Poxy Hospital waiting times to be treated

cynder

100 euro a and e fee

Seems a bit steep for a bit if glue on a 2 inch gash....


cheap if your paying for 4 drips. And 3 personal staff and a consultant. Which my daughter gets when she has her bad diabetic days... But you dont have to pay an a and e fee if you get kept in...


If you go to your gp first and get a letter of them you only pay the gp and not the hospital. Handy on a weekday 9-5.

Kiera

username123 wrote: »

I have VHI and I still had to pay full whack last time I used Swiftcare, it depends on your policy.
Dont you have to pay in a public A&E as well? I know its less, but its still substantial, 60 or 80 euro (can anyone confirm?)

If I had some kind of painful but non life threatening injury, like a broken arm, I would far far prefer to pay the 40 or 50 odd quid extra to go to Swiftcare and be seen within 3 minutes than wait 16 hours in a public A&E.

However, if I had a suspected stroke or heart issue Id far rather go straight to a public A&E.

If you go to your doc first and they send you to A&E you dont have to pay. If you walk in off the street you do. It was €100 on the sign in Beaumont last time i was there.

I fractured my wrist last year and ankle the year before and went to my doc who sent me to A&E. I was seen within 30 mins for both.

gsxr1

username123 wrote: »

I have VHI and I still had to pay full whack last time I used Swiftcare, it depends on your policy.
Dont you have to pay in a public A&E as well? I know its less, but its still substantial, 60 or 80 euro (can anyone confirm?)

If I had some kind of painful but non life threatening injury, like a broken arm, I would far far prefer to pay the 40 or 50 odd quid extra to go to Swiftcare and be seen within 3 minutes than wait 16 hours in a public A&E.

However, if I had a suspected stroke or heart issue Id far rather go straight to a public A&E.

You will not be left for 16 hours with a broken arm. If you are in a overly large waiting list. Go to another hospital . Drogheda, Naas or Portlaoise. Use your head and save yourself hours.

Cianos

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Again, how can you blame the government for people drinking too much and ending up in A&E??

You're missing my point completely.

It's a given that people will end up in A&E from boozing and this will happen more often on the weekends. Everyone knows this, including the government. So prepare for it - it's their responsibility to keep waiting times down, and brushing it off saying "ah sure you can't blame them for all the drunks" doesn't fly.

It's like saying sure how can you blame a nightclub for fights constantly breaking out in their club every night of the week. Do all nightclubs have this problem? No. Many run a good ship, they know they'll be handling drunk people, and they implement measures for how best to deal with that.

Kiera

Kiera wrote: »

Have you just arrived in Ireland for the first time?

No I havent just arrived, but I have just arrived at the conclusion that the health service we pay our taxes for is still not providing a decent health service where people are seen to in reasonable amounts of time, in safe clean conditions. Thats all.

Sorry if that bothers you or anyone else.

drkpower

Cianos wrote: »

Many run a good ship, they know they'll be handling drunk people, and they implement measures for how best to deal with that.

And what measures can the Government introduce vis-a-vis drunks & Hospital Emergency Departments?

cynder

Jake1 wrote: »

Kiera wrote: »

Have you just arrived in Ireland for the first time?

No I havent just arrived, but I have just arrived at the conclusion that the health service we pay our taxes for is still not providing a decent health service where people are seen to in reasonable amounts of time, in safe clean conditions. Thats all.

Sorry if that bothers you or anyone else.

It's gonna get worse....

Kiera

Jake1 wrote: »

No I havent just arrived, but I have just arrived at the conclusion that the health service we pay our taxes for is still not providing a decent health service where people are seen to in reasonable amounts of time, in safe clean conditions. Thats all.

Sorry if that bothers you or anyone else.

Have you read the rest of the thread? The hosp obviously didnt see your daughters friend as a serious case. Which she probably should have gone to her GP with. And not clog up A&E.

I've no doubt you'll come back and say it was something life threatening.

grindelwald

grindelwald wrote: »

It's gonna get worse....

Im sure it will. Just wish it wasnt so bad.

gsxr1

Cianos wrote: »

You're missing my point completely.

