Healthcare in Europe is run through a variety of systems which operate on a national level, in Germany it is a mix of public and private funded healthcare; although throughout Europe it is predominately funded by private health insurance Although their are government alternatives such as the EHIC which has replaced the E111.

Here is a list published by the World Health Organisation which shows the top European countries ranking both within Europe and also in terms of the whole world:

• 1st France
• 2nd Italy
• 3rd San Marino (its at the top of Italy)
• 4th Andorra (its between France and Spain)
• 5th Malta

In France people earning less than 6,600 euros per year do not have to contribute to the cost of their healthcare; but due to the fact that it is largely privatised there is a high quality service without the waiting times of the NHS. Apart from those mentioned above people pay a premium for their healthcare which is approximately 20% of their payroll (employers paid 12.8% and employees 6.8%) this however caused problems with employers complaining that they were meeting too much of the burden…probably because it meant less profit for them; anyway this led to reform. The insurers are non-government, non-profit agencies, which owe allegiance to employers and employees. As well as their compulsory contribution most employees pay an additional voluntary 2.5% of their salary to a mutual insurer.

The French are able to enjoy freedom of choice when choosing their medical practioner, whether GP or specialist, and typically pay their doctor’s fee and then claim back 75-80%. Payment may deter the poorest people from seeking care and so when this was recognised legislations were introduced to help these people so about 6 million people are not expected to pay. All patients, may go directly to a specialist either outside or within a hospital.

The evidence suggests that French Healthcare is considerably better than that provided by the NHS, but as the saying goes “the grass is always greener on the other side”. If you weigh up the merits of both systems they probably work out about the same

Health care in the United States is provided by several separate legal entities it is estimated that the U.S. spends more on health care than any other nation in the world. In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person. In the U.K that would equate to approximately £3,700 per person. This is due to the sheer size of the U.S.A and the fact that it is divided into many states therefore a system such as the NHS would be impractical.

According to the Institute of Medicine, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Around 84.7% of U.S citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer, purchased individually or provided by government programs. There are a few publicly-funded health care programs to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor. There is a federal law in place that basically states that the public are entitled to emergency treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

As with any system the U.S healthcare system is not without problems. For example it is estimated that 47 million U.S citizens, 8.7 million of which are children, are without any health insurance with this figure rapidly increasing as employers are shifting the cost to employees who are unable to meet the cost of the premiums. The costs of healthcare are rising at 5 times the rate of inflation. As a result of employers shifting the cost to employees there are strikes taking place all over the U.S such as the Southern California grocery workers’ strike and lockout in which nearly 60,000 workers saved health care benefits and beat back employer demands to freeze pension funds after holding strong on the picket line for five months. Under grocery management’s original proposals, a worker making slightly less than $20,000 a year would have had to pay nearly $5,000 to maintain the same level of benefits they had in the previous contract. Other cost increases hitting workers include larger hikes in the cost of family coverage, less access to needed prescription drugs through stricter HMO formularies and higher prices for more comprehensive coverage. According to the statistics consumers are using more prescriptions, at younger ages and for more conditions, and substituting newer, more expensive medications for established products.

In the U.K on the other hand healthcare is provided by the central government and is mostly free but there a few areas where costs apply; although there are private practices within the healthcare sector. Forming the basis of healthcare in the United Kingdom, each system—National Health Service, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and the Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland—operates independently, and is politically accountable to the relevant devolved government of Scotland (Scottish Government), Wales (Welsh Assembly Government) and Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland Executive), and to the UK government for England.

The NHS is divided into two sectors the primary sector which includes the following:

• NHS Direct
• NHS walk in centres
• GP practices
• Dentists
• Opticians
• Pharmacists

The secondary sector includes the following:

• Emergency and urgent care
• Ambulance Trusts
• NHS Trusts
• Mental Health Trusts
• Care Trusts

The NHS is also not without problems for a start the NHS is over budget in several areas by as much as £105 billion. It is also understaffed. As a result waiting times are at an all time high, although some argue that it is due to the credit crunch and the growing immigration to the U.K. As previously mentioned in the article “The privatization of the NHS” the government’s idea to resolve some of the problems with the NHS is to privatise healthcare; the question is will this actually help or is just a social construction created to justify increasing taxes to make more money for the government?

