pw4 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 4:01pm:

I have not located the document, but I have found details of it.
It was issued by the Medical Devices Agency (whose functions are now carried out by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency), was a safety notice regarding a study it had conducted into the use of various types of radio handset in medical areas, and warned that cellular telephones had the potential to interfere with medical devices.

pw4 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2006 at 2:41pm:


In planning circles health grounds are not generally seen as being acceptable reasons for refusing planning permission for a new mobile phone transmitter site.

pw4 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2006 at 2:29pm:

While it may be technically correct that calls to Patientline 070 numbers are not revenue sharing, I would suggest that - from the point of view of the general public and those making calls to hospital patients - these would be regarded as revenue-sharing calls: they are paying a huge premium on the call cost for the 'privilege' of having the call directed to the appropriate patient.  And - in many cases - they have also had to make a call to another expensive (compared with geo) revenue-sharing number (0870 ot 0845) to ascertain the number in the first instance.

From the little I understand about PNS calls, I would argue that Patientline is not a true PNS.  My understanding is that 'regular' PNS calls are redirected to whatever 'phone number (mobile or fixed) the called party is currently at - and that this may be changed frequently.  (If I've misunderstood, please forgive me.)  Whereas the Patientline service merely directs the call to a particular fixed line phone, which is no different from a company switchboard with direct extension dialling - you just need to know the number of the relevant extension.  So the Patientline-type service could be implemented by having a regular geo number of the format 01234 567xxx, where xxx is the extension number.  The 'regular' PNS could not be implemented in this way.

pw4 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2006 at 2:29pm:

Personally, I wasn't aware that there is another company.  What is the company's name, please, and do they use the same model?

pw4 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 4:01pm:
Where do you get that info from?

If it's from Patientline's website here then I don't believe it is accurate because going by that list most hospitals (the ones I clicked on at random anyhow) reads, "To speak to a person at this hospital, ring 0870 212 1234"  This number is just for Patientline general customer services which you could just ring on 0800 959 3100 anyhow.  I've rung this 0870 myself and all that happens it that they then give you the 070 number for the hospital you are after.  Therefore their website that reads, "To speak to a person at this hospital, ring 0870..." is completely misleading with regards to the fact that you don't speak to a person at the hospital itself but just their general customer services and then they give you the 070 number of the hospital you are after anyhow so therefore you don't get to speak to anyone at the hospital itself on the 0870 number.

This really should be investigated but with it being a website the ASA won't investigate it.  Ofcom are useless and its outside their remit anyhow so it's just Trading Standards but not sure what law it would specifically come under if they did decide to investigate the matter.

Quote:

That's a whole 'nuther discussion; I think it's truer to say that in planning circles health grounds are not generally seen as being acceptable reasons for refusing planning permission for a new mobile phone transmitter site due to lack of supporting evidence. There is no point in a planning authority refusing permission in the knowledge that the refusal will be overturned - due to lack of supporting evidence - on appeal and at great expense to that authority.

trevord wrote on Jan 10^th, 2006 at 3:07pm:

That is my understanding also. But Ofcom considers that 070 numbers allocated to hospital patients so that they can have their own DDI number for the duration of their stay to be a legitimate Personal Numbering Service even though it may not fit the traditional/'true' mode of Personal Numbering.


Quote:

In addition to Patientline and Premier, whose agreements are the subject of this Ofcom investigation, I know of Wandsworth, Hospicom, and Patientpal, so there are at least five. However, Wandsworth contracts out the management and operation of its systems to Premier, so it is not apparent to me whether the agreements relating to these 'managed sites' are included in the investigation - but I would speculate that they are. Another, Kerphone, went into receivership in April 2005; the company had installed a system in one hospital, and the Trust subsequently arranged for Patientline to take over the operation of it. I understand that this system offers patients fewer facilities than Patientline's.
AFAIK, yes - all the agreements use the same model insofar as systems incorporating individual TVs and phones for patients are provided at no cost to (and no pecuniary benefit to) hospital Trusts, the exceptions being that some, if not all, the companies can arrange access for medical staff to Electronic Patients' Records through the terminals at a cost to the Trust, and patients' 'on-line' menu ordering at a cost to the Trust, and that some agreements specify that the terminals be cleaned by the ward cleaners rather than the company's, presumably at a cost to the company. Otherwise, the systems are funded solely by charges levied for the use of the TVs and for phone calls.

pw4 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2006 at 7:46pm:

But, by telephoning an 070 connected to one of these systems, one is paying Patientline on a per minute basis. The price of a telephone call should be just that. That is, the cost of connecting the caller with the called party. This makes a mockery of that as the caller has to subsidise the receiver's line/equipment. Imagine what would happen if we could have 'free' line rental in return for charging the caller more.

Even if this was/is acceptable, then there is the issue of there being no competitive forces to push prices down. Hence the reason why Patientline has opted for numbers at nearly the highest charging band allowed.

Quote:

(If you would excuse me answering a question posed to someone else - )

Since Patientline reduced their rates to 49p/39p, there is evidently at least one higher rate, and Patientline must be aware of it.