It's a given that people will end up in A&E from boozing and this will happen more often on the weekends. Everyone knows this, including the government. So prepare for it - it's their responsibility to keep waiting times down, and brushing it off saying "ah sure you can't blame them for all the drunks" doesn't fly.

It's like saying sure how can you blame a nightclub for fights constantly breaking out in their club every night of the week. Do all nightclubs have this problem? No. Many run a good ship, they know they'll be handling drunk people, and they implement measures for how best to deal with that.

Speechless.

Kiera

Kiera wrote: »

Have you read the rest of the thread? The hosp obviously didnt see your daughters friend as a serious case. Which she probably should have gone to her GP with. And not clog up A&E.

I've no doubt you'll come back and say it was something life threatening.

I never said it was life threatening to begin with, so whats your problem with me complaining that they had to wait from 6 in the evening till 4 in the morning.

You are right the hospital obviously didnt see it as life threatening. Still dosent make it easier when you have to wait around all night though surrounded by drunks.

gosuckonalemon

Cianos wrote: »

You're missing my point completely.

It's a given that people will end up in A&E from boozing and this will happen more often on the weekends. Everyone knows this, including the government. So prepare for it - it's their responsibility to keep waiting times down, and brushing it off saying "ah sure you can't blame them for all the drunks" doesn't fly.

It's like saying sure how can you blame a nightclub for fights constantly breaking out in their club every night of the week. Do all nightclubs have this problem? No. Many run a good ship, they know they'll be handling drunk people, and they implement measures for how best to deal with that.

Nightclubs cannot prevent fights from happening. They can just deal with them when they do. All nightclubs do not have this problem as not all are frequented by scumbags who like to fight.

That analogy doesn't work.

Back on topic, you repeatedly said the government were to blame for drunks in A&E clogging it up. I asked how.

Still waiting for your answer.

iguana

Kiera wrote: »

Have you read the rest of the thread? The hosp obviously didnt see your daughters friend as a serious case. Which she probably should have gone to her GP with. And not clog up A&E.

I've no doubt you'll come back and say it was something life threatening.

Have you? More than one person has described being referred to the A&E with urgent or potentially life threatening problems and having to wait much longer than the OP's daughter's friend.

Kiera

Jake1 wrote: »

I never said it was life threatening to begin with, so whats your problem with me complaining that they had to wait from 6 in the evening till 4 in the morning.

You are right the hospital obviously didnt see it as life threatening. Still dosent make it easier when you have to wait around all night though surrounded by drunks.

My point is: She wouldnt have waited that long if it was serious. Why didnt she just ring the on-calll doc and avoid making the waiting list even longer. Our A&E's arent really that bad when you have something serious going on tbh.

lividduck

lividduck wrote: »

Yes they do, Im been to a&e at both Swifcare in Dundrum and at the Beacon in Sandyford, and Mater Private advertise theirs on radio

Wonder what the waiting times are like, do you know? I never used any of them

Cianos

drkpower wrote: »

And what measures can the Government introduce vis-a-vis drunks & Hospital Emergency Departments?

Since I'm not trained in the area I don't have the answer to your attempted rhetorical question.

However I think it's silly to just presume there is no solution to the problem, and so excuse those responsible based upon this presumption.

drkpower

Cianos wrote: »

Since I'm not trained in the area I don't have the answer to your attempted rhetorical question.

However I think it's silly to just presume there is no solution to the problem, and so excuse those responsible based upon this presumption.

But you presume there is a solution ,yet have absolutely no suggestion for what that solution might be. Does that make you silly?

Toto Wolfcastle

Jake1 wrote: »

lividduck wrote: »

Yes they do, Im been to a&e at both Swifcare in Dundrum and at the Beacon in Sandyford, and Mater Private advertise theirs on radio

Wonder what the waiting times are like, do you know? I never used any of them

We were in and out of the Beacon A&E in an hour on a Saturday morning.

