Only one Copperfield but a large team of writers. This one is my second favourite.
He'll be delighted with the colonoscopy referral. "Been to the doctor" is the new talking about the weather.
He'll be the centre of attention in the queue at Greggs.
They probably weren't born at the time of the miners' strike.
n a bid to create a safer, more effective healthcare environment, over 76% of Essex practices surveyed said that they would consider limiting the number of patient contacts, the LMC said
A loaded question, if ever I've seen one.
31% of respondents (no mention of how many responded to the survey) "considering" something is hardly worth mentioning.
Oh God, I'm becoming one of the obsessive ex GPs who comment here.
This comment has been removed by the moderator.
John Glasspool, of course GPs shouldn't be ordered how to arrange appointments. But if you do block a few, to accommodate demand, it hardly makes you a scab.
The juniors' strike takes into account that GPs, consultants and nurses will make arrangements to provide an adequate service.
HMRC engages debt collection agencies abroad, as anybody with half a brain knows. And UK Banks exchange information on bad debts with banks in Europe, North America, Australia, NZ. You'll pay it all and a big dollop on top.
1.40, How does working abroad remove one's student debt? Do you seriously think that moving to Australia or Canada means a doctor won't be pursued for their debts?
(Apologies if multiple posts emerge, I'm told that mine haven't sent but that's often not the case here)
Anonymous, 1.26 pm, if you read the whole article, it was amended to 3 years, with an option for 1 year of study outside of the practice and the removal of the onerous requirement to alternate among practices.
Yes, it still didn't appeal, and that's fair enough, but may I suggest that you read beyond the first paragraph before you comment in future.
The FOI response further revealed that the scheme was ‘amended and re-launched in May 2015’ to reduce the time applicants needed to spend in Hull to three years, give more flexibility in terms of sessions worked and scrap the idea of rotation between practices.
Yes, the original scheme was very unattractive, the amended one less so.
PS. I'm only referring to other GI causes of the symptoms under investigation, of course.
Professor Fraser, thank you- your summary and explanation is extremely clear and helpful, particularly in regard to the negative predictive value of the test.
Please clarify - when you say that " a negative FIT result means that GPs can give reassurance that significant disease is not present and colonoscopy is not required", I assume you're referring to colorectal cancer only?
I'm asking the question genuinely, rather than challenging what you say.
My concern is that sometimes we (GPs) can wrongly decide that a test that excludes one pathology in a symptomatic patient results in us disregarding alternative, non-cancaerous but still serious, pathology.
That's a pity. The scheme, as described in the article, actually sounds attractive and well thought out. A decent Masters degree costs at least £15000 and to be given the opportunity to do it for free and with PCT support would suit young GPs who want to diversify. Fairly or not, the perceived unattractiveness of the location probably played a part.
I realise that this debate is about about a point of principle, rather than a realistic action but still... it's a bit of a non starter, given the cash flow of most GP practices and the private GP market outside of central London.
There's also the question of where you would practice, for a lot of GP's.
Dr Bennet thinks that it has worked and it's unfair to tease him about his misinterpretation of both the idea and the evidence.
He needs to pretend that it's a success, for the sake of his ego and to persuade his friends to continue over-paying for a failing service.
Where's the statistic that shows that "almost one third of adults have tried e-cigarettes"?
Peter Swinyard, I may be missing something but I don't think "continuity of care" equates to seeing different doctors ( with a different agenda) in the same building.
To qualify my last comment- your work relevant to general practice does NOT have to be in the UK to enable you to stay on the performers list.
It certainly seems that you were incorrectly advised.
I left my practice in UK earlier this year but , before doing so, looked up the GMC guidance and asked for advice from the local LMC.
You stay on the GMC register as long as you pay, have annual appraisals and undergo revalidation at required time.
The performers' list and appraisal are the contentious parts. There is no requirement to practice in the UK during an appraisal year in order to stay on the performers' list, although you are expected to demonstrate that you have done some work in, or directly relevant to, general practice during that time.
If you can do that and pass your appraisal, there are no grounds to remove you from the performers list.