Alastair Mclellan

Comment on: Regulating managers is the wrong response to Mid Staffs

Alastair Mclellan's comment 15-Jan-2013 2:07 pm

THIS COMMENT SHOULD APPEAR THIRD IN THE CHANGE - DATE 14 JAN, TIME 5:00 (APOLS TO ALL CONCERNED, MISTAKE MADE IN TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE MISPOSTINGS) Alastair Oh Anon. My golly gosh. Just where to start on where I disagree with you.Let's be clear about some things: - the article seeks to open up discussion, surely, not stifle it. - the management accreditation issue has been kicking around for quite a while, and discussed in lots of places. The work on the Professional Standards Authroity website is one example. It's not Francis-dependent, nor should it be - There's been acres and acres of speculation and discussion about what Francis will say. Don't be silly and pretend this is the first. There's been plenty of leaks in addition to the speculation. - I recognise that testing skills and aptitudes lie at the heart of good accreditation. A surgeons and airplane pilot's skills may - it could be argues - be tightly and technically defined. What you don't offer is the technical skills that should form the bedrock of management accrditation. Is it negotiating ? teambuilding ? Inderstanding budget sheets ? chairing meetings ? providing leadership ? If so, what are the explicit measures or outcomes that show these have been well done ? And if theose technical measures are too NHS-specific, does ththat not [possibly provide a barrier to those from outside the NHS with similar - and possibly different - skills from entering ? - and the finaal point in the article doesn't in any way, shape or form argue that bad management is better than no NHS management. It argues that good corporate, Board and performance management of a Chief Exec will always be better than just relying on accreditation, and will be ann essential aid to improving management