Nurses lack their old-style leadership

I AM very pleased that Ms Watson made a good recovery from her abdominal surgery, certainly well assisted by what sounds to be excellent nursing care (Yorkshire Post, June 4).

Obviously, there are still areas where these practices are prevalent and there is little doubt by Ms Watson’s account that as her a care was consistent around the clock that someone with the right motivation was in charge of her ward. There is still excellent care practised, but unfortunately there are more poor quality situations than good.

I was a nurse for 30 years working across all spectrums of the NHS, from the lowest level of nursing assistant right up to the top level.

When I retired, I built and ran my own nursing home for 10 years. Since then, I have been an inpatient on several occasions in different hospitals and found the level of nursing care very variable.

The one overriding general observation was that there appears to be no real leadership, direction and accountability.

Often, there is no Sister in charge to allocate duties and check that these are carried out satisfactorily. Generally nurses do not have empathy, not anticipating patients basic needs. How often do we read that drinks are left on the patient’s bed side table/locker top but out of their reach. Food is placed before a patient who is unable to feed themselves and then it is removed, untouched for lack of attention. I have heard the cry for a bed pan or urinal unheeded and then a scalding issued for a wet bed. Unforgivable behaviour, but oh so common.

Sad to say that, no doubt, the Yorkshire Post will have received letters from older nurses like myself, now reluctant to be associated with the present day image of nursing. But will nursing change back to its vocational roots?

Realities for the coalition

From: Michael Meadowcroft, Former Liberal MP, Waterloo Lane, Leeds.

When I first read Jim McConalogue’s article (“The coalition is failing, so let the voters decide its fate”, Yorkshire Post, June 7), I thought that he was simply naive.

When I reread it, I realised that he was far from being independent or neutral but was coming from a very maverick wing position.

He gives us chapter and verse to show that the coalition and its policies are unpopular. Of course they are! It would be amazing if they weren’t, given the traumatic expenditure cuts the Government have had to make in the light of the economic crisis.

The whole point of a five year mandate for Parliament is that the Government can take decisive and necessary decisions in years one and two, however unpopular, judging that by years four and five they will proved right and lead to re-election.

If its judgement is shown to be wrong by the time of the next election then so be it, but a government cannot and must not be judged on its initial decisions.

The most bizarre appeal Mr McConalogue makes is that the coalition “must stop putting coalition politics before the national interest...”

Does he really believe that the Liberal Democrats are enjoying putting the national interest first, at the great risk of their political careers? Of course not.

The Liberal Democrats are the only party not responsible for the long term failure to regulate of the banks and yet they are in the forefront of the measures to rectify the horrendous financial situation. I am happy to await Mr McConalogue’s judgement in 2014 but in the meantime he needs to have more generosity towards those tackling the financial deficit.

Damage to victims

From: Simon Wilson, Co-ordinator for APIL Yorkshire, Morrish Solicitors, Oxford Row, Leeds.

An injured person, whose life has been shattered by someone else’s negligence, has a right to expect full and fair redress.

It seems grossly unfair, therefore, that the Ministry of Justice has proposed changes to “no win, no fee” to make the innocent victim pay some of his legal costs out of his compensation.

The purpose of damages is not to cover legal costs, and nor should it be. Damages are carefully calculated to compensate a victim after he has been caused a needless injury.

I am deeply concerned, as are many other members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), that these proposals may restrict “no win, no fee” in a way which could prevent an injured person, whose case is complicated, from being able to bring a claim in the first place. What has happened in society to make people think that it is acceptable for one person to negligently injure another and not be held fully accountable?