NGO's Responsible for the Strengths of the Current System
This thread has been bagging the NGO's but the Review that was commissioned by Health and Ambulance had a different view. The ORH Review of Rotary Wing Services had this to say about the current system and NGO's starting at paragraph 3.4.17:
"The cost effective development of Rotary Wing services needs to take into account the following key strengths:
a) the history of medical involvement in helicopter work;
b) the significant levels of community support channelled through the NGO's:
c) The expertise built up within the NGO's (technical and medical);
d) The central role of the MRU and AOC.
It needs to overcome a range of weaknesses:
a) Low utilisation of some helicopters;
b) mobilisation delays caused by non-dedicated crew arrangements;
c) restrictions in secondary retrieval role due to doctor availability for some retrieval hospitals;
d) variation in tasking protocols;
e) concerns over the level and currency of staff training, particularly with regard to non-dedicated doctors/paramedics;
f) the potential for delays in primary mission tasking/requesting;
g) the variation in operating regimes."
Three out of the four key strengths identified in this report are directly attributable to the work and inovation of the NGO's and all of the seven weaknesses are aspects which are under the management control or funding control of NSW Health and the Ambulance Service of NSW.
The report goes on to say at paragraph 3.4.23:
"Considerable expertise has been built up amongst the NGO's across the operational and medical aspects of service provision. Future development ideally should take advantage of this, building on these strengths through constructive liason and review, and minimising recognised weaknesses through good management and robust contracts"
The problem with the system is not with the NGO's, but with silent agenda of a couple of senior people in Health/Ambulance Service to get rid of the NGO's and because of this they will not engage with the NGO's in "constructive liason and review".
Last edited by Point-of-view; 7th Dec 2006 at 23:00.
Reason: Typo