I know it wasn't intended as such, but this really is more public sector bashing.
No it's not. Most people just want to see an efficient public sector and are frustrated when they see bad work practices. Even the public sector unions have admitted that there's plenty of room for improvement and reform. So lets get going with the reform!!
I know it wasn't intended as such, but this really is more public sector bashing.
Firstly, why are the admin staff suddenly 'bureaucrats'? You said yourself that these were "all very nice, helpful and professional", so why bash them as bureaucrats? They are really just clerical staff.
Secondly, of the five clerical staff that you moan about, two had nothing to do with you. There happened to be three staff ready to deal with customers, one of whom dealt with you. So pull back on your moaning by 40%.
Thirdly, there may well be a very good reason for non pre-printing the reference number on the paper form. Perhaps the reference number is related to the particular unit of vaccine that you were given. I can't be sure of this, of course, but neither can you - so don't be so quick to criticise when you really don't know what's going on.
I could do the same kind of moaning about most of my visits to Superquinn or Tesco, or most of my visits to my bank or insurance company, or most of my visits to the local hardware shop. All of these places have processes that could be improved, but being imperfect organisations with imperfect people, they are not perfect.
I'd love the see the queue with your 'nurse and two staff' when 15 people turn up at the same time for vaccination.
I know it wasn't intended as such, but this really is more public sector bashing.
Firstly, why are the admin staff suddenly 'bureaucrats'? You said yourself that these were "all very nice, helpful and professional", so why bash them as bureaucrats? They are really just clerical staff.
Secondly, of the five clerical staff that you moan about, two had nothing to do with you. There happened to be three staff ready to deal with customers, one of whom dealt with you. So pull back on your moaning by 40%.
Thirdly, there may well be a very good reason for non pre-printing the reference number on the paper form. Perhaps the reference number is related to the particular unit of vaccine that you were given. I can't be sure of this, of course, but neither can you - so don't be so quick to criticise when you really don't know what's going on.
I could do the same kind of moaning about most of my visits to Superquinn or Tesco, or most of my visits to my bank or insurance company, or most of my visits to the local hardware shop. All of these places have processes that could be improved, but being imperfect organisations with imperfect people, they are not perfect.
I'd love the see the queue with your 'nurse and two staff' when 15 people turn up at the same time for vaccination.
This is a perfect example of a bureaucrat justifying bureaucracy.
Pity that you can't express a relevant opinion without resorting to namecalling.This is a perfect example of a bureaucrat justifying bureaucracy.
There is no question of 'admitting' that there is plenty of room for improvement and reform. Of course there is plenty of room for improvement and reform in every organisation, public and private. Reform is a continuous process, and is never finished. There is no evidence of bad work practices from this post - just 'hurler on the ditch' opinions from someone who doesn't actually know what is going on.No it's not. Most people just want to see an efficient public sector and are frustrated when they see bad work practices. Even the public sector unions have admitted that there's plenty of room for improvement and reform. So lets get going with the reform!!
Management are people too, generally hard-working, concientious and professional people who do the best they can with the resources available to them. Generally, they know a bit more about the job in question than spectators, who breeze through for a minute or two and convince themselves that they are experts in healthcare.Firstly I made it quite clear in my post that my issue was not with the staff concerned, it was with their management who had designed this operation.
If you really do want to be constructive, stop exaggerating. It did not take four people to deal with you. Stick to the facts.Secondly, I simply pointed out that as someone who manages operations for a living, I could see simple ways in which the process could be improved. I simply do not understand why it took 4 people on laptops to input data onto a system to produce a hand writen 6 inch square piece of paper. I run a data processing centre and based on the form concerned, I estimate it would take one of my staff 75 seconds to input the data on it and another 30 seconds to produce the relevant card
Indeed, the public sector like any organisation is not perfect and there is lots of room for improvement. I recognise constructive criticism when I see it, and this was not constructive. Try again without using derogatory terms like 'bureaucrats', without exaggerating the number of people involved, and when you actually understand what the form in question does, what systems are being used, what data is being validated etc etc. Then it just might be constructive.The public sector is not perfect, I'm disappointed that you cannot take constructive criticism for what it is.
