Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SERIOUS CONCERN HAS been expressed over staff shortages in Emergency Departments, following a survey that suggests the problem will worsen after July.
A recent medical staff survey by the Irish Association for Emergency Medicine (IAEM) confirms ongoing shortages of medical staff in the country’s Emergency Departments (EDs), the association has said.
It said that the worst shortages are at the middle grade level (senior doctors at a grade below Consultant), while the experience of departments in attempting to recruit medical staff for July 2013 to January 2014 (the next contract period for NCHDs [non-consultant hospital doctors]) suggests that the problem will “greatly worsen” after July.
There is a genuine risk that EDs will not be able to fill enough of their posts to continue to provide current levels of service. There is a real prospect therefore of certain EDs being obliged to reduce their hours of service.
The IAEM said that for many EDs there is a likelihood of fewer doctors on duty, which could lead to increases in waiting times and increased risk for patients. It is not just EDs in smaller hospitals that are at risk, as it is likely to significantly affect many larger hospitals, it added.
There are also increasing difficulties recruiting Consultants in Emergency Medicine (EM) around the country. “At the same time as new entrant Consultant salaries in Ireland are cut, other countries are offering very heavily incentivised packages to attract suitably qualified Irish doctors to staff their EDs,” said the IAEM.
The association said that unless the problems that make a career in EM in Ireland “so unattractive” are addressed, the staffing shortage will inevitably worsen. They warn this may lead to a downward spiral where current Consultants in EM consider relocating to other countries.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A precedence has been set with this. Well meaning as it is. Will not other survivors of state ineffectiveness want something similar.
@AnthonyK: At a risk of sounding controversial, I think this should have been dealt with under some form of compensation or redress rather than some blanket thing.
That it doesn’t preclude future settlements is an odd thing.
However, I’m more onboard with the Gov actually doing something rather than nothing for those people it’s completely failed.
maybe hold tony hoolahan to account? no, no, that would be too much to expect of this snide government.
@Niall English: What specifically should he be held to account for?
Are they going to do this for all individuals who have been failed by the state (and how is that defined)? There’s plenty of people who have suffered, including Stardust victims, people who can’t get or afford homes.
The amount of misinformation out there around what happened with cervical check is mind-blowing. The way some people talk you’d swear that the testing service actually gave people cancer.
@Jason Memail: Quite the opposite, it didn’t tell them that they had cancer so they didn’t receive the treatment they needed, in a nutshell
@Brian D’Arcy: That’s absolutely false, and part of the misinformation that’s common on this subject. 1) These women received tests from cervical check which told them that cancer cells were not present. 2) These women subsequently developed cancer, and a review of their original tests was carried out. 3) The reviews showed that the earlier tests missed what may have been cancerous cells, with these reviews aided by the fact that the reviewers knew what they were looking for, since the patients had developed cancer.
@Jason Memail: 4) The decision was made, and this is the real crux of the issue, not to go back and tell those women that the earlier tests missed the potentially cancerous cells, mainly because what good would it do? They now had cancer and knowing an earlier test missed it wouldn’t change that. 5) Overall, the suggestion that cervical check didn’t tell these people they had cancer is demonstrably false, because the only reason the reviews were carried out on the initial tests is because they had cancer, which they knew about. 6) Going back and checking original tests when something like this happens is standard practice, and the right thing to do in order to improve future testing, but
@Jason Memail: 7) you can argue whether or not it was the right decision not to inform people about what the earlier tests missed, but it would not and could not have changed the fact that they now, sadly, had cancer, and 8) Knowing that an earlier test missed something could not have allowed them to start treatment earlier, because it’s in the oast. 9) If you want to know the specifics of it, I’d suggest checking out care2much on Twitter, who has written some incredibly detailed threads on the subject.
While this is welcome and like one commentor said that it should have been done with compensation.
As a survivor of the industrial state/religious run institutions we never got compensation we were give an “Award” as if we won something, we cannot get enhanced medical cards that the survivors from the mother and baby home were afforded, we cannot get a contributary pension even though we had to work in these institutions, we now get another slap in the face by being excluded from theses tax benefits. I live in a council house and am grateful for that, I live with my ill husband and disabled totally dependant 23 year old son was told that I can purchase the house for a minimum of between 60 and 80 thousand euro, cannot get a mortgage as my husband is 70 as the cut off is 69 and we’ve have no where to go to help buy the house so our disabled son would have a roof over his head if anything happened to us.
have your say