Everyone unless you are really lucky has had the “pleasure” of an encounter with an arrogant doctor; the type that don’t listen to a word that comes out of your mouth. According to the General Medical Council doctors should face up to the fact that patients now “call the shots”.There are still some doctors who dislike what they perceive as their authority being questioned, they claim that they (the doctors) resent the assertive patients and goes on to say we have to end the state of affairs whereby a minority of patients have to put up with - or worse, be put at risk by - professional practices that are considered by any rational person to be dangerous, offensive or otherwise unacceptable. A classic example of an arrogant doctor is Harold Shipman who actually killed people as a result of his arrogance.

We frequently see articles in the media of “arrogant doctor” involved in some kind of scandal, such as the scandal where doctors in one hospital were removing the organs of children without their parents knowledge or consent; this is affecting people’s perspective of doctors in general; so much so that many people tend to suffer in silence rather than go to the doctors. If the majority of people have this view point then surely privatisation will make it worse as people will take the view that they don’t give a damn and are only there for the money. With negative views like this is it any wonder that the NHS is having problems.

We’ve all seen the media items on this topic but what exactly does it all mean?
According to some articles the UK’s Department of Health (DoH) is seeking urgent help to create a “failure regime” in the National Health Service, this is because the NHS is apparently over budget in several areas but this can’t be resolved through shifting the managerial responsibility in other words you are simply shifting the problem rather than solving it. Politics of today states that there is a noticeable commitment to the virtues of private enterprise and competition in the free market. However, there is no need for the government to relinquish control of the NHS. General health care for all is a widely accepted as a right in this country. If the government wants to improve the NHS they should raise taxes in order for the public to raise the standard of a national health care service for all. People have always paid for public services through taxation – this is not a new radical solution. However in the current situation people will resent an increase in taxes as the prices are increasing as a result of the “credit crunch”. The nature of private businesses creates an environment of competition, as a result resources and facilities as companies compete for “business” and consequently facilities and services improve. These “funds” are essential to the NHS system can only raise the standard of treatment patients will receive.

On the other hand the privatisation of the NHS will result in an emphasis on efficiency and profit; the vulnerable and the poorest in society will suffer from such a scenario. The question of prioritising health care and rationing will always favour the rich, since targeting vulnerable groups will be an inefficient use of resources so it will result in the poorer people within society suffering as they will be unable to afford adequate healthcare this will create a vicious circle because the poor will perish then the next “level of in income” will become the poor and so in until eventually you end up in the same situation that you started with. So ultimately “you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t” because you need the funds to resolve some of the issues within the NHS but then a large percentage of society suffers if you privatise so either way you can’t win.

This is a hotly debated subject some experts argue that there is no difference between the two terms and that they can be used interchangeably. Those who argue that there is a difference claim that that personnel is more administrative (dealing with payroll etc.) whereas Human Resource is responsible for managing the workforce (recruitment, conflict resolution etc.). It is argued that Personnel are reactive providing a response to demands as they are present themselves on the other hand HR is proactive because it involves the development of functions and policies for the purposes of improving the workforce.

Most people argue that those who claim that there is a difference fail to explain the differences in day to day roles of both titles. Those that say that there is a difference claim that it is a subtle philosophical one, Sultan Chand claimed that Personnel are motivated by compensation, rewards and job simplification. HR considers work groups, challenges and creativity on the job as motivational factors. In Personnel (which is also called personnel management) improved satisfaction is deemed to be the cause for improved performance but in HR it is the other way round; performance is the cause and satisfaction is the result.

So in conclusion there are a few subtle differences although some businesses do use the terms interchangeably, without detrimental effects to their business therefore one can assume that the differences described above are not significant enough to have any real effect.

There are numerous training initiatives available, these are designed to encourage those who either can’t afford or are unable to access the conventional training programmes offered by companies such as Medicology Ltd who offer training mainly aimed at Medical Professionals but also offer initiatives such as the Partnership Programme.

