Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:39 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53739 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306 ... 1344  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48829
From the Scally report, apologies for formatting not pasting.

Quote:
Conducting an audit or review of interval cancers is, as stated above, a good thing to
do for the purposes of quality control and, particularly, learning. But it is not without
problems when it comes to comparability. These difficult issues have been
summarised in the following bullet points from a document produced by the NHS
screening programmes in Britain in 2016:
 No matter how closely the review panel tries to reproduce the original
screening conditions, the conditions of a review are different – the
fact that a review includes records of a patient known to have a
serious condition. such as cancer, will heighten vigilance and
increase reports of abnormality
 Finding discrepancies on review does not imply that the same
findings should have been made under routine conditions.
 Hindsight has a significant impact on the interpretation of images.
 In a number of screening programmes, such as fetal anomaly
ultrasound, cervical and breast screening, the result is based on
interpretation of appearances on a scan, slide or mammogram in
circumstances where the boundary between normality and
abnormality is not firmly drawn – this may result in debate between
experts as to the appropriate classification of the sample or the
interpretation of the image.6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
Great article today in the Sindo by Colm McCarthy about the real reasons behind the housing crisis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2489
Duff Paddy wrote:
Great article today in the Sindo by Colm McCarthy about the real reasons behind the housing crisis


I know he referenced Deeter but Deeter has been saying that, people and politicians objecting to housing in their area, for a while now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21648
Here lads I found a way to wind up the nurses. We have a family group and two of the in laws are nurses. All the family and in laws have been falling over themselves to say how deadly they are and blah blah. My wife has me on a warning to shut my face. Anyway today one of the group member nurses says 'we are going to do a promotional video showing our day to day work'. Without thinking I said 'I saw something like that filmed in Aras Attracta'. Ah jaysus I am dead at home


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6242
:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12821
CM11 wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
DO we have to go through the whole screen test Vs diagnostic test thing again ?


Looks like it.

AJ certainly hasn't got the point yet.

Are you lads still desperately clinging to the idea that the former cannot be negligent?

At this remove, I would have thought you'd be thoroughly embarrassed to continue peddling this idea. The whole thrust of this case is that the screening was not done properly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
anonymous_joe wrote:
CM11 wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
DO we have to go through the whole screen test Vs diagnostic test thing again ?


Looks like it.

AJ certainly hasn't got the point yet.

Are you lads still desperately clinging to the idea that the former cannot be negligent?

At this remove, I would have thought you'd be thoroughly embarrassed to continue peddling this idea. The whole thrust of this case is that the screening was not done properly.


It’s old the legal negligence scam again - don’t build a footpath and there’s no negligence if somebody trips, build a footpath and if somebody trips it’s negligence. They are a blight on our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 17901
Yep


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
anonymous_joe wrote:
CM11 wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
DO we have to go through the whole screen test Vs diagnostic test thing again ?


Looks like it.

AJ certainly hasn't got the point yet.

Are you lads still desperately clinging to the idea that the former cannot be negligent?

At this remove, I would have thought you'd be thoroughly embarrassed to continue peddling this idea. The whole thrust of this case is that the screening was not done properly.

The SBP yesterday reported that at least 75% of the women (at least 165 of 221 women) affected by cervical smear test controversey are now cancer free.

Of the women, 9 had the pre cancer cells the screening programme is designed to detect.

151 had stage 1 cancer, which is generally treatable and was treated and are now cancer free.

50 had a type of cancer that is high up the cervix and is not detectable by the screening process, and are currently undergoing treatment.

It appears to me that the HSE screening programme is actually doing a very good job motwithstanding yhe numbers of lawyers circling like vultures over the entire process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48829
anonymous_joe wrote:
CM11 wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
DO we have to go through the whole screen test Vs diagnostic test thing again ?


Looks like it.

AJ certainly hasn't got the point yet.

Are you lads still desperately clinging to the idea that the former cannot be negligent?

At this remove, I would have thought you'd be thoroughly embarrassed to continue peddling this idea. The whole thrust of this case is that the screening was not done properly.


I have said to you many times that I am not saying medical negligence doesn't exist. However, I have repeatedly made the point that just because something was missed in the original screening, it does not mean it was negligence. Despite the Scally report agreeing with me, you continue to shake your head every time I say it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
The SBP story is reported in todays IT :

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... -1.3780938


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12821
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48829
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.


You've ignored my quote from the Scally report, I see.

Maybe it doesn't apply here but the screening has been described a bit like an optical illusion. Sometimes it's just too hard to see but knowing it's there and what it is makes it a hell of a lot easier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

He's a trained cancer specialist who already knew the patient had cancer and was allowed two minutes to view.

Cancer screeners are technicians looking at lots of tests continuously every day. There is an accepted error rate precisely because it is not an individual specialist consultation.