Pity that you can't express a relevant opinion without resorting to namecalling.
There is no question of 'admitting' that there is plenty of room for improvement and reform. Of course there is plenty of room for improvement and reform in every organisation, public and private. Reform is a continuous process, and is never finished. There is no evidence of bad work practices from this post - just 'hurler on the ditch' opinions from someone who doesn't actually know what is going on.
Management are people too, generally hard-working, concientious and professional people who do the best they can with the resources available to them. Generally, they know a bit more about the job in question than spectators, who breeze through for a minute or two and convince themselves that they are experts in healthcare.
If you really do want to be constructive, stop exaggerating. It did not take four people to deal with you. Stick to the facts.
Indeed, the public sector like any organisation is not perfect and there is lots of room for improvement. I recognise constructive criticism when I see it, and this was not constructive. Try again without using derogatory terms like 'bureaucrats', without exaggerating the number of people involved, and when you actually understand what the form in question does, what systems are being used, what data is being validated etc etc. Then it just might be constructive.
At present, this is just 'hurler on the ditch' moaning, and of no constructive value.
I got my swine flu jab in my workplace. There were no admin staff at the clinic, one doctor and three nurses. I filled out my form and the nurse put a sticker on the form and gave me a card with a batch number on it. It took me 10 minutes but I didn't hang around afterwards.
I heard that 300 people were dealt with that morning. Now, while I don't have access to the data there were about 20 people waiting when I arrived and left.
I got my swine flu jab in my workplace. There were no admin staff at the clinic, one doctor and three nurses. I filled out my form and the nurse put a sticker on the form and gave me a card with a batch number on it. It took me 10 minutes but I didn't hang around afterwards.
I heard that 300 people were dealt with that morning. Now, while I don't have access to the data there were about 20 people waiting when I arrived and left.
Nope, but as it is more his area of expertise can he expain how it costs over 500k a year to run the motor tax renewal website while his local 'family run' [broken link removed] can operate a site of similar (arguably more) complex site for a fraction of the money?
OK, so it wasn't the '5 people and 4 laptops' of your original rant? Nice to see that we are getting closer to the truth now.Fact 1. Person 1 who I dealt with was the receptionist giving out the forms and managing the queue
Fact 2. The 2nd person I dealt with was the person who I gave the completed form to who input the details onto one laptop in one room. The form comprised my name, address, contact number, next of kin and their contact number.
Fact 3. The 3rd person I dealt with was the nurse
Fact 4. The 4th person I dealt with was the person I dealt with in the waiting room who filled out the relevant handwritten card that I was given
Therefore it took 4 people to deal with me end to end. Those are facts.
The other 2 people sitting there in the waiting room were dealing with the 12 people (I counted them) who were given the injection in the 30 minutes or so I was waiting for. In effect, the last 3 people were processing an average of 1 person every 10 minutes. The card they gave me has only a few words to be filled in by hand
I've explained on several other threads why this would be a pointless exercise, and indeed, the level of analysis on this thread confirms my view on this. We might as well as posters to share their views on getting to the moon or curing cancer.Can I just also say how absolutely delighted I am that you see there is room for improvement in the public sector. Perhaps you could make some constructive suggestions and I am sure lots of posters here would be glad to share their views
Do you exercise this kind of 'drive by management' in your day job, where you come to definite conclusions about the effeciency of a process from a single user experience?Lastly I have never said I was an expert in health care. However I am an expert in data management and back office processing (including in the health area) and I stand over my belief that the process was inefficent.
I don’t think public service reform is as difficult as space travel or curing cancer. I’m not sure others think so either.We might as well as posters to share their views on getting to the moon or curing cancer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?