Someone may feel inspired to add a comment to a piece of nonsense I stumbled onto - The Importance of 0844 Numbers

Quote:

It is because of grossly ignorant or blatantly dishonest drivel like this, and the willingness of many to believe it, that we are in the present mess. Two months to go and many NHS bodies still using 084 numbers.

Subscribers to my feed of news on this topic will have noted some interesting developments.

Forum members may feel recent items to be worthy of comment here.

Dave wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 11:38am:

The media release explains this:

Quote:

All other calls to 0844 numbers will be met by a recorded message. I assume that the new appointments line number will be put on new letters as soon as possible, as suggested. It was presumably felt that calls should be answered on the old number, as it had been advised in correspondence, although only until the end of March, when the recorded message will cease to be provided on the other numbers.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 7:16pm:

Under each address it says:

http://www.meht.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/contact-us/

Quote:


I think it's fair enough to quote the number under each hospital's address. It is also correct to write the number twice; in national format and international format. The erroneous "(0)" in the overseas version requires removal.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2010 at 10:03pm:

Please, if we are obsessed with suggesting ways of revising the layout of webpages where changes in circumstances have rendered the original format inappropriate, perhaps we could give attention to this old page - NHS bodies using revenue sharing telephone numbers.

There has been somewhere between modest progress and total victory with the following items (in sequence) 1, 2 , 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 34 and 40. With the deadline for compliance with the Department of Health Directions only three weeks away, I am more concerned with making this list incorrect than ensuring its correctness. I would be grateful for any assistance.

In due course I will be hoping to publish an "after" version to show what has been achieved.

CJT-80 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2010 at 5:13pm:

Fair point, I was not explicit. I hold firm with the idea that it is for each of us to make whatever contribution we wish, both to the debate and to campaigning efforts. If I implied a demand or called on a duty (as it could have been seen), then I apologise.

Many of the NHS bodies listed on the web page referred to have geographic alternatives which they publish alongside the 084 number; others have removed the 084 altogether. In the course of my ringing round over the last couple of days, two have been persuaded to take further action to this end. When I referred to "making this list incorrect", I was thinking of that type of activity. The list is not being updated as changes occur; it reflects the extent of the problem at its worst.

My request for assistance was to cover any case where someone perhaps spots a local NHS body to whom they would be ready to make representations calling on them to comply with the Department of Health Directions, perhaps citing the greater cost which they personally incur when calling the 084 number. If anyone has the time, energy and enthusiasm to join me in addressing the list as a whole, then please get in touch by email or PM.

Mid Essex Hospitals has been a success for which we can all take credit. There are many others which have succumbed to (or been informed by) the mass of public pressure on this issue. The DH Directions have only served to formalise the point, they have served little purpose on their own.

Once the 21 December deadline has passed, and all have returned from the holiday, a much cleaner situation with NHS bodies will make it easier to put pressure on the GPs during the three months up to their deadline. Demonstrating the number of NHS bodies that have ceased to rely on 084 numbers will also help to show that change is necessary.


I am well aware that this is an open discussion forum; it is not a place for campaigning tub-thumping, or for detailed coverage of campaigning efforts and tactics. My comments here, and previously, are therefore (strictly speaking) out of order. I was struck by what seemed to me to be a wholly inappropriate and disproportionate response to what Mid Essex Hospitals had done, and sought to re-focus attention on the issue of substance. I hope I made my point fairly, although there was an explicit statement of disagreement with other contributors and suggestion of alternative action. These were however expressed in a tone that could reasonably be understood to be personal criticism and a call for action by particular individuals, rather than general comment. For that I apologise.

Listeners to Radio Essex may be disappointed at the fact that Simon Burns failed to address the issue of the telephone numbers as expected and requested.

Feedback is invited on 01245 495050.