“The Government believes that digital access to GPs will aid early prevention and contribute to a reduction in premature deaths by tens of thousands.”
Evangelical fervour. Fine in church perhaps but rather hoped and expected the government would use more rigorous decision processes.
Btw, What IS “EARLY prevention”?
Fab word. (had to look it up😀)
This is not new. GPs have been managing their care homes with weekly visits and the like since I started in 1991 - and a long time before that as well. I was allocated ‘my’ care home in the first week as a partner! It would be nice to have the additional work recognised and funded as the difference is that General Practice is so much busier now than it was. A new care home in your patch is a threat rather than an opportunity, and not one that Babylon is about to help with!
Never mind “What do we know about the new Health Secretary” Try “What does he know about the NHS and GP?”
Such a lot to learn, so much mis-knowledge and assumption to be unlearned.
Shocked that Dr doesn’t have to be in U.K. to prescribe, or registered with GMC. Surely the law has to change.
Last week suddenly getting a flurry of notifications for patients seen in the last year by an online provider. Makes me think that online doctors should not only inform/seek info from registered GP but should also pay a fee to GP for admin work generated.
Is anyone surprised by this?
But they get fantastic family and friends approval ratings so they must be great!
Can't see what point in reviewing records by GPs- won't make missing data appear, just takes us away from our already overstretched and more immediately pressing clinical workload. Not that there is anyone else to help sort out the mess of course, even if TPP and EMIs were to fund a team of nurses and or doctors to do this work not sure where they would find them.
Agree Shaba, they have no idea. Medicine by numbers.
Fever, deterioration , tachycardia all trigger and of course they are switched off - older GPs like me sadly type AFTER examining & agreeing treatment plan. Just slows down getting the next patient in specially if you look at your fingers while typing! So hurrah! Maybe they'll switch these off. And stop trying to direct our attention in only one diagnostic direction.
"GPs must act"- I thought we already had, by highlighting the appalling lack of mental health services.
"...should not be established as an approval process’ and the ‘referring GP retains responsibility for the patient and makes the final decision"
Well in that case, my original referral decision will stand.
But round here the central referral service is most definitely an approval process and no option but to follow 'advice'
Must check whose indemnity is responsible.
Are the pharmacists independent prescribers with their own indemnity or are the two salaried GPs expected to sign off everything they do?
At least it's done by GPs. Ours is nurse run. Slavish adherence to guidelines and (mainly) funding criteria. Recent delay to hysteroscopy and diagnosis/treatment of endometrial hyperplasia because insisted on GP arranged ultrasound before gynae referral. No hip/ knee opinions without a really bad Oxford score. Not to mention ridiculous appointment booking for those that do get through whereby 50% are told they are too early or too late to book an appointment or that there aren't any appointments and they should- you guessed it- go back to their GP.
But soon there won't be any independent thinking GPs left and all will be run by noctors with a computer algorithm. That will sort out all those 'variations'
Much cheaper for NHS England to allocate patients to surrounding practices who are no doubt already under strain but aren't allowed to refuse. Their existing patients will suffer when the GP is consistently unavailable due to doing visits in Redcar or excess appointments trying to sort out patients who haven't had routine care for a year! And whose fault will it be???? Oh yes the GPs of course.
Does anyone else object to using the word "breathless" as a noun/diagnosis? Up there with "overweight" as my current pet hates.
Perhaps a co-morbidity clinic should be set up for those with breathless secondary to overweight.
Perhaps NHSE should have their own insurance for when GPs and maybe even GMC (I know, that's a pipe dream) start passing litigation blame to them on the grounds that they have not limited GP list size to safe manageable levels or allowed temporary list closures when recruitment and patient numbers make individual practices' workload potentially unsafe.
Horrendous . Very frightening work. And this is the way in-hours care will go too, with 'new ways of working'- small numbers of GPs will be remotely supervising, prescribing for and taking on the risk for various others- nurses, paramedics, physician assistants, pharmacists etc. all with a certain amount of knowledge and experience but working to algorithms or narrow areas of expertise and missing details through lack of clinical acumen and breadth of knowledge. Already general practice has become disjointed by multiple chronic disease management clinics - not without benefits, granted, but increasing amounts of GP time spent responding to requests for prescriptions that are usually but not universally appropriate. I trust my own history taking and examination, and I know the capabilities of my close colleagues that I supervise. There is no way I would want to take on the risk of supervising others on anything near the scale described above, particularly remotely, that I do not work with closely and know well. Indemnity costs are quite rightly high - the risks are astronomical.
I object to NHSE or anyone else describing closures as "sudden". This happened in our area too, they have 6 months notice, and do nothing til the last month when they are scrabbling around summoning us out of surgery for urgent meetings before allocating patients between surrounding practices for a nominal sum that barely covered postage to inform patients of the arrangement. Certainly nowhere near £25 per patient as quoted here. ( which I cannot imagine will ever be repeated elsewhere) Although that may seem generous It won't help much if you can't recruit locums or partners to help with the work. Unless you find three full time GPs who are willing to look after 2000 patients a piece for 50K. Never mind nurses and admin staff and space! And then they wonder why it's difficult to get a routine GP appointment. This is another cut by subterfuge, where NHSE rub their hands in glee as they see another practice going under and know that they can allocate those patients to neighbouring practices,who are unable to refuse, at minimum cost.
Ever heard of dominoes?