Initiatives help people to gain employment by bridging the gap between the skills people offer and the skills employers want thus improving an individuals employment prospects. Initiatives can sometimes take the form of work experience for which you don’t always get paid for or learn while you earn otherwise known as an apprenticeship. Although many initiatives are government funded there are some that are organised through private institutions. When trying to find a training initiative it can be very confusing as there are so many so to make it simple here is a basic plan to help find the one that’s right for you:

• Decide what area you are looking to gain training in (i.e. medicine, I.T etc.)
• Find out if there are any Initiatives in your local area information about these can be obtained from the following:
  Adult Education Centre
  College
  Internet
  Library
  Services such as Connexions
• Check the requirements for the initiative
• Then if everything is OK then enrol and GO FOR IT!

Training can help develop business as it allows staff to gain new skills; this is good for several reasons for a start you wont need to spend time and money recruiting more staff. Also if staff are update with current practice and are able to work efficiently then you are likely to have a more productive business which can ultimately mean more money. In terms of the medical professions training can keep staff up to date with protocol and the latest treatments thus meaning able to save more lives and possibly even reduce waiting times for patients therefore in private practices making more money as you are seeing more patients.

Training can also keep staff motivated as they are able to develop as a person or perhaps gain promotion within the company, which can be beneficial to you as a boss as it frees up your time as you can delegate and give your staff more responsibility. Confidence can be a benefit of training as the staff gain new skills as well as reinforcing their existing knowledge, this can act as motivation; it can also be an advantage from a boss’ perspective as if you were looking to expand you can promote your existing staff as confidence is one of the factors of a good leader/manager.

Training is the acquisition of knowledge and skills as a result of the teaching of vocational or practical skills. Throughout your career there will be some degree of training taking place to keep all practices up to date to maintain optimum performance; this can be done through a number of methods including:

• Attending Courses
• Online Training
• Practical Training

Depending on your learning style (how you learn best) will depend which you find the most effective. One organisation that delivers training courses, mainly to NHS staff is Medicology Ltd.

Training can allow an individual to develop their career, you could go for that management position you’ve always wanted; it also allows for personal development.

The terms Leadership and Management are often used interchangeably, however they are two separate ideas.

Let’s start with leadership. Leadership is a quality that management must have but they also need effective authority, it is said that leaders tend to think radically which essentially means that they use their intuition rather than always doing things “by the book”. This can sometimes be beneficial to the company as it allows ideas to progress beyond the rigid framework set out in “the book”.

A leader has to maintain a “can do” attitude and have to be as the title suggests a leader rather than a follower even when they come up against obstacles. Leaders relish a challenge and will stand up for what they believe in and is prepared to go above the call of duty when necessary. Leaders use every opportunity to learn including failure and are often aware of their personal impact on others and recognise the indicators of both their strengths and weaknesses. A good leader is resilient and their main focus is working for the good of the team rather than for personal gain, this can be achieved by good time management. Leaders know who the key influences are and involve them when required.

One of the key qualities of a leader is to keep others motivated which can sometimes be difficult as leaders are busy fulfilling their own role within the company.

Now to management put simply this is getting people together to achieve goals it can . Managers have to be able to plan, organise and lead to control an organisation, managers are also responsible for allocating human, financial and technological resources. Managers often delegate tasks and promote good time management within their team and also have to attempt to resolve conflicts within the workplace with minimal disruption.

There are numerous benefits to good leadership and management these include:

• Motivated Staff
• Conflicts resolved effectively
• High productivity
• Resources would be used efficiently
• Good time management

These can be achieved through a combination of personal and training
.

Today was to be a simple day.

A bit of mailmerging and out go a few thousand bits of information selling our NHS training services but oh no….

Firstly you find all the data spread across 13 worksheets and so it needs combining and then you find the format for each is slightly different, so you have to rearrange everything before you combine and then you find that there is no commonality in the naming terms, so you have to create some before you can sort them. Get the picture?

Some might say that perhaps I wasn’t specific enough when I delegated the data collection task but ‘nope’ because I sat everyone down and went through every last bit to make sure this didn’t happen. It seems I’d have been better save the time, let them hash it and utilise that the time for all of the above!

Tomorrow’s another day!