Did anyone else get a warm glow as they read this in today's Times?
Patientline shares hit a new low of just 0.85pence (they were at £1.62 in 2004).
They are blaming OFCOM for insisting on the 'introductory message' that precedes calls!!

OOOOHWEEE

[smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=grin.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

I did not see the article but it made me  ;D

Here's the link :-
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article2554272.ece

Marvellous news. Another one in the eye for rip-off UK.

Funny how it's always someone elses fault ie Oftcom. Yeah, maybe you should be allowed to charge people whatever like without warning them. Right! At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask.

Quote:

Patientline said that Ofcom had exacerbated “already challenging” operating environment and added: “The instruction by Ofcom, whereby a message is played to callers to 0700 numbers at the start of calls informing them of the maximum potential cost of the call, seems to have been a major factor in reducing incoming call revenues.

Translated that means, "oh crap now people ringing patients will actually realise the cost of the call and the fact that they're not ringing a mobile number!"


Quote:

The Ofcom decision, which took effect from September 1, 2007, has the misleading effect of telling callers of the maximum cost per minute of an 0700 call rather than the actual Patientline cost, which is always lower and often significantly lower.”

Funny because I know someone who rung a patientline number and got told it cost max 49p/min (which is correct) and from what I was told, the cost message was stated 3 times in all with the first one being the free announcement by the OCP.  That would mean that the other two were by patientline and one makes me wonder if it was designed to keep people on the phone even longer!?!

However, I can't confirm that this is correct as I've not rung a patientline number nor do I have any intention of allowing patientline to profit secretely.

Patientline seem to have conveniently forgotten that it was them that brought this upon themselves by using a personal number range which is often mistaken for a mobile number and using it to gain revenue without callers knowing about it.

Had Patientline chosen an appropriate 09x number then this likely wouldn't have happened however that would have meant that many callers wouldn't have rung in the first place knowing that 09x is a premium rate number!

Had useless Ofcom imposed this rule in October 2004 instead of dithering for another 3 years while patients were ripped off then Patientline would have been put in to the Intensive Care ward an awful lot earlier.

Imagine what would happen if 0844 doctors surgeries were forced to make an announcement that this was a non standard call excluded from calling plans and charged at higher rates of up to 5p per minute on a landline and 40 per minute on a mobile phone. ;)

By the way why was this started as a new thread?

There is an existing and very long Patientline thread to which this report should have been added.

Dave or bbb can you please take care of this.

In today's Guardian :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/28/nhs.news

Something not quite right with the quoted share price in that Guardian article.

This is what the FT had to say in today's edition:-

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb30b30e-9d54-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac.html


Quote:

Patientline warns on restructuring By David Blackwell Published: November 28 2007 02:00 | Last updated: November 28 2007 02:00 Patientline, the hospital phone and entertainment provider, said talks on restructuring its £82.5m debt might leave shareholders with nothing. The company – which in August reversed after just four months a controversial decision to raise charges for calls from hospital beds from 10p to 26p a minute – saw revenues decline from £21.6m to £16.9m in the first half to September 28, as pre-tax losses doubled to £15.3m. The operating loss before exceptionals rose from £3.2m to £4.5m. EDITOR’S CHOICE Patientline warns debt level ‘unsustainable’ - Jun-25 Patients to feel pain as PFI deal backfires - Apr-05 Beware circumlocution and government contracts - Jan-18 Geoff White, chairman, said restructuring the debt was the top priority. “However, shareholders should note that it is uncertain whether any value will be attributable to ordinary shares in the restructuring.” The company “does have a future”, he added, if the borrowings could be restructured to a sustainable level, allowing it to address the price of incoming telephone calls. The shares recovered earlier sharp falls to close just 4 per cent lower at 1.05p. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

PTL's half-year results available at http://www.patientline.co.uk/downloads/2nd_half_year_financial_report_07.pdf

Including the 'highlights':

Press Release

For release at: 7.00am, 27 November 2007

Patientline plc Announcement of the results for the half-year ended 28 September 2007

Financial Summary

•
Revenue was £16.9 million (2006 £21.6 million)
•
EBITDA before exceptional items was £3.0 million (2006 £6.6 million)
•
Operating loss before exceptional items was £4.5 million (2006 £3.2 million)
•
Cash outflow before financing activities was £1.2 million (2006 £5.0 million inflow)
•
Net borrowings were £82.5 million (2006 £84.6 million)
Operating Summary
•
Bed RPTPD was £0.63 (2006 £0.67)
•
F&F RPTPD was £0.59 (2006 £0.85)
•
Debt restructuring discussions ongoing
•
PPRG report left little prospect of positive outcome

In summary Patientline is still in the Intensive Care Unit and no one knows if the Patient will make it or not. ;) ::) ;D

It won't make it as a company, but it will as a service - it will probably just about last until the early new year, before the existing ordinary shares become worthless when lots of new ones are issued and handed to the crediters - banks - in return for a debt write-off which allows the business to break even in the short term.  What will happen after that, no one knows, but it will probably drag on for a long time ad end up with a similar service, under a totally guise with none of the existing management in control.  Some front line jobs will probably be safe at least for a while, but anyone senior to this should be getting ready for a career change.  Some well known companies are expressing discreet interest in picking it up for a song - one is quite topical and I'm sure you can guess it :)    SOme of this info comes quite directly from the horses mouth  ;)

werdies wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 10:54pm:

It won't make it as a company, but it will as a service - it will probably just about last until the early new year, before the existing ordinary shares become worthless when lots of new ones are issued and handed to the crediters - banks - in return for a debt write-off which allows the business to break even in the short term.  What will happen after that, no one knows, but it will probably drag on for a long time ad end up with a similar service, under a totally guise with none of the existing management in control.  Some front line jobs will probably be safe at least for a while, but anyone senior to this should be getting ready for a career change.  Some well known companies are expressing discreet interest in picking it up for a song - one is quite topical and I'm sure you can guess it :)    SOme of this info comes quite directly from the horses mouth  ;)

Surely the other likely change is that with the debt written off calls will come down to a politically acceptable (even if not acceptable to us) 10p per minute PhonePayPlus controlled 0871 number for incoming calls without a call price announcement and at that point the service should just about be able to wash its face due to a huge increase in call volumes that will then result and the fact that it is no longer having to meet the cost of the huge debt overhang will also make the difference.

Of course by then it will not be Patientline but like ICSTIS will have changed its spots to try and disguise its checkered and tarnished past.

Not to 10p, maybe 20p. Incoming call demand is surprisingly price-inelastic - it just creates headlines which affect overall demand, which is damaging.  There is a weird air of utter desperation going about ...

So those who cannot get to hospital to see their relatives for whatever reason feel a desperate sense of guilt that over-rides the high calling cost?  Or perhaps they are using someone else's phone like a relative's or employer's.  Surely the fact that demand is inelastic in a way makes the current level of the pricing all the more unacceptable.  I suspect that there is a class of caller who simply never calls at 49p per minute who would call at 10p per minute.  Has Patientline ever tried lower prices for incoming calls?

It would seem that ironically the patients themselves feel less need to make the calls (since they do not have to feel guilty about and show support for someone else who is ill) or perhaps being in hospital they are simply better informed about the unaffordable nature of the call prices.

From your comments can I take it that you presently work for Patientline,  even if not in a management capacity?

Has Patientline ever tried lower prices for incoming calls?
yes but it didn't make any real difference to the volume received

From your comments can I take it that you presently work for Patientline,  even if not in a management capacity?
or even in one perhaps  :D

werdies wrote on Nov 30^th, 2007 at 7:15am:

yes but it didn't make any real difference to the volume received

Which only goes to show that callers are in an abnormal stressed situation where they cannot make rational choices about price because their relatives are frequently about to undergo general anaesthetic surgery that might just end their lives.  Thus callers have to balance spending say £15 or £20 on a 30 or 40 minute call using your disgusting system against this being possibly the last conversation with the patient called they may ever had.  The fact that demand is inelastic to price level makes charging such a high and exploitative price all the more unacceptable in my view.


Quote:

or even in one perhaps  :D

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people is all I can say.  The thought of Derrick Lewis having to now slum it on a cheap package holiday during his retirement is not going to break my heart.  The only pity is that no one from Patientline is going to go to prison at one of Mr Lewis's former charges for their protracted and repeated disgarceful abuses of sick hospital patients.

Which only goes to show that callers are in an abnormal stressed situation where they cannot make rational choices about price because their relatives are frequently about to undergo general anaesthetic surgery that might just end their lives.  Thus callers have to balance spending say £15 or £20 on a 30 or 40 minute call using your disgusting system against this being possibly the last conversation with the patient called they may ever had.  The fact that demand is inelastic to price level makes charging such a high and exploitative price all the more unacceptable in my view.

Of course it's exploitative, but every business charges the max it can get away with, it just isn't as noticable elsewhere in life.  Who's really to blame - the company for doing it, or the government for letting them?  A company is not a person, it's a profit making entity which makes all decision based on profit.  That said, Patientline has not made any profit, due to being a spectacularly badly managed business.

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people is all I can say.  The thought of Derrick Lewis having to now slum it on a cheap package holiday during his retirement is not going to break my heart.  The only pity is that no one from Patientline is going to go to prison at one of Mr Lewis's former charges for their protracted and repeated disgarceful abuses of sick hospital patients.

Lewis left almost 2 years ago, so I doubt he cares very much.

werdies wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 6:27pm:

Of course it's exploitative, but every business charges the max it can get away with, it just isn't as noticable elsewhere in life.  Who's really to blame - the company for doing it, or the government for letting them?

It particularly isn't acceptable because patients don't have a choice of incoming call supplier and are artificially prevented from using mobile phones in NHS wards based on spurious and untrue claims it is clinically unsafe when the reality is Patientline management and senior NHS execs colluding in this monstrous lie to try to prevent lousy Patientline going bust.

Of course it is overtly the government's fault.  They should have only entered a contract giving them restrictions on maximum call prices and no one in their right mind in government should have agreed to more than 10p per minute.  But Patientline must have spectacularly inept political judgement if it did not realise charging 49p per minute for incoming calls would hole its repuation below the waterline.  Not to mention paying for 2 minutes before you are even connected

As you say the company is pathetically managed and costs are out of control.  The bedside terminals should never have been anywhere near as expensive to buy or maintain.

Mobile phones should not be banned in hospital and with mobile internet beginning to become affordable via mobile phones in some cases this then this does away with any need for Patientline at all.  As to the television side so long as the system is based on FTA channels then with the price of monitors these days patients shouldn't need to pay more than £5 per week to fund a profitable system.  Or they could bring in their own small portable handheld Freeview tvs.


Quote:

Lewis left almost 2 years ago, so I doubt he cares very much.

What about shares though?  Or did he sell all of those long ago too realising the writing was on the wall for Patientline?

It particularly isn't acceptable because patients don't have a choice of incoming call supplier and are artificially prevented from using mobile phones in NHS wards based on spurious and untrue claims it is clinically unsafe when the reality is Patientline management and senior NHS execs colluding in this monstrous lie to try to prevent lousy Patientline going bust.

This is enforced virtually nowhere now, and no one has challenged it partly because the legal argument would be very shakey, and partly because by the time it comes to fruition we will have long since collapsed.

Of course it is overtly the government's fault.  They should have only entered a contract giving them restrictions on maximum call prices and no one in their right mind in government should have agreed to more than 10p per minute.  But Patientline must have spectacularly inept political judgement if it did not realise charging 49p per minute for incoming calls would hole its repuation below the waterline.  Not to mention paying for 2 minutes before you are even connected

Difficult to disagree with that really.

As you say the company is pathetically managed and costs are out of control.  The bedside terminals should never have been anywhere near as expensive to buy or maintain.


Yes, and too many were installed, and a huge amount of money was wasted maintaining sets which made no profit (less than 1 in 5 patients use their unit, since most are in ridiculous wards like geriatric or stroke units).  A sensible plan would have been to install in maternity/medical/surgery/cancer wards which would have seen good usage, and not needed to be priced so highly - what actually happened was they were put everywhere at massive expense, and these areas had to subsidise the rest.  Usage on a maternity ward is approx. 200 times higher than eldery care for example.  It was done on the assumption that they would be used as high-tech medical aids for showing xrays and the like, but this should have been put in writing first, because in the end virtually none have been, and there was never any way to recoup this investment from TV and phone calls.  It was quite incredibly badly managed, and since then the operation has been very inefficient indeed.  It takes real effort to destroy a company which runs at 95% margin - you have to waste a heck of a lot of cash.

Mobile phones should not be banned in hospital and with mobile internet beginning to become affordable via mobile phones in some cases this then this does away with any need for Patientline at all.  As to the television side so long as the system is based on FTA channels then with the price of monitors these days patients shouldn't need to pay more than £5 per week to fund a profitable system.  Or they could bring in their own small portable handheld Freeview tvs.

Phones aren't banned any more in reality, only technically.  Our monitors cost about £1200 each but have no resale value. They aren't easy to remove either, so they will need to be used for something unless the NHS can find the huge amount of money needed to take them out after we call it a day.  I think what will happen is a company with an existing business will run them at break-even or a small loss, to cross-promote it's other products.  It will be a strong, trusted brand.

What about shares though?  Or did he sell all of those long ago too realising the writing was on the wall for Patientline?

Who knows? You can buy every share in existence today for less than the price of a modest detached home, and they get cheaper every day.

werdies you seem to have given us some of the most interesting insights yet in to the incompetent way in which Patientline has been run and its disastrous original business plan.

If I may be so bold what is an apparently bright and perceptive guy like yourself doing still working there.  Or are you say late 50 something and coming up for retirement so no point in going through all that hassle?

It's quite an easy place to work, and can be enjoyable.  Simple as that!

Doesn't your conscience ever bother you about all the husbands and wives and children of people who are very ill who your company is fleecing in order to stay in touch with their sick relations? :o

Oh I forgot.  No one with a conscience or an understanding of ethics works at Patientline (or at Ofcom for that matter). >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

werdies wrote on Nov 30^th, 2007 at 7:15am:

NGMsGhost wrote on Nov 29th, 2007 at 7:29pm: Has Patientline ever tried lower prices for incoming calls? yes but it didn't make any real difference to the volume received

I think running a trial of a lower tariff provides a very poor indication of what would be the effect if applied UK wide, because most of the potential callers to the very small number of trial sites are more likely to be aware of the standard Patientline tariff rather than the lower trial price.

Presumably the trial of increasing the cost of outgoing calls to 26p/minute, 40p minimum, showed that revenue would increase.

And the trial of charging £1 for headphones reportedly resulted in an increase in demand for them, whereas since the charge for headphones was introduced at my local hospital, paid-for TV viewing hours have dropped by 30%.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 10:33am:

Doesn't your conscience ever bother you about all the husbands and wives and children of people who are very ill who your company is fleecing in order to stay in touch with their sick relations? :o Oh I forgot.  No one with a conscience or an understanding of ethics works at Patientline (or at Ofcom for that matter). >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

 It's just a company, the people that work there are nice, normal people - especially the front line staff, who have a very tough time.  The bloke who works in my newsagents doesn't worry about the death and misery his f*g sales cause, I doubt. I dont have strong opinions about Patientline either way.

Anyway, it's all virtually confirmed now, and if anyone owns shares they need to sell them NOW!! as they are about to become totally worthless and Patientline plc is about to disappear forever and a new bunch of brave souls can have a go at making it work, as the old bunch vanish into the sunset with a very large wedge in their back pockets...

I'd give more info, but I might get caught out if I do that  :o

werdies wrote on Dec 4^th, 2007 at 7:45pm:

It's just a company, the people that work there are nice, normal people - especially the front line staff, who have a very tough time.

Wasn't that the line employees at various notorious German prison camps during the Second World War took?  That is they didn't invent the rotten system and were only following orders?  OK you aren't killing anyone directly except that your company (and a company can never operate without people being prepared to work for it) might actually prevent the relatives of some sick patients speaking to them for the last time the night before they die in a major op because they are worried about spending £30 on a 60 minute phone call.  And of course none of us knows for sure who will die during an op and who won't


Quote:

The bloke who works in my newsagents doesn't worry about the death and misery his f*g sales cause, I doubt.

But f*g customers all have a choice about consuming the product whereas people rarely have a choice either about being ill or being in a hospital where your rotten company's exploitative system is the only way to contact them.  That is the big difference surely?  I agree that top cigarette company marketing people who try to make a lethal killer in to a fashion accessory ought to have a lot of trouble with their consciences though.


Quote:

I dont have strong opinions about Patientline either way.

Self evidently.  No one with a strong moral position on its activities would ever work there unless they took a job as a BBC undercover reporter.


Quote:

Anyway, it's all virtually confirmed now, and if anyone owns shares they need to sell them NOW!! as they are about to become totally worthless and Patientline plc is about to disappear forever and a new bunch of brave souls can have a go at making it work, as the old bunch vanish into the sunset with a very large wedge in their back pockets... I'd give more info, but I might get caught out if I do that  :o

Ok well thanks for that anyway.  You clearly substantially redeem yourself by being prepared to share with this forum so much of what is going on.  Do you have any clue what the new phone call price will be for incoming calls.  Wouldn't there be huge advantages to moving to 10p per minute 0871 combined with a big marketing campaign to promote that the service was now relatively affordable (if not exactly a bargain).

Anything using 07 and pence per minute advance price announcements is surely doomed to failure?

werdies wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 6:27pm:

Of course it's exploitative, but every business charges the max it can get away with, it just isn't as noticable elsewhere in life.

Most businesses set their charges at the level that provides the maximum revenue. But the official line from Patientline is:

Quote:

High incoming call charges are unfair to all concerned and we have long wanted to reduce the burden placed on friends and family by these charges.

pw4 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 1:52pm:

High incoming call charges are unfair to all concerned and we have long wanted to reduce the burden placed on friends and family by these charges.

It seems odd Patientline find it so difficult to take their own advice. :-?

Is this a bit like Chief Constable of South Wales Mervyn Hughes who is content to wag his finger about everyone else speeding and has pushed for people to get 6 points fixed penalty tickets who are more than 20mph over the limit only to now be caught doing 30mph over a 60mph limit with an incredible 9 points already previously on his licence (incredible for the head traffic cop in the UK who's job, amongst other things, is surely supposed to be to set an example to motorists).  And this man is not only to remain as a Chief Constable but head traffic policeman in Britain.  Incredible or what!

In New Labour Britian it seems to be constantly a case of Do As I Say and not Do As I Do. :o >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 2:17pm:

Is this a bit like Chief Constable of South Wales Mervyn Hughes who is content to wag his finger about everyone else speeding and has pushed for people to get 6 points fixed penalty tickets who are more than 20mph over the limit only to now be caught doing 30mph over a 60mph limit with an incredible 9 points already previously on his licence (incredible for the head traffic cop in the UK who's job, amongst other things, is surely supposed to be to set an example to motorists).  And this man is not only to remain as a Chief Constable but head traffic policeman in Britain.

Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, stood down from his role at ACPO after he was summonsed for the offence.

bill wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 2:28pm:

Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, stood down from his role at ACPO after he was summonsed for the offence.

If they practice what they preach he should also have been demoted from Chief Constable to at least a couple of ranks down.

Of course personally I believe the whole system is nonsense and that (a) failure to spend money on improving existing roads and not building more roads to handle increased traffic is the primary cause of death and injury on roads in the UK plus removing virtually all unmarked police patrol cars in favour of the blunt and pointless instrument of speed cams and (b) With drivers only now being allowed two offences of more than 20mph over the limit in 3 years many people who drive for a living could now easily find themselves deprived of their livelihood while not being unsafe drivers.

But despite my view on the nonsense of the current speeding purge I have no time for a Chief Constable like Mr Hughes who clearly doesn't practice what he preaches but being a careerist toady is clearly eager to utter whatever mindless New Labour propaganda (and a war on speeding motorists is New Labour originated policy rather than Police originated policy) he is asked too in the hope of further enhancing his career prospects.

If he isn't also demoted from being Chief Constable then it clearly says the Police think they are above abiding by the laws they are so keen to enforce on others.  The same phenonmenon as we saw with Met police officers being able to gun down poor Mr de Menezes and then those officer not even being deprived of the right to work with firearms for the rest of their police careers (never mind charged with manslaughter which may or may not have been the right thing to do).  It doesn't seem much to ask when their reckless actions actually caused poor Mr de Menezes to lose his life.

It'sjust not that simple, I'm afraid - no one want the service to go bust and disappear - the units would sit there for years, dead - the NHS would have to provide some sort of expensive replacement, patients would not benefit, 15000 staff would lose their jobs - ordinary people just feeding their families.  To save it the value of the company had to be brought in line with enough of the debt to make the remaining repayments affordable, within the operating profit.  This meant the incoming chrage could not be reduced before this was signed and sealed, but once it has gone through - in a few weeks - it will be cut and the business can be relaunched and rebranded as a value service.

Do you have any clue what the new phone call price will be for incoming calls.  Wouldn't there be huge advantages to moving to 10p per minute 0871 combined with a big marketing campaign to promote that the service was now relatively affordable (if not exactly a bargain).

Anything using 07 and pence per minute advance price announcements is surely doomed to failure?
None of our business- the new owners will decide what they want to do, and they have no reason to share it with us.

I'm all for the original prices.

That way hardly anyone uses the phones. The last thing I would want, as a patient, is to be subjected to other peoples' telephone conversations all day. It's bad enough on the train...

Stoday wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 1:39am:

I'm all for the original prices. That way hardly anyone uses the phones. The last thing I would want, as a patient, is to be subjected to other peoples' telephone conversations all day. It's bad enough on the train...

People on trains use mobiles, not Patientline phones. People generally talk much louder on mobiles. Patientline phones don't have the 'hilarious' ring tones, and the ring is much less loud than on most mobiles. If disturbance is an issue for you, the Patientline phones clearly have the advantage.

werdies wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 8:56pm:

... no one want the service to go bust and disappear ...

On the contrary, lots of people want the service to go bust and disappear - you can find most of them in the course of this thread: http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1122290403.
As a matter of principle they would much rather that patients stared at the wall all day, and those in hospital for longer than their mobile battery would last, and those who prefered not to risk their mobile being stolen whilst in hospital, should have no means of making calls from or receiving calls at their bed, rather than have the option of paying for these services.


Quote:

the NHS would have to provide some sort of expensive replacement

None of the NHSs would be obliged to provide any replacement. The NHS [England] would say that it is up to PCTs to decide what to do, and whether to do it (from their existing funding).


Quote:

15000 staff would lose their jobs

How many? I counted 1087 last year!

On the contrary, lots of people want the service to go bust and disappear - you can find most of them in the course of this thread As a matter of principle they would much rather that patients stared at the wall all day, and those in hospital for longer than their mobile battery would last, and those who prefered not to risk their mobile being stolen whilst in hospital, should have no means of making calls from or receiving calls at their bed, rather than have the option of paying for these services.

Well each to their own, but to say no TV or phone service at all is preferable seems madness to me - some people appreciate it very much! But it's irrelevant anyway, total collapse was never an option - too politically embarassing for labour, and the service makes good money day to day.  Collapse would mean no debt, but still a profitable niche market to be filled by someone else.

And anyway, people here just want to see a better cheaper service, not no service at all!  And that is what they are going to get, in the end.

None of the NHSs would be obliged to provide any replacement. The NHS [England] would say that it is up to PCTs to decide what to do, and whether to do it (from their existing funding).

Again, theoretically - but no of course they wouldn't be obliged to, but I imagine they would.  It was never going to come to this though, so no matter.

werdies wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 10:08pm:

And anyway, people here just want to see a better cheaper service, not no service at all!

I have always forecast that Patientline would go belly up but that once the debt was written off the assets would be taken over by another operator and the phone calls then provided at a lower and more attractive price.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 10:26pm:

werdies wrote on Dec 6th, 2007 at 10:08pm: And anyway, people here just want to see a better cheaper service, not no service at all! I have always forecast that Patientline would go belly up but that once the debt was written off the assets would be taken over by another operator and the phone calls then provided at a lower and more attractive price.

You should have had some kind of bet on it!

werdies wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 7:11am:

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 6th, 2007 at 10:26pm: werdies wrote on Dec 6th, 2007 at 10:08pm: And anyway, people here just want to see a better cheaper service, not no service at all! I have always forecast that Patientline would go belly up but that once the debt was written off the assets would be taken over by another operator and the phone calls then provided at a lower and more attractive price. You should have had some kind of bet on it!

I think werdies should applauded for giving us all such an insight.

In any case the banning of mobiles from hospitals on safety grounds is based on an urban myth. They are not banned in Europe e.g. Austria or in UK BUPA hospitals. Eventually the NHS will catch up. So Patientline is doomed.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 3:05pm:

bill wrote on Dec 5th, 2007 at 2:28pm: Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, stood down from his role at ACPO after he was summonsed for the offence. blah, blah?

Hate to teach you grannies to suck eggs, but hasn't this lot gone off topic?

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 9:00am:

In any case the banning of mobiles from hospitals on safety grounds is based on an urban myth. They are not banned in Europe e.g. Austria or in UK BUPA hospitals. Eventually the NHS will catch up. So Patientline is doomed.

It is not an Urban Myth but a carefully calculated and deliberate lie invented by cynical and stupid NHS management who signed the contract with Patientline and Patientline executives and turned what you call an Urban Myth in to official signs in NHS hospitals.

That is not an Urban Myth but an act of despicable and cynical commercial connivance designed to cut off patients from communicating with their relatives by affordable means in order to keep the leaky Patientline ship above the waterline.

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 9:06am:

Hate to teach you grannies to suck eggs, but hasn't this lot gone off topic?

This was just a comment on the behaviour of another major hypocrit in the ranks of the New Labour establishment made in passing.

Meredith Hughes has only been so keen to promote the "Speed Kills" lies because he is a careerist toady and he knows by spouting this rubbish he will curry favour with New Labour politicians and so continue to advance up the career ladder.

How can a policeman who maintains motorists should be found guilty of speeding even where the police fail to apply the law correctly continue to hold his job as Chief Constable when he now turns out to think that there is one law for him and one law for everybody else.  Why is this any different from him being found in posession of cannabis when he would have had to resign from the Police force.

Answer because in reality a speeding ticket is seen as a minor administrative matter like a parking ticket by public opinion but if so why does plod and the government keep pretending it is a serious criminal offence?

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 10:37am:

Meredith Hughes has only been so keen to promote the "Speed Kills" lies because he is a careerist toady and he knows by spouting this rubbish he will curry favour with New Labour politicians and so continue to advance up the career ladder.

Are you aware it is not just Mr Hughes?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130028.stm

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 7:29pm:

Of course it is overtly the government's fault.  They should have only entered a contract giving them restrictions on maximum call prices and no one in their right mind in government should have agreed to more than 10p per minute.

To the best of my knowledge the charges are limited in the contracts, and the cost of calls to patients have only gone down since the earliest systems were deployed. However, a major flaw in the arrangement is that when Patientline is breach of a contract there's virtually nothing that can be done about it.


Quote:

But Patientline must have spectacularly inept political judgement if it did not realise charging 49p per minute for incoming calls would hole its repuation below the waterline.

At the time the charge for incoming calls was set (at 50p per minute at all times) it did not seem excessively high. The charges have to be seen in context of the time - phone calls generally cost more than they do now, especially in real terms - there were no discounts and inclusive calls schemes, and it was a facility that had never been available before, so it seemed reasonable to have to pay a premium rate for it. The perception at that time was that the cost was high but not overly so. The charge for outgoing calls was around 10% less than on BT payphones which was the only means of contact up to that time. Any negative press coverage during the first few years of Patientline's operation was centered around hospital staff's objection to the principle of systems being run for profit (or not, as it turns out), rather than by the NHS with surplusses being put into the hospital services. But as years went by, phone calls generally became cheaper and discounts and inclusive schemes came along, making Patientline's charges seem higher in comparison. But the Patientline's main costs did not reduce - staff and debt repayment.


Quote:

Not to mention paying for 2 minutes before you are even connected.

Don't forget that it was at Ofcom's insistance that the wealth warning was introduced. I don't know how long the announcement is now, but there seems to be have been no need for a wealth warning since 1st September. Perhaps the company would say they need to provide an accurate announcement of cost to counter the "misleading" general pre-announcement (on the line I have here, it says "up to 50p per minute or more" (my emphasis), so not very helpful).


Quote:

The bedside terminals should never have been anywhere near as expensive to buy or maintain.

That's easy to say, but how could they have been less expensive? You can't buy hospital bedside TV/phone/internet terminals off the shelf in Dixons. The current price of a flat screen monitor is irrelevant - it doesn't include the PC, the tuner, the phone, the card reader, and the custom software to drive it all. As with all electronic equipment the costs were much higher when the system was first developed a decade and a half ago, and they had to use the technology and materials available at that time. And terminals didn't just plug into handy mains sockets - the hospital had to be cabled up to connect the whole system together, with a control room for the phone exchange and all the other control apparatus, and each terminal installed on the wall along with its PC, and power distribution provided for them all. Even compared to consumer electronics of the time, bedside terminals were a very low volume production item, and they had to be custom designed and developed especially for the hospital enviroment. Newer terminals have been developed and deployed since then, no doubt at lower cost, but development costs are themselves high, so whilst technical advances are rapid, the costs of incoporating them can exceed the savings if changes are made too frequently.


Quote:

As to the television side so long as the system is based on FTA channels then with the price of monitors these days patients shouldn't need to pay more than £5 per week to fund a profitable system.

Again you ignore the costs of installing the unit, cabling infrastructure including r.f. and a safe power supply (ie, not mains), maintenance, and some means of collecting the charge and preventing use by those who don't pay. And I doubt that FTA would be free.


Quote:

Or they could bring in their own small portable handheld Freeview tvs.

Yes they could, but most would be watching the "No Signal" message most of the time, as anyone that has tried to use a TV or radio with its own aerial in a hospital ward will tell you. They'd do better to take a portable DVD player. With headphones. And a large supply of batteries. And - in some hospitals - be prepared for it to disappear whilst they're in the bathroom or operating theatre. But that would be the same with a handheld TV.


Quote:

What about shares though?  Or did he [Derek Lewis] sell all of those long ago too realising the writing was on the wall for Patientline?

Well at the time he left, he owned just under 2% of the issued shares, but he could have sold them since then of course.

pw4 the extensive range of knowledge by a mere hospital radio station manager about Patientline's commercial fortunes and history never ceases to amaze me. ;)

Well, thank you (I think). But I keep telling you: I'm not a manager! :)

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 10:30am:

DonQuixote wrote on Dec 7th, 2007 at 9:00am: In any case the banning of mobiles from hospitals on safety grounds is based on an urban myth. They are not banned in Europe e.g. Austria or in UK BUPA hospitals. Eventually the NHS will catch up. So Patientline is doomed. It is not an Urban Myth but a carefully calculated and deliberate lie invented by cynical and stupid NHS management who signed the contract with Patientline and Patientline executives and turned what you call an Urban Myth in to official signs in NHS hospitals. That is not an Urban Myth but an act of despicable and cynical commercial connivance designed to cut off patients from communicating with their relatives by affordable means in order to keep the leaky Patientline ship above the waterline.

It's not stipulated in the contract, which is why Patientline aren't challenging it very aggressviely - all the contracts are differnet, and refer to mobile use, but I'm sure none actually say it much be enforced as a ban, they just suggest it

However, a major flaw in the arrangement is that when Patientline is breach of a contract there's virtually nothing that can be done about it.

Well the contracts have been breached so often by all parties that they are pretty much redundant now.

That's easy to say, but how could they have been less expensive? You can't buy hospital bedside TV/phone/internet terminals off the shelf in Dixons. The current price of a flat screen monitor is irrelevant - it doesn't include the PC, the tuner, the phone, the card reader, and the custom software to drive it all. As with all electronic equipment the costs were much higher when the system was first developed a decade and a half ago, and they had to use the technology and materials available at that time. And terminals didn't just plug into handy mains sockets - the hospital had to be cabled up to connect the whole system together, with a control room for the phone exchange and all the other control apparatus, and each terminal installed on the wall along with its PC, and power distribution provided for them all. Even compared to consumer electronics of the time, bedside terminals were a very low volume production item, and they had to be custom designed and developed especially for the hospital enviroment. Newer terminals have been developed and deployed since then, no doubt at lower cost, but development costs are themselves high, so whilst technical advances are rapid, the costs of incoporating them can exceed the savings if changes are made too frequently.


There are far too many of them though, the vast majority at any one time are not being used at all.  The future will see most wards lose all the units, and the remaining wards lose most of them.  The operation will be much smaller, and some of these will replace older units elsewhere.

werdies wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 5:42pm:

There are far too many of them though, the vast majority at any one time are not being used at all.  The future will see most wards lose all the units, and the remaining wards lose most of them.  The operation will be much smaller, and some of these will replace older units elsewhere.

It sounds like if you are geriatric (due to immobility and physical ailments) but have not lost your marbles you will now have to take a stock of good books on the ward rather than watching the telly.

Of course I suppose you may be able to watch tv on your mobile phone instead except that this has also not been a rip roaring success and may be in danger of being withdrawn on some mobile platforms (those using DAB radio network broadcasting spectrum to transmit the signal).  Also the eyesight of the elderly may not be up to a picture that small.

Very very very very very few geriatrics use it, marbles or no marbles

Patientline is failing because its management can't get its tariff right. If Ryanair had the same pricing policy there wouldn't be a Ryanair now.

The cost structure is much the same - high capital cost that requires high useage to provide a profitable service. The competition is not the same however. So Patientline hasn't even thought of how to react to competition and doesn't have a driver to get its price tariff right.

Here, here, here.

I think Patientline in its lack of commercial acumen and stubborn inability to respond to market conditions is very similar to another company I am a customer of known as www.worldspace.com

This company was planning to leave all its customers living in Europe with no radio service at all for over a year while it upgraded its audio encoding method from MP3 to AAC+.  Now with 3 days to go they have changed their mind.

Also they try charging 60 quid a year for listening to a range of 40 stations and when it doesn't work just ignore all the advice they get that advertising is thew way to generate revenue on radio.

Sounds like Patientline all over again doesn't it.

A report in todays local news on BBC 1 tv "Breakfast" shows a patient who was in Brightom Hospital and took in his own small screen TV.

He was spotted by a Patientline representative who told him to switch it off.    The mystified patient said he didn't understand and he was doing nothing wrong.   The nurses had not said anything to him about watching his own TV.   The Patientline police told him to switch it off or he would be prosecuted.

Brighton Hospital Trust have issued a statement that says, in effect, Patientline should be careful how they speak to patients.    They also say that using a battery TV is OK but you may not plug in your own TV.

If you watch BBC 1 South News at about 8.35 and 8.55 you may see the story repeated.

loddon wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 8:13am:

Brighton Hospital Trust have issued a statement that says, in effect, Patientline should be careful how they speak to patients.    They also say that using a battery TV is OK but you may not plug in your own TV..

Why ever not!  Are we led to believe that the extra trivial electricity cost is likely to bankrupt the NHS.  Would they let you bring in your own car battery weekly and consider this safer than using the mains electricity?

Also it shows the utterly abusive mentality of Patientline personnel towards patients that they would try to pull such a stunt as its already clear that anyone who goes to the lengths of getting their own tv is violenty unhappy with Patientline charges so for Patientline to challenge this is like pouring oil on the fire.

Far better to ignore it knowing that Mr and Mrs Average will still carry on using the Patientline tv service.

More


http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1890228.0.0.php?act=complaint&cid=856048

Which includes:

<<
Then one afternoon I was watching a programme about nuclear explosions when the Patientline woman appeared. She came over and told me to switch it off. She said I wasn't allowed my own TV because it was a breach of the contract her company has with the hospital to supply TVs. She said if I kept watching I could be prosecuted.
>>

One wonders exactly on what grounds a prosecution could take place. Perhaps the offence is something along the lines of 'walking on the cracks in the pavement' or 'walking around with an offensive wife'. Call in Constable Savage.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 10:45am:

loddon wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 8:13am: Brighton Hospital Trust have issued a statement that says, in effect, Patientline should be careful how they speak to patients.    They also say that using a battery TV is OK but you may not plug in your own TV.. Why ever not!  ...

Would this not be for electrical safety reasons and the fact that all appliances need to be PAT tested (portable appliance test) in a hospital?

Dave wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

Would this not be for electrical safety reasons and the fact that all appliances need to be PAT tested (portable appliance test) in a hospital?

I agree with Dave here.  I believe all electrical appliances need to be tested (earth faults, etc).  This is probably due to the fact that they don't want someone plugging something in and a fuse going in the ward or something.  Back-up generators would kick-in but there are only certain sockets which would benefit from back-up generators.

My local hospital allows you to plug appliances such as a TV or radio into bedside sockets, provided thay have tested it first. Testing takes a week.

I've had three one week sessions in the last 3 years but never saw anyone taking advantage of this provision.

Dave wrote on Dec 11^th, 2007 at 7:40pm:

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 10:45am: loddon wrote on Dec 11th, 2007 at 8:13am: They also say that using a battery TV is OK but you may not plug in your own TV.. Why ever not!  ... Would this not be for electrical safety reasons and the fact that all appliances need to be PAT tested (portable appliance test) in a hospital?

Yes of course, it is for safety reasons. A safety inspection is required - not just a PAT test.


Stoday wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 2:28am:

Testing takes a week.

Wow, that must be thorough! The inspection - including the PAT test - actually takes minutes, but hospital electricians - many of whom are contractors who visit weekly and for call-outs - have higher priorities, as you would hope in a hospital. Some hospitals charge for the service - which may sound like extortion but the hospital has to pay the contractor for his time and services.

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 6:11pm:

It sounds like if you are geriatric (due to immobility and physical ailments) but have not lost your marbles you will now have to take a stock of good books on the ward rather than watching the telly.

Reading is not a good option for most patients. Attention span tends to be too limited because of their condition and/or medication, and it's not very practical for the many that are unable be in a seating position. Radio is ideal.

The endgame starts proper in 23 days folks

werdies wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 9:00pm:

The endgame starts proper in 23 days folks [18/12/07 + 23 = 10/1/08]

In what way?

A General Meeting has been convened on 10th January, but this is a requirement of the Companies Act 1985 because there can be no successful going concern review, which in turn is because agreement has not been reached with the syndicate of bankers on the restructuring of the debt, and the company has net assets which are half or less of its called-up share capital. The board warned in June 2007 that it would be unable to the approve the Interim Accounts in this circumstance.

The board says that proposals are not yet developed to the point where they can be put to shareholders and it is not intended to propose any formal resolutions at the meeting. So the date seems to be that of a legal formality rather than a significant event, unless you know different.

pw4 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 2:02pm:

werdies wrote on Dec 18th, 2007 at 9:00pm: The endgame starts proper in 23 days folks [18/12/07 + 23 = 10/1/08] In what way? A General Meeting has been convened on 10th January, but this is a requirement of the Companies Act 1985 because there can be no successful going concern review, which in turn is because agreement has not been reached with the syndicate of bankers on the restructuring of the debt, and the company has net assets which are half or less of its called-up share capital. The board warned in June 2007 that it would be unable to the approve the Interim Accounts in this circumstance. The board says that proposals are not yet developed to the point where they can be put to shareholders and it is not intended to propose any formal resolutions at the meeting. So the date seems to be that of a legal formality rather than a significant event, unless you know different.

Agreement hasn't been reached, but it's 99.9% there, the details are just being ironed out, and the company will cease to exist I would estimate late Jan.

werdies wrote on Dec 20^th, 2007 at 10:04pm:

Agreement hasn't been reached, but it's 99.9% there, the details are just being ironed out, and the company will cease to exist I would estimate late Jan.

Agreement with whom? The syndicate of lending banks, or the company to which you alluded?


werdies wrote on Nov 28^th, 2007 at 10:54pm:

Some well known companies are expressing discreet interest in picking it up for a song - one is quite topical and I'm sure you can guess it :)

werdies wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 2:26pm:

... a company with an existing business will run them at break-even or a small loss, to cross-promote it's other products.  It will be a strong, trusted brand.

This seems a bit unlikely because that brand only gets involved in launching or buying out fashionable lifestyle companies with a likelyhood of large profit margins. And I don't believe they're sufficiently niaive to think that hospital patients are a good advertising target with a high proportion of the demographics they would be looking for to cross-promote that part of group's business.
I would find it much more credible if it was intended to be run as a philanthropic venture - perhaps a company limited by guarantee - with the branding around the personality rather than the group, but with the advantage that all of the required services can be sourced from one of the companies within the group. There is of course a precedent for a philanthropic take-over by this party, albeit that the previous bid was unsuccessful.

And it would be an ironic brand name in obstetrics wards!

A non-UK buyer is quite keen now

pw4 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 7:49pm:

werdies wrote on Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:04pm: Agreement hasn't been reached, but it's 99.9% there, the details are just being ironed out, and the company will cease to exist I would estimate late Jan. Agreement with whom? The syndicate of lending banks, or the company to which you alluded?

agreement as to how much debt can be exchanged for how much equity

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box completed

werdies wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2007 at 2:43pm:

pw4 wrote on Dec 21st, 2007 at 7:49pm: werdies wrote on Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:04pm: Agreement hasn't been reached, but it's 99.9% there, the details are just being ironed out, and the company will cease to exist I would estimate late Jan. Agreement with whom? The syndicate of lending banks, or the company to which you alluded? agreement as to how much debt can be exchanged for how much equity

Total panic has now set in, the banks don't want the business, so debt for equity is looking very unlikely after all, no one will supply to the company and repairs have been suspended as a result.  Senior management has responded by massively increasing site sales targets!  It's quite fascinating just how long a dead company can continue to operate

~ Edited by Dave: Quote box completed

What happened to the last 0.1%?

pw4 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 1:09pm:

What happened to the last 0.1%?

I don't know, but it's like a sort of Pass the Bomb excersise going on now, as everyone tries to jostle into the best position to escape the blame when it explodes.  Very unpleasant environment as evidence is gathered on anyone who could be scapegoated - funniest is the suggestion it's all down to the remaining few technicians (lots were fired last year to save money) who it's implied didn't fix enough equipment fast enough, and thats the whole problem  ::)