the digital 'consultation' made clear that obstacles will be cleared to make this loss making clinically unsafe service the new normal.
The investors and employees of this organisation are buying their way through the safety legislation with borrowed money.
They feel that a blank cheque is waiting at the end of their development phase.
That might be that they relocate to another country once the guinea pigs have all been stuffed, and thrown on the tip.
In other news, the SPAD DC is in no way influenced by his role in this organisation.
There seems to be a significant degree of cognitive dissonance involved above. There seems to be belief that Einstein was wrong and doing the same thing again will somehow produce a different result.
If you genuinely want a 'small state' then you probably need to consider what job you are going to do. Medicine at the levels we have in the UK will not continue.
But then you guys are special and will be the chosen few?
I find it heartbreaking that people are so cynical as to deny the needs of the poor and unwell just in case someone might be getting a pittance in benefits incorrectly.
No one who is on benefits feels that they are well off, anyone who wants to live on them is someone with too many problems to begin to understand.
Why is it so hard to support the poor and sick?
The article suggests that the system is generating work unnecessarily for no-one's benefit, and simply to harm many of the poorest and most vulnerable.
On a separate point, the biggest group of people dependant on state handouts, who receive the most money, have no checks on eligibility.
...so if health care inflation is actually closer to 15 % than 7%, it will only be a really big drop in funding instead of a massive one...
Was this announcement made by the same NHS England which reminded all NHS organisations that they should
'consider that public announcements of policy and strategy which may be politically sensitive should not be made during the pre-election period.'
As their remit does not include clinical quality what is the rule which they use to permit this kind of action?
The first two practices have been under the care of the PCT before the existence of CCGs. The CWP is a mental health and community NHS trust, so whilst it runs some inpatient facilities it is mostly about mental health care