IT’S a monthly ritual, the running commentary on the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital emergency department “performance” (“Waiting times at super hospital improve”, Herald, January 11). I hope nobody working in the emergency department gives it a second thought.
Back in 1970 when, courtesy of the Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde Air Squadron, I was learning to land a Chipmunk at Glasgow Airport, the tower said to me: “Quebec 54, clear to land, taxi left immediately, expedite.” I dutifully acknowledged. My instructor said: “Quite right. Say ‘Roger, wilco’, then don’t change a thing. Taxi the aircraft exactly as you’ve been taught.”
I would say exactly the same thing to any emergency department junior doctor being instructed by the control tower of managers and politicians to “expedite” patients through the department within four hours. Politely acknowledge, and then practise medicine exactly as you’ve been taught.
It will not have escaped the notice of the said control tower that, south of the Border, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has started to abolish the four-hour rule. It’s a safe prediction that the same thing will shortly happen here in Scotland, thank goodness.
Mr Hunt wants to educate the public about the “appropriate” use of hospital emergency departments. In this regard, I would propose a very simple measure. Stop using the expression “Accident & Emergency (A & E)”. The correct terminology is “emergency department (ED)”. If a patient suffers an “accident”, say a sprained ankle, then he may say, why shouldn’t I go to A&E? That, after all, is what it says on the tin. Besides, any traumatologist will tell you there is no such thing as an accident. The emergency medicine community in Australia and New Zealand understood this 30 years ago and banned the word “accident”. I write respectfully to ask The Herald to do likewise.
Tell the control tower.
Dr Hamish Maclaren,
1 Grays Loan, Thornhill, Stirling.
ALLAN C Steele (Letters, January 11) hits the nail on the head with his observation from recent experience that our excellent NHS can be let down by poor communication
In my experience the most common cause of dissatisfaction has always been the sometimes poor communication between specialties, general practice, and patients – when timely contact or explanation could have avoided much angst.
As a retired GP I reflect on my own contribution to the problem, sometimes due to carelessness or time pressures.
R Russell Smith,
96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.
SECTIONS of the media appear to be carrying out a relentless campaign to point out the deficiencies of the NHS both here in Scotland and across the UK. This constant negativity and indeed sometimes scaremongering must be very disheartening for those who work tirelessly in the NHS and indeed potentially worrying for people seeking their services. It is time to temper this constant flow of scare stores with some recognition of the terrific work that the NHS does in difficult circumstances and perhaps my own very recent experience may give some comfort to those who might be calling on the NHS in the weeks to come.
In November I had some minor surgery to remove a lump on my back. The diagnostic result of this procedure was not good and required further extensive tests and somewhat more extensive surgery. I confess that this was a slightly worrying period for me particularly since it would span the festive season. However the reaction of all of those who I came in contact with in the NHS was absolutely superb. Communication was terrific, appointments were made quickly and carried out efficiently and the final surgery last week was executed very professionally.
I have nothing but the highest praise for our NHS and am extremely grateful that we have so many dedicated people working within it. Reality, certainly in my case, was far removed from the doom-laden reports of the media.
Peter Shakeshaft,
30/11 Barnton Grove, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel