Two questions for the Shelford Group

Lots of us have issues with elitist groupings.  There have lots of issues going against them - primary among these is the fact that they are elitist.

For example, take the G-14 grouping of the top European football clubs such as Paris St Germain, and Bayern Munich (this grouping existed between 2000 and 2008).  They used to boast things like that they had won the Champions League 41 out of 51 times; 2004 was the first year that a G-14 member was not in the final; between them they had won the league title 250 times . . .

Lots of us have lots of issues with these sort of things.  First, not many of us are surprised that if you form a grouping of the most successful teams, then those successful teams are by definition going to have won a lot.  It is not rocket science.  Secondly, not many of us appreciate smug people who revel in their self-importance, and do not look closely at the what caused their important.

Now, let us look at the Shelford Group - the group of 10 self-aggrandising NHS Trusts  - all with academic links, all with tertiary services, all with self-importance.  This is what they say about themselves on their website: "The Shelford Group comprises ten leading NHS multi-specialty academic healthcare organisations. We are dedicated to excellence in clinical research, education and patient care. We aspire to demonstrate system-wide leadership for the benefit of patients and the prosperity of our country."

My response is "Yes" in the literal sense.  And "So What" in the emotional sense.  Yes, you may think that - but who does not.  Which Trust is not dedicated to clinical research or education or (surprise here) patient care? Who does not aspire to that gibberish.  The very fact that a PR person could write that down without getting you to challenge your own beliefs and strategies shows how vacuous it is.  Which then results in "So What?"

Given the Shelford Group does not mean anything; can I come down to the 2 most important questions I have for them:

1.  What are you going to call the grouping now? Now that Gareth Goodier has moved from Shelford (where he used to live) to Melbourne (allegedly Ringwood), the reason for calling it the Shelford Group is no more.  I am happy to take suggestions in the comments section.

2.  Do the chief executives within the group without a knighthood/ damehood get looked down up? Tim Smart, Bill Shields, Mike Deegan and Keith McNeill may be able to tell us.  Again - Tim, Bill, Mike and Keith - via the comments section, please.

Now, for let me rearrange the monthly performance reports or perform some other equally pointless task.

South! What KHP has to do with Polar Travel

I know friends and colleagues at the foremost Academic Health Science Centre south of the Thames, but north of the Surrey Downs, east of the M3 but not as far as the sea: King’s Health Partners, often wonder and worry about what their CAGs (Clinical Academic Groups) are.  CAGs say the KHP authorities are how the AHSC is going to be organised around clinical areas.

But the real people on the ground, and not the people who are paid to pontificate, wonder about these strange things called CAGs.  What is their purpose?  How long do they last for?  And is there an end in sight?

Militant Manager can offer them some solace, and explanation.  MM was able to understand what a CAG was not by reading the KHP website; but by reading about the Scott Polar Expedition of 1910-13.  It was in the book by Apsley Cherry-Garrard titled “The Worst Journey in the World” that MM came across what constituted a CAG.

The definition can be gleaned from the following paragraph, taken from page 194 on “The First Winter.”  This was a narrative of what the first winter in the freezing cold (Cancer CAG can understand this) was like.

“One great danger threatened all our meals in this hut, namely that of a Cag.  A Cag is an argument, sometimes well informed and always heated, upon any subject under the sun or temporarily in our case, the moon.  They ranged from the Pole to the Equator, from the Barrier to Portsmouth Hard and Plymouth Hoe.  They began on the smallest of excuses, they continued through the widest field, they never ended; they were left in mid air, perhaps to be caught again and twisted and tortured months after.”

I know colleagues at King’s Health Partners can well sympathise with this definition of a CAG.  It is certainly more representative of the Dental CAG than the official description.  Who in the CardioVascular CAG will not argue that they are only sometimes well informed.

And it was all foretold almost 90 years ago.

KHP colleagues will also understand why the book is called “The Worst Journey in the World” and why despite heroic leadership, and superhuman effort, the Polar Party all perished.  I hope that the perishing in KHP’s case is purely metaphorical.

Most popular Militant Manager posts in 2011

These were the most read stories in 2011, with the number of unique people reading them during that year.  Please note that the number of unique readings are an underestimate of true readers (the majority of viewers go directly to the main Militant Manager blog page - militantmanager.blogspot.com - and cannot be attributed to any one article without detailed analysis.  And as we know NHS Managers are not capable of doing any analysis).


1.  Noble resignation or convenient excuse to focus on greener pastures 279 views
This readership is surprisingly large given the article was only posted on 13 December, and so only had 3 weeks in 2011.


2. Why consultants need more natural predators 270 views
Another post that focused mainly on issues related to doctors.  Interestingly, when I started the blog, my view was that it would be more read by managers.  But it seems that the blog is far more read by doctors . . .


3.  More Del boys will become GPs  124 views
Another issue focused on doctors, and looking at the subtle effect of the health reforms on the composition of GPs.  I must point out that I neither support nor condemn these effects - I am just pointing them out.


4.  The similarities between car design and NHS structures  111 views
The most popular article focused on management issues.  I thought this article deserved greater readership, but it was not to be.  Maybe it will develop a cult following.


5.  The point of Academic Health Science Centres 97 views
On the whole, my more tongue-in-cheek articles (on Clare Gerada, on Bruce Keogh, on Cynthia Bower, David Nicholson, and Richard Smith) did not rouse great interest.  This was the exception.  Probably because Academic Health Science Centres, like Secure Facilities, do not have a point.

The point of Academic Health Science Centres

I have finally figured out the point of Academic Health Science Centres.  It is to create more jobs for the boys (and, more rarely, girls).

As I have commented before, the NHS goes through cycles of structural change.  During these structural changes the top jobs tend to vary according to the point in the cycle.  In the current point, where organisations are being merged, senior jobs clearly drop.

So what does a bureaucracy do when its jobs are threatened?  Find alternative locations to house its own.  And these are the Academic Health Science Centres.

As we know these AHSCs do very little, but they all seem to have a full board and senior leadership team.  For instance, Cambridge has 4 executive, and 12 non-executive members.  Manchester has a lot too - though it is a bit confusing as to what they do.

Now, once you have a board who does very little, and has done very little, what is the next step?  Order a review to help understand what you should do with this pretty organisation which does jack.  And all the better if the review is done by another member of the great and the good, with consulting support by articulate, intelligent, dim-wits.  So Imperial has appointed Ara Darzi; and King's - William McKee; UCL has appointed Edward Lavelle

Militant Manager's view is that if after so little time of such a heralded process, you have to do a review about where to go, the whole enterprise is of questionable value.

But I am not sure about that; I wonder if Lord Turner is available to do a review of that conclusion?