But you know all this already, but somehow refuse to accept it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

Not necessarily - it’s much easier to look back at a histology slide in retrospect when you already know the diagnosis. It’s not necessarily negligent - mistakes happen, things are missed - especially in screening. Giving 2 million euros to each mistake is a sure fire way to collapse the screening process


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
EverReady wrote:
Here lads I found a way to wind up the nurses. We have a family group and two of the in laws are nurses. All the family and in laws have been falling over themselves to say how deadly they are and blah blah. My wife has me on a warning to shut my face. Anyway today one of the group member nurses says 'we are going to do a promotional video showing our day to day work'. Without thinking I said 'I saw something like that filmed in Aras Attracta'. Ah jaysus I am dead at home


How did I miss this :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12821
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

He's a trained cancer specialist who already knew the patient had cancer and was allowed two minutes to view.

Cancer screeners are technicians looking at lots of tests continuously every day. There is an accepted error rate precisely because it is not an individual specialist consultation.

But you know all this already, but somehow refuse to accept it.

Are you suggesting the lab screening for cancer wasn't using trained specialists?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12821
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

Not necessarily - it’s much easier to look back at a histology slide in retrospect when you already know the diagnosis. It’s not necessarily negligent - mistakes happen, things are missed - especially in screening. Giving 2 million euros to each mistake is a sure fire way to collapse the screening process

They're only giving compensation to people where negligence is proved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

He's a trained cancer specialist who already knew the patient had cancer and was allowed two minutes to view.

Cancer screeners are technicians looking at lots of tests continuously every day. There is an accepted error rate precisely because it is not an individual specialist consultation.

But you know all this already, but somehow refuse to accept it.

Are you suggesting the lab screening for cancer wasn't using trained specialists?

By specialist I mean Hospital Consultant (as you well knew), and yes, I am , in fact, stating that the screening labs don't use Hospital consultants, or indeed anybody with a medical degree to do their screening.

You are either being extremely disingenuous, or don't know what screening is, nor what it does, or more importantly, what it doesn't do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48829
AJ

We're going around in circles on this. You're quoting absolutes as if they're conclusive statements of negligence and ignoring any comments, like the one I've quoted from Scally, which counters your point.

No one is saying medical negligence doesn't exist but when it comes to something like a screening process, the whole point is that something can be missed which others would see, perhaps even easily in hindsight. As I've quoted from Scally and you've ignored.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12821
Cam is literally saying what you're claiming nobody is saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48829
anonymous_joe wrote:
Cam is literally saying what you're claiming nobody is saying.


No he's not. He's countering your simplistic view that just because a specialist sees an issue quickly, with the knowledge that there is an issue doesn't automatically equate to negligence. It might but it's not absolute, as Scally points out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 17901
€€€€€


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7949
Duff Paddy wrote:
Great article today in the Sindo by Colm McCarthy about the real reasons behind the housing crisis

Anyone want to do a solid and post it? Behind the paywall


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9655
In an estate where we are trying to sell a house the council bought a four bed and installed a Roma woman with 8 kids.
The oldest kid is 14, they've been around begging every few minutes with the 7 year old as interpreter and the 14 year old as muscle he gets nasty when you say no.
Can I drain some of your oil from your tank? I don't have any in mine.
Until recently the estate was mainly well off retired farmers, now the majority are unemployed.
I think they move to the countryside so no one can frighten them with work.
The Roma woman is only in the country 6 or 7 months, think she was up North for a while.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
anonymous_joe wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

Not necessarily - it’s much easier to look back at a histology slide in retrospect when you already know the diagnosis. It’s not necessarily negligent - mistakes happen, things are missed - especially in screening. Giving 2 million euros to each mistake is a sure fire way to collapse the screening process

They're only giving compensation to people where negligence is proved.


Really? They have settled with them all - the government can’t be seen to take a young mother with cancer through the courts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
hermie wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Great article today in the Sindo by Colm McCarthy about the real reasons behind the housing crisis

Anyone want to do a solid and post it? Behind the paywall

Read it in the paper version sorry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48829
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:
Did you not just read a doctor saying he spotted the problem in a minute...? That's what screening is meant to catch.

Both a diagnostic and a screening test could be negligently done, despite repeated protestations to the contrary.

Not necessarily - it’s much easier to look back at a histology slide in retrospect when you already know the diagnosis. It’s not necessarily negligent - mistakes happen, things are missed - especially in screening. Giving 2 million euros to each mistake is a sure fire way to collapse the screening process

They're only giving compensation to people where negligence is proved.


Really? They have settled with them all - the government can’t be seen to take a young mother with cancer through the courts


Not the government's choice though. Which is why some have gone to court.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5555
Joe Brolly Twitter is worth a look. Mental


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
Germania airline gone bang.

Ryanair is really squeezing their competitors pips hard this winter.

