaning’ Kings Fund?? as never mentioned by the Broadcast Arm of the Labour Party , in stark contrast to the ‘Right-wing (insert any appropriate agency of your choice)’ label attached to non-socialist organisation.
Yep, that’s the one.
1. Always reported verbatim
2. Never clarified as to it’s politics
3. Funding never explained
Any organisation quoted by the BBC that meets those three criteria can automatically be considered to be leftist.
Sorry, “its”…