What a con
There are some excellent and not-so-good locums around just like partners. Let us not criticise each other. Some locums choose to work in this way. However, increasing numbers are seeing it as a way out of the demands and liabilities of partnership. If NHSE wants to stop the dominoes of collapsing practices, it needs to make joining a practice more attractive.
The process of challenging "dumping" is itself time-consuming. This has been tried by GPs in our area but with no improvement. GPs essentially work to a block-contract with no safeguards to prevent it.
We are told that remote technology "saves" time and money but I have yet to see any evidence for this based upon rigorous trials. Once benefits fail to materialise, many of these schemes are quietly shut down. Anyone remember the ill-fated remote monitoring DES?
"New guidelines will advise CCGs on the commissioning of medicines generally assessed as low priority and will provide support to clinical commissioning groups, prescribers and dispensers."
I can't help fail to notice that CCGs, and therefore GPs, will be the ones to do the dirty work.
Will the drugs be blacklisted (removed from FP10) or will GPs be made to say "no" to patients? I suspect the letter will occur.
Make the profession attractive. No one will want to leave. Simple. I don't see too many doctors from USA, Canada or Australia rushing to work here.
Dr Sharma deserves the utmost respect for his remarkable achievement. Sadly, I doubt he will get it from NHSE as they would have been hoping that the practice would collapse and the list could be dispersed, thereby saving the premises cost.
I'm surprised this wasn't a fee that we have to apply to have reimbursed similar to CQC, water and business rates.
In the 1990s, we had evidence-based medicine.
In the 2000s, we had finance-based medicine.
Now we are in the grip of politics-based medicine.
Make the job attractive and there will be no shortage of applicants.
I suspect that this money comes with strings attached and a cumbersome application process. It would be helpful if one of the practices involved could share their experience.
One advantage of this is that practices are not responsible for managing the contract of these staff. This is especially useful in cases of under-performance or lack of productivity/usefulness
"NHS England recognises general practice is under significant strain, it was also receiving investment – particularly in new workforce - and ‘therefore it’s reasonable to expect, on the back of that, improved access’."
What investment in workforce - Paramedics and pharmacists? But Simon Stevens only mentions access to GPs will be published. Access to paramedics and pharmacists has improved but not GPs.
Hubs staffed by non-GP clinicians will not divert demand from practices. Once patients realise that they cannot get what they want i.e medical certificates, referrals, a proper medical opinion etc. they will not re-attend there. After a few years, we will be talking about the hubs in the same way as walk-in-centres. Any demand that is diverted will simply be the minor illness that would normally not take too long anyway. Patients will also be asked to go back to their own GP and "ask for a referral", thereby creating more work.
I won't be practising in 20 years to find out. We may have hand-held MRI scanners but dermatology waits will still be months.