Kiera

Kiera wrote: »

My point is: She wouldnt have waited that long if it was serious. Why didnt she just ring the on-calll doc and avoid making the waiting list even longer. Our A&E's arent really that bad when you have something serious going on tbh.

because it wasnt her that was ill, as I said In original post she was there with a friend. Maybe if it was her, I would have taken her home or something, I dunno.

but it wasnt my call to be honest.

gosuckonalemon

Jake1 wrote: »

I never said it was life threatening to begin with, so whats your problem with me complaining that they had to wait from 6 in the evening till 4 in the morning.

You are right the hospital obviously didnt see it as life threatening. Still dosent make it easier when you have to wait around all night though surrounded by drunks.

Yes but the point is your daughter's friend wasn't a victim of the A&E crisis, she was contributing to it.

She obviously didn't need to be there. She wasn't considered a priority. She should have gone to a GP service instead.

Kiera

iguana wrote: »

Have you? More than one person has described being referred to the A&E with urgent or potentially life threatening problems and having to wait much longer than the OP's daughter's friend.

And have you seen how many got seen to pretty quick?

Bobblehead Panda

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

We were in and out of the Beacon A&E in an hour on a Saturday morning.

wow, I must keep that in mind for the future for my family. Thats a breeze. Was there many drunks or junkies there?

gosuckonalemon

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Yes but the point is your daughter's friend wasn't a victim of the A&E crisis, she was contributing to it.

She obviously didn't need to be there. She wasn't considered a priority. She should have gone to a GP service instead.

Yes but the friend collapsed, wasnt a GP situation.

Kiera

Jake1 wrote: »

because it wasnt her that was ill, as I said In original post she was there with a friend. Maybe if it was her, I would have taken her home or something, I dunno.

but it wasnt my call to be honest.

The "her" was referring to your daughters friend.

gosuckonalemon

Cianos wrote: »

Since I'm not trained in the area I don't have the answer to your attempted rhetorical question.

However I think it's silly to just presume there is no solution to the problem, and so excuse those responsible based upon this presumption.

So you think the government are responsible but can't say how or suggest what they can do to deal with it. Good job.

iguana

Kiera wrote: »

And have you seen how many got seen to pretty quick?

So? I'm not claiming that people never get seen to quickly. You are claiming that a priority case won't take that length of time, despite people posting on this thread that exactly that has happened to them.

gosuckonalemon

Jake1 wrote: »

wow, I must keep that in mind for the future for my family. Thats a breeze. Was there many drunks or junkies there?

How many junkies would be able to afford to cough up €100-150 for a private hospital out in Sandyford?:rolleyes:

poppyvally

lividduck wrote: »

Thank god for for Private Health Insurance

PHI is great for skipping the queue for elective procedures. In emergencies, everyone is treated the same and to be fair, A&E staff DO give priority to the most urgent cases

Kiera

iguana wrote: »

So? I'm not claiming that people never get seen to quickly. You are claiming that a priority case won't take that length of time, despite people posting on this thread that exactly that has happened to them.

I'm sorry but can you link to these posts please?

Kiera

Kiera wrote: »

The "her" was referring to your daughters friend.

ok,

Cianos

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

Nightclubs cannot prevent fights from happening. They can just deal with them when they do. All nightclubs do not have this problem as not all are frequented by scumbags who like to fight.

That analogy doesn't work.

Back on topic, you repeatedly said the government were to blame for drunks in A&E clogging it up. I asked how.

Still waiting for your answer.

Sigh, right let me put it this way.

There are two different hospitals in two different cities, both serving the same population number. Every weekend, they both see the same number of drunks coming in, putting a strain on the system. With all external factors being equal, Hospital A manages to keep the average waiting time down to 2 hours, while Hospital B has an average waiting time of 3 hours.

Do you think this scenario is physically possible or physically impossible?

Toto Wolfcastle

Jake1 wrote: »

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

We were in and out of the Beacon A&E in an hour on a Saturday morning.

wow, I must keep that in mind for the future for my family. Thats a breeze. Was there many drunks or junkies there?

Nah, it was busy enough but there was no one in the waiting room. Everyone had their own curtained off area. I doubt they ever deal with drunks.

Kiera

poppyvally wrote: »

PHI is great for skipping the queue for elective procedures. In emergencies, everyone is treated the same and to be fair, A&E staff DO give priority to the most urgent cases

Iguana doesnt agree with this.

gosuckonalemon

Cianos wrote: »

Sigh, right let me put it this way.

