What a con
GP is a Ponzi scheme reliant upon new people to keep buying into it. Well they no longer are, hence the implosion. Who’d have thunk it, eh?
However, I’m sure there is good evidence for poor mental health in GPs due to QoF.
So no actual details then, only more “reviews”.
I am amazed that this is a problem. Practices are collapsing due to lack of GPs and we are being criticised for lack of a male GP? I would not cow down to such bullying. I would rather be shut down. This is the only country that allows this idiocy.
Spot on David. Consecutive governments have introduced policies to make partnerships unattractive: pensions for locums, compulsory BMA contract for salaried GPs at GMS practices but not APMS, CQC, etc. This announcement is just to appease the profession. The aim is to force mergers into larger units in preparation for ACOs. How else can you get rid of partnerships which are hugely efficient and popular?
Locum GP|25 Apr 2018 8:12pm
"What will happen if GP do nothing and just ignore the warning? (on back ground of general good clinical work). Answer is "NOTHING will happen". Hence middle finger up. "
The CQC check if alerts have been actioned. Alerts cannot be ignored.
I sent back the confirmation slip but still got a second letter stating that I had not. I then sent another email reply. I wonder how many of the 2000 GPs have actually done the work but did not persist in ensuring that NHSE got the confirmation?
I have received some consultation summaries which are 9 pages long and end with an antibiotic script. The presenting complaint? Sore throat/cough.
I wish someone would compare satisfaction rates for GMS and APMS.
My advice to the cherubs is to avoid doing general practice in this country and to try Australia or Canada
You miss the point. We are doctors not social workers. The more we do this sort of thing, the more we’ll be shafted.
Spot on Pradeep.
Unlikely to ever happen. Allowing GPs to charge will eventually lead to financial independence from the NHS. The DoH will then be less able to control GPs. In any other sector, it would be classified as "restraint of trade". For some reason, it doesn't apply to GPs.
Surprised? Patients want to see proper doctors who can actually deal with their problems, not pharmacists, paramedics and "advanced" nurse practitioners who deal with trivia and then create work for the existing GPs. Strange how NHSE wants GPs to employ the noctors and take clinical and contractual responsibility for them. In our practice we just employ locums using the same amount of money. Patients are happier and no need to manage yet another employee. Try it. It works.
If all letters and reports are handled by a single GP, how will the other GPs learn this side of the job? How will they get feedback on their referrals? This is all part of the learning process. Also god help this one GP. Must be really boring.
Not as good as U1283: Bitten or struck by alligator in a sports or athletic area
Can anyone beat that?
Agree with Joe. There will be a complex bid-writing process. No doubt there will be a verification process followed by claw-back of money if arbitrary targets are not hit. Also where will the extra appointments come from - Locum colleagues? Pharmacists?
Great, but err.. there may not be many GPs left to work in the new buildings by then.
Quite correct Pradeep. What about imdemnity and who will hold their contracts? If they are employed by the CCG or local hospital, then fine. However, experience shows that GPs will be expected to manage the contract and the associated risks.