Of course, more pilots for him to recruit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0 ... insolvent/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26029
camroc1 wrote:
Germania airline gone bang.

Ryanair is really squeezing their competitors pips hard this winter.

Of course, more pilots for him to recruit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0 ... insolvent/


Seem to be squeezing themselves too


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 15061
Liathroidigloine wrote:
Joe Brolly Twitter is worth a look. Mental

Link please. Is this about his article on rugby?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
Duff Paddy wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Germania airline gone bang.

Ryanair is really squeezing their competitors pips hard this winter.

Of course, more pilots for him to recruit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0 ... insolvent/


Seem to be squeezing themselves too

The difference being that they have the cash (some €8 - 9 bn) to survive a fares war, and if you look at the figures increased passenger numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33249
So Mehole breaking Brexit ranks on the BBC's Newsnight.

Who'd have thunk it from the self styled Republican Party.

Dev must be hitting 3,000 rpm !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 17901
Two Nurse managers beside me on the DART yesterday evening

"Is it 37 or 38 days leave we get?"

Won't see that in the fúcking Indo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:42 pm
Posts: 415
RTÉ did a vox pop on the nurses this morning and couldn’t find one person against them funnily enough :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9655
All these nurses and teachers also gardai take a look at what brickies etc earned in the last boom and said I'll have that.
They seem to think everybody in every office and factory earns more than them, and has a handier time of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8558
we should bring in legislation that forces newly qualified and expensively trained nurses (or any PS workers), who electively turn down a job in Ireland to take higher pay in UAE or elsewhere, to immediately begin paying back a portion of the cost of their taxpayer funded education.

This should be a stipulation of their entry into a nursing/teaching/whatever degree programme.

With this kind of terms and conditions in place, the argument that the Irish domiciled nurses are worse off, would fall away immediately.

Otherwise Irish taxpayers are funding a system that incentivises the public sector beneficiaries of our tax-funded subsidised education model, to continually agitate for more money ..... on the sole basis that the grass is always greener somewhere else.

That is no way to run the public sector.

If PS nurses don't like their situation (that they signed up to with eyes wide open), then join an agency or leave the country ...... just don't pretend that the ones who stay in situ are being somehow deceived or treated in bad faith.

I and lots of others in Ireland could get better paid if we went to a competitor abroad ...... but expecting my employer to do anything about that in pay terms, would be delusional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 17901
rfurlong wrote:
we should bring in legislation that forces newly qualified and expensively trained nurses (or any PS workers), who electively turn down a job in Ireland to take higher pay in UAE or elsewhere, to immediately begin paying back a portion of the cost of their taxpayer funded education.

This should be a stipulation of their entry into a nursing/teaching/whatever degree programme.

With this kind of terms and conditions in place, the argument that the Irish domiciled nurses are worse off, would fall away immediately.

Otherwise Irish taxpayers are funding a system that incentivises the public sector beneficiaries of our tax-funded subsidised education model, to continually agitate for more money ..... on the sole basis that the grass is always greener somewhere else.

That is no way to run the public sector.

If PS nurses don't like their situation (that they signed up to with eyes wide open), then join an agency or leave the country ...... just don't pretend that the ones who stay in situ are being somehow deceived or treated in bad faith.

I and lots of others in Ireland could get better paid if we went to a competitor abroad ...... but expecting my employer to do anything about that in pay terms, would be delusional.


Saying it years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5555
Mullet 2 wrote:
rfurlong wrote:
we should bring in legislation that forces newly qualified and expensively trained nurses (or any PS workers), who electively turn down a job in Ireland to take higher pay in UAE or elsewhere, to immediately begin paying back a portion of the cost of their taxpayer funded education.

This should be a stipulation of their entry into a nursing/teaching/whatever degree programme.

With this kind of terms and conditions in place, the argument that the Irish domiciled nurses are worse off, would fall away immediately.

Otherwise Irish taxpayers are funding a system that incentivises the public sector beneficiaries of our tax-funded subsidised education model, to continually agitate for more money ..... on the sole basis that the grass is always greener somewhere else.

That is no way to run the public sector.

If PS nurses don't like their situation (that they signed up to with eyes wide open), then join an agency or leave the country ...... just don't pretend that the ones who stay in situ are being somehow deceived or treated in bad faith.

I and lots of others in Ireland could get better paid if we went to a competitor abroad ...... but expecting my employer to do anything about that in pay terms, would be delusional.


Saying it years


Varadkar and co don't have the balls to impose the sanctions afforded to them under the PS Pay agreement. There is no way they will introduce a penalty for moving abroad after qualification.

I was in a private hospital on Tuesday. A model of efficiency and very busy too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53739 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306 ... 1344  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bert, bimboman, Bing [Bot], BokJock, Diego, Fat Old Git, Google [Bot], Tehui, Turbogoat, Uthikoloshe, Wilderbeast, Willie Falloon and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group