There are two different hospitals in two different cities, both serving the same population number. Every weekend, they both see the same number of drunks coming in, putting a strain on the system. With all external factors being equal, Hospital A manages to keep the average waiting time down to 2 hours, while Hospital B has an average waiting time of 3 hours.

Do you think this scenario is physically possible or physically impossible?

There is some possibility to most hypothetical situations.

But how are the government responsible for drunks clogging up A&E?

BTW if one hospital has shorter waiting times than the other, then it is down to the management of each individual hospital, not the government.

drkpower

iguana wrote: »

You are claiming that a priority case won't take that length of time, despite people posting on this thread that exactly that has happened to them.

You should always be careful of taking, at face value, these stories after the fact. When people have a bad outcome, their recollection of what actually occurred can depart from the reality significantly - that is quite natural.

The reality is that, of course, serious conditions are occasionally missed due to long waits in E.D.. But it is quite a rare occurrence. Remember, the long wait that people complain about is usually either the long wait to be seen by either (a) a doctor or (b) an -in house doctor (ie. a surgeon or a gyanaecoligist or whatever). In case, (b), they will already have been seen by a triage nurse(usually one of the most experienced and proficient nurses) and an ED doctor. In case (a) they will already have been seen and 'graded' in seriousness by a triage nurse.

iguana

Kiera wrote: »

I'm sorry but can you link to these posts please?

Seriously? On a two page thread that you have already, quite snidely, accused the OP of not reading?

iguana wrote: »

I was in Tallaght last month after being referred by my GP urgently. I was seen by the nurse in triage, had my case put down as urgent priority, was told by the patient liason officer that the only way I could be a higher priority was if I needed resuscitation. I was in the waiting room for 16 hours.

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I was in A and E three times last year and waited a minimum of 6 hours to be taken in the first time(by which time my appendix had burst.)I was triaged and the doctor who saw me decided it WASN'T my appendix, as according to him, they had removed it previously. Only for the nurses I would probably have died-and that's according to another doctor, not me being over-dramatic.

I spend two days on a trolley, that was shoved into one of the day-wards,despite the fact that I am high-risk of infection due to meds I take. They didn't have any of my pain meds in stock,which could happen, but took my own supply and then lost it.

I became very dehydrated due to reactions to the anti-bios and was very weak. When I finally escaped,there was no wheelchair for me to use to get to the car so my husband literally had to search the corridors to find one.He then had to go all the way round to the fee-charging car park, so I was sitting outside the front door for 20 mins,too weak to move inside.

I was re-admitted due to a pelvic abscess in a short space of time, 8 hrs in A and E this time by which time x-ray and ultra-sound were closed.Another trolley and then they lost my notes for 36 hours.Only that I always ask what a drug/tablet is,what dosage and why it is being given to me,I would have been given a) a wrong drug and b) an overdose of another.

Admitted a 3rd time, by which point my gp went on the warpath
and I "only" waited 8 hours for a bed.

As long as our tds etc have private insurance and can skip queues,we won't see any improvement.

Kiera

iguana wrote: »

Seriously? On a two page thread that you have already, quite snidely, accused the OP of not reading?

Now read the well put post above yours. Drk said it a lot better than i could.

iguana

drkpower wrote: »

You should always be careful of taking, at face value, these stories a long time after the fact. When people have a bad outcome, their recollection of what actually occurred can depart from the reality significantly - that is quite natural.

Kiera wrote: »

Now read the well put post above yours. Drk said it a lot better than i could.

OMG!!!!! One of the stories, early on the thread, is what happened to ME. Four weeks ago!:rolleyes:

Who knows who is responsable or has the answers even. Just wish it wasnt so.

If there was a cap on waiting times, sick elderly or an people didnt have to deal with drunks falling over them, being nervous of fights breaking out.

Wish I has the answer myself, but I dont.



( now im off to relax and watch the Sopranos

Cianos

drkpower wrote: »

But you presume there is a solution ,yet have absolutely no suggestion for what that solution might be. Does that make you silly?

