14 January 2002
Hospital failing, Ofsic reports
A shock report leaked by government inspectors Ofsic reveals that the new Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital is falling short of acceptable standards. It is being put on special measures from today.
Inspectors from the Office for Standards in Care who visited the hospital found that most sessions conducted by nurses or doctors were satisfactory or better, though morale was not the best. But resources were unsatisfactory, and staff tended to fall ill too easily – a phenomenon that was put down to sick building syndrome.
Discipline among patients was described as mainly reasonable, but the inspectors felt that too many were being expelled for no good reason. They were failing to reach targets and their performance in examinations was very low-key. “During some operations they seemed to be practically unconscious,” says the report.
Management and procedures were described as “sadly lacking”, with the Ofsic inspectors particularly critical of the cash-centred culture. “It is being run like a business and not as a caring and healing establishment,” they say. “It is rigid and not user-friendly.”
The inspectors suggest that the hospital was opened at the wrong time, purely as a cash-saving measure. They also have doubts about the parking provisions and access to the hospital. “We feel that access has been made difficult to prevent people getting there and overloading the facilities,” says the report.
Ofsic suggests that some small rural hospitals in the county could provide valuable support and should be reopened. The standard of care provided at them “more than compensates for the lack of hi-tech equipment”, says Ofsic.
A Standards in Care (Sic) action team will take over the running of the new hospital until its performance improves. A hospital spokesman commented: “This is very disappointing. I said we shouldn’t have sent them a map.”
Reservoir ducks in shooting threat
Plans to introduce duck-shooting at Pondhenge, the historically significant secret site in North Norfolk, have been attacked by local residents.
“This has been a quiet spot for centuries,” said spokesman Bill Cannis. “Obviously we have been worried about the resident goose, but it has never been violent. Now innocent Pondhengers, who love nothing better than the traditional Norfolk practice of sitting and gazing into the distance, are at risk.
“It won’t be just local ducks. It will be those reservoir ducks from down the road. I’ve seen the website.”
A council spokesman said he felt the residents had not been fully informed about the proposals. But they were evacuating the goose to avoid unpleasant incidents. Hot tips for the coming year
In all the rush and illness of the Christmas season, I neglected to give you my detailed predictions for 2002 or beyond.
It is clearly too late to remedy this in any organised way, but to allay any disappointment, here are some odd forecasts that I managed to extricate from the furnace. Unfortunately the precise dates could not be retrieved. Readers may like to amuse themselves by putting them in order and then checking them off as they happen. Or vice versa.
After a particularly cold eight weeks, scientists tell us that the freak weather is caused by global warming. A country is discovered that has not been visited by Tony Blair in the past six months. Blair visits it. Scientists blame global warming. After a two-week drought and slight heatwave in Hindolveston, scientists blame global warming. Something extremely dangerous is found in Australia. It is Bill Bryson. Scientists blame global warming. An asteroid strikes Wales, and Tony Blair immediately holds a referendum on joining the euro. Scientists blame global warming. After heavy rainfall and high winds one Thursday in Costessey, scientists blame global warming. Thirty-seven trains run on time. Scientists blame global warming. After an extremely high tide at Hemsby, scientists blame global warming. An access road is built joining the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital to the A47, but the sun explodes. Scientists blame motorists. Dualling of the A11 is completed. Aliens from Andromeda form a government. Scientists blame great crested newts.
Another unfair dig at cyclists
A Norwich cyclist has hit out at fellow-pedallers who travel on the pavement instead of on the road.
“Women and children normally cycle correctly on the road,” she said. “It’s usually men in their thirties or forties who ride on the pavement – and they have all the protective gear, too.
“I often see them crossing the road with pedestrians at designated areas. They have this little game where they mustn’t put their foot down.”
Cycling on pavements is not only illegal but dangerous; one cyclist who knocked down and seriously injured a young boy protested: “I couldn’t help it. I didn’t know he was going to come running out of school.”
This is an interesting defence, expected to be adopted by many motorists soon. If so, it will be widely condemned, though it can be argued that children are quite entitled to come running on to the pavement, whereas there is little excuse for running into the road.
I would like to suggest controversially that the roads and pavements would be safer if we were all more careful and considerate, but while I’m unfairly having a go at cyclists and trying to drum up some readers’ letters, let me point out the following statistics.
Cyclists will tell you they are much safer than cars, but that is an illusion, because they are much fewer, and don’t travel nearly as far. If we assume that the average car holds 1.6 people, and the average cycle one person, cycles will seriously injure 1.8 pedestrians per 100 million passenger kilometres, whereas cars will seriously injure 1.3.
Or to put it another way, in 1998 (the latest available figures) cyclists killed two pedestrians, seriously injured 78 and slightly injured 187 while doing the same number of passenger miles as cars do in fewer than three days.