lots of good humor in this thread - trouble is I bet when we hear it coming out of Jeremy Hunt's it will haunt us....well, untill the EMW kicks in....
"free indemnity as a partner"? now there's someone who didn't grasp what their accountant was telling them :)
Dr Annonymous seems to be fair and transparent in his billing as a locum and quite right practices chose most appropriate individual (with right indemnity paid for) - point being locums ahead of game....
Err - aren't locums just passing on their increased costs in their bills anyway? : can't see why they'd bill extra to get a share of this "new" money... but can easily see the internal arguements about how it is disbursed once received.... assuming (as its not carr-hill'ed) it won't be so-many pence on the baseline...
As capita have demonstrated they don't read emails and can't organise sending communication (records) to a limited number of addresses - there is no way this will work and if they tried - well the mess would be unimaginable. Don't worry about writing to the ICO - I know they read pulse because they wrang up to ask me what was wrong with capita's info governance : when expressed relief that they had vountarilly shopped themselves - he told me he got my name from here.....
Better the devil you know :)
funny....except I'm not sure the locum fee would make up for his potential lost profits :)
Barking system - with the 26 records CORRECT record I received last week, I also received 2 dead patient (one of which for another surgery in town) and 2 very live patients but unfortunately never had any links with the local area at all and registered with practices far away.... and yes, one for a patient actually registered at another local practice. Well the bar coded lablels on the envelopes were all for us so something definitely isn't right....
Good points made as we are vaccinating more and more people but the demographic is growing faster - extra capacity is needed as is close working between both disciplines: after all we are considerably outnumbered!
What 'sucks' is the inefficiency/extra workload by short-sighted commissioning where mandatory general call and recall is only recompensed by those we administer plus putting burden on to practices to record (with no fee) so that immform is updated (with more time pressure than the QoF admin!) – I have to say this last flu season was VERY hard work.
Would also be useful to know “why” someone thought a patient eligible (not casting aspersions but would be nice to know, say, we are ‘missing’ a consultant letter that someone’s started chemo/DMARD or told the pharmacist they are now a carer…..)
Well - whether you sent the "test" record or not - the only game in town for records in North Somerset is a courier with no ID, picking up sealed bags with no external tracking and throwing it into a van where he's not entirely sure of the end destination. Oh, and he doesn't turn up on the day the portal says so who do you trust?
...and when might we get some records if some surgeries aren't willing to "trust" Capita (perhaps unsurpisingly with whats been demonstrated so far?) - I'm not surprised NHS software doesn't work : the lack of any leadership just shows the contenpt primary care is held in.
CQC fees are just the tip of the stealth tax - Give that it looks like (from the new website) that Capita are going to charge 'someone' £15.66 for a box of FP10's I'd say Capita might look CQC quite benign!!!
Tried this in little old Weston-super-Mare 10 odd years ago for a fraction of the investment (local GP led initiative purely as recruitment of GP's was so hard in area) they didn't stay long... hasn't solved problem either, which as you'd imagine has just got worse. Doomed to repeat?
Our CCG has gone even further and asked if GP's wouldn't mind volunteering to work tomorrow in our local hospital's MAU (asked at 4.15pm....)
Printing & putting my latest strike support posters now :)
I'd say the pharmacist/GP arguing is a sideshow - real problem is punters don't want to see either of us and to drag it all out over a longer period -which isn't efficient for any of us!
Yep a shambles....
Question for the pharmacists - how many of these people we can't see as being in a risk group are carers? They've told you but they haven't been directed to tell us perhaps????
I feel sorry for Mr Hunt that on his watch the complete fragmentation of the NHS, the disappearance of much of social care and reliance on charity and goodwill of much of primary care to hold things together is now coming very sharpley in to focus.
All I can say is how lucky his father was to have his family around to help at his time of crisis
I'm afraid I think there's more chance that HSCIC won't be able to make the IT work by April *16* than the GPC actually acheiving anything at this late date.
UK dataprotection principles :
"Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed." or you could just ask for the kitchen sink and hide it and hope no one noticed....
So glad that we reported problems to CQC re GPPS005 on 17th November - reassured that they would respond in 10 days - Hadn't realised they really meant we could read about it in Pulse after 15....
Oh goody, another DES to be implemented at short notice for political expediency, with inevitable bureaucracy, confusing patients and practices, finding that actually the worried well with flu won’t get a visit anyway while the one’s that are visited will be complex and possibly very ill.
How will this be funded [‘rob Peter to pay Paul’? presumably at unlimited liability to the “list” practice?]. And think on with £80 or £90 payments, though that would make it very attractive to the OOH providers, think of the impact that will have on any remaining GP recruitment possibility!
Probably work very well of NHS, of course with a byzantine process and NHSE AT driving a coach and horses through any “spirit” and twisting wordings to suit their world view – I’d expect claims to be routinely denied on some pretext. With flu season aproaching and current deluge of changes still bedding in – umm, I’d advocate considering it again in April 15 as the best way of managing risk to stability of the practice.
A Capitation formula which works on the assumption that some people will use a GP's services less often than others, would seem to be totally undermined by deliberately trying to remove those who don't see their GP very often/aren't good at keeping their records up to date : perhaps NHSE would rather move to paying GP's on what they actually do instead? I rather think they'd find a truer cost..... then tell us we are seeing patients too often!!!