I presume there's a way to stop internal bleeding of the stomach but I'm not going to start making suggestions for what the solution is.

Saying honestly, "I don't have the answer", is not a bad thing. And it also shouldn't stop you from pointing out a problem.

drkpower

Cianos wrote: »

Sigh, right let me put it this way.

There are two different hospitals in two different cities, both serving the same population number. Every weekend, they both see the same number of drunks coming in, putting a strain on the system. With all external factors being equal, Hospital A manages to keep the average waiting time down to 2 hours, while Hospital B has an average waiting time of 3 hours.

Do you think this scenario is physically possible or physically impossible?

Can you think of any other variables (other than how drunks are managed) that may affect this hypothetical...?!:pac:

Have you unearthed any suggestions as to how the Government might be able to prevent drunks clogging up EDs?

gosuckonalemon

Jake1 wrote: »

Who knows who is responsable or has the answers even. Just wish it wasnt so.

If there was a cap on waiting times, sick elderly or an people didnt have to deal with drunks falling over them, being nervous of fights breaking out.

Wish I has the answer myself, but I dont.

Or if there was a cap on people going to A&E unnecessarily.

drkpower

Cianos wrote: »

Saying honestly, "I don't have the answer", is not a bad thing.

But it should stop you from saying 'there must be an answer', or presuming there must be an answer, without even attempting to throw out a suggestion.

gosuckonalemon

Cianos wrote: »

I presume there's a way to stop internal bleeding of the stomach but I'm not going to start making suggestions for what the solution is.

Saying honestly, "I don't have the answer", is not a bad thing. And it also shouldn't stop you from pointing out a problem.

So the government are not responsible for drunks clogging up A&E. Finally you accept this simple fact.

Cianos

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

There is some possibility to most hypothetical situations.

So you agree that it's physically possible, good, so do I.

But how are the government responsible for drunks clogging up A&E?

BTW if one hospital has shorter waiting times than the other, then it is down to the management of each individual hospital, not the government.

Since our hospitals are run by the state and are not private institutions then yes, it is down to the government.

southsiderosie

drkpower wrote: »

And what measures can the Government introduce vis-a-vis drunks & Hospital Emergency Departments?

drkpower wrote: »

Can you think of any other variables (other than how drunks are managed) that may affect this hypothetical...?!:pac:

Have you unearthed any suggestions as to how the Government might be able to prevent drunks clogging up EDs?

In the US there are Urgent Care centers which are for emergencies that aren't life-threatening (suspected broken bones, stomach pains, vomiting, etc). They will usually see you within 90 minutes, and they take the pressure off of neighboring emergency rooms (A&Es). Something like that could also be used to handle drunks and junkies - many of the former just need to sleep it off under observation, and many of the latter are looking for meds.

That said, there isn't much more you can do to keep stupid people from clogging up the emergency room.

gosuckonalemon

Cianos wrote: »

Since our hospitals are run by the state and are not private institutions then yes, it is down to the government.

Bus Eireann is owned by the state too. Are the government responsible if/when a bus is 20 minutes late? :rolleyes:

drkpower

southsiderosie wrote: »

In the US there are Urgent Care centers which are for emergencies that aren't life-threatening (suspected broken bones, stomach pains, vomiting, etc). They will usually see you within 90 minutes, and they take the pressure off of neighboring emergency rooms (A&Es). Something like that could also be used to handle drunks and junkies - many of the former just need to sleep it off under observation, and many of the latter are looking for meds.

Good point.
But, having to establish a whole layer of pre-acute equipped & staffed medical centres in a country of Ireland's size is not really cost effective (although it would certainly be nice!).

Cianos

drkpower wrote: »

But it should stop you from saying 'there must be an answer', or presuming there must be an answer, without even attempting to throw out a suggestion.

Err, no it shouldn't.

Are you actually saying that unless someone can make a suggestion towards a solution to a problem, they should never presume there is an answer?

gosuckonalemon

Cianos wrote: »

Err, no it shouldn't.

Are you actually saying that unless someone can make a suggestion towards a solution to a problem, they should never presume there is an answer?

Most level headed people would at least have some sort of suggestion.