The draft document

We want to know which, if any, of the sections of this long document you are happy with.  Voting yes for a section does  not imply that you don’t think it could be improved, merely that you would be content that it stands for the time being as SHA policy.  Nor does voting for these sections imply that these issues are the only issues we should be addressing.

NB This document was drafted as a response to the Labour Party English Health Policy consultation document. It does not attempt to address issues outside England.

This poll is for members of Central Council only.  You have to be logged in to vote.

Which of these policies are you happy with?

  • Dignity and older people (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Health inequalities (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Emergency Care (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Changing role of hospital services – community based care (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Reconfigurations (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Sugar & Salt Consultation /Helping people make informed choices (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Preventative Health Services (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Enhancing the status and role of primary and community care (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Moving to free personal social care funded from taxation (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Public Health (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Whole Person Care (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Making our NHS a genuinely national system (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Social care system (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Workforce issues (4%, 4 Votes)
  • Mental Health (4%, 4 Votes)
  • The Role of Private Provision (4%, 4 Votes)
  • Patient and community voice (4%, 4 Votes)
  • Competition and the internal market (4%, 4 Votes)
  • Introduction (4%, 4 Votes)
  • Primary Care Commissioning (3%, 3 Votes)

Total Voters: 5

Loading ... Loading ...

One Comment

  1. Hannah Cooke says:

    Overall this has some good intentions but doesn’t go far enough in making clear commitments and is too wrapped up in managerialist language. There is too much room for fudging the issues. There is too much scope for management consultants to make hay at the public’s expense. For example on workforce issues there could have been a clear commitment to mandatory minimum nurse staffing levels as recommended by the Safe Staffing Alliance. Instead of that we’ve got yet more commitments to measuring staffing levels-more highly paid jobs for auditors and more room for organisations to play games with figures. There is too much of this sort of thing throughout the document. It smacks of a document constructed by listening to lobbyists and policy wonks rather than frontline staff.

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 829 other subscribers.

Follow us on Twitter