‘Oh Nikita you will never know, anything about ...’
There must be many a village idiot that’s less gormless!
’The evidence available suggests that the Global Sum Allocation Formula may not work well in establishing the costs of providing GP services for patients......’ etc
Oops! You didn’t mean to admit that the ‘Global Sum Allocation Formula’ is just a scam anyway!
‘EDITORS PICK’ - why? (maybe warped sense of humour)
Hopelessly delusional (and not poetic) repetitive rambling from ‘Acting Director for Primary Care for NHSE’.
We can’t sink any lower! - Oh yes we can!
The Judge left the Court, looking deeply disgusted:
But the Snark, though a little aghast,
As the lawyer to whom the defense was entrusted,
Went bellowing on to the last.
Insightful and witty.
Also reminds me of the (presumably apocryphal) story about the patients’ chair with shorter front legs and a shiny seat.
And another (presumably apocryphal) story about ‘focus’.
There have been many reports over the years of the BMA’s continued fine abilities with contracts (having failed at just about everything else). Have they finally lost their only remaining skill?
From above: (‘a contract that is open to unilateral alteration (see Clause 80)is beyond me.’)
- beyond me as well - must be ‘Contract Law from a Parallel Universe’ as on this planet both parties have to mutually agree I.e. there can be no such activity as ‘unilateral alteration’ (which suggests ability for alterations against the other parties interests and without the other parties valid consent).
Turn out the lights | GP Partner/Principal13 May 2019 10:09pm
‘Nominate Determinisn’ is just a joke. He really isn’t just pulling it?
Great fallacious fun
And hasn’t he got a PPE from Oxbridge?
Well said Clarissa. And so true.
Why don’t you just take the medical profession in UK.
It’s yours. Nobody else wants it.
And the non-wafflers will just RLE.
@ 07 May 2019 4:21pm
Your suggestion does indeed seem reasonable and rational. However there has been a long standing belief (possibly incorrect), that trainees attached to non-members of RCGP trainers, are well known to the system/examiners and are discriminated against in clinical assessments. It’s possible that the statistics might be skewed from the get-go?
'We've listened, we've acted, now you whist and deliver’, mumbled Dr Dick Turpin to his captivated audience?
Matt the App and his idiot mate from the Tax Payers Alliance could both be 100% replaced by automation and they’d still be more trouble than they are worth.
And their wishes came to pass (again).
Why don’t they just go to medical school?
(the predictive widget thingy wrote this)
‘We are therefore glad that the Government is finally starting to listen to organisations like ourselves’???
sceptic | GP Partner/Principal26 Apr 2019 11:57am
You maybe right (I particularly dislike our notorious professional squabbling).
However I firmly doubt that the CQC quislings have either the insight or motivation for such a sinister plan and suspect that they themselves are flapping about in dark of their own insecurities and moral imbecility.
I don't consider this article to be legally correct.
The'Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562, also known as the ‘Snail in the Bottle case’ is rarely mentioned in medico-legal cases, as it is about when to predict a duty of care when it is NOT OBVIOUS to all or some-such (in this case no contract with the end-user).
In medical practice, the practitioner always has a 'duty of care' to their patient by definition.
Possibly extending that 'duty of care' to the patients relatives/'neighbours' might entail the case discussed above?
‘NHS England declined to comment.’
Is that a metaphor for ‘Don’t know, Don’t care’?
So resources are tight, so lets build one of those 'cargo plane runways' with CQC, PCN, Appraisal and Revalidation and suchlike and keep everybody to busy to notice the shortfall while they are scrambling about in the mud wasting even more resources.
Well it's working - so far?