New drug - Toctino
Basilea has launched Toctino (alitretinoin) for the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) in... Read more
When spending our own money on ourselves we take care to get exactly what we want, at exactly the right price. If we spend our cash on someone else (as a gift) we are less careful; and if we spend someone else's money on a third party then ... who cares?
This also applies to time, resources and targets. Naturally we focus on our own, for example, the quality framework, but few GPs bother about their primary care organisation's (PCO) targets.
Friedman's principle leads to much better management. The more that any individual has a vested interest in the outcome of their decisions, the better quality and more efficient those decisions will be. Conversely, when managers have no personal involvement in the consequences, their decisions may disregard the difficulties placed on those who have to carry them out.
To stop hospitals profiteering from unnecessary internal referrals, many PCOs now insist that all such referrals must go via the GP. This has turned GPs into glorified referral clerks, wasting our time and energy. It is clear that the managers introducing these edicts have no vested interest in the costs and consequences. They couldn't care less who has to do the extra work, because it doesn't come out of their budget.
At heart, this is why politicians and managers dump so much onto primary care. When your decisions have no impact on yourself or your own circumscribed budget, why bother about their effects on those carrying out the work?
The inefficiency of the NHS machine can be encapsulated in Milton Friedman's principle. Do we want the NHS to be efficient? Then give each manager a vested interest in all decisions they take. Link managers' salaries to the efficiency of the whole sector for which they are responsible. This mentality is very 'private sector' for the NHS, but efficient.
We spend resources most economically when we have a personal interest in the outcome. In industry, it's called 'ownership', and it's about time the hopelessly inefficient NHS learned this.
Dr Lancelot is a GP from Lancashire. Email him at GPcolumnists@haymarket.com
Quick search - use * for an abbreviated search, eg nico*
Basilea has launched Toctino (alitretinoin) for the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) in... Read more
UCB Pharma has launched Vimpat (lacosamide) for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial-onset... Read more
Firazyr (icatibant acetate) is indicated for the symptomatic treatment of acute attacks of hereditar... Read more
Comments
cynic
30/05/2008
This has ALWAYS been the case.
NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE for what they do either in Government or the NHS heirachy. I totally agree with your article if SOMEONE is responsible for their actions we will see EFFICIENCY not this sort of ROT that we are in now.
Steven Ford
31/05/2008
The key phrase is: Conversely, when managers have no personal involvement in the consequences, their decisions may disregard the difficulties placed on those who have to carry them out.
Whilst I broadly agree with CL's general thrust I would have expressed it differently - Engineer a health service structure in such a way that there is a constructive mutual jeopardy between patient, clinician and manager - they are the three legs of the health service milking stool and none can fail to do their bit or get above themselves.
Only registered users may comment. Log in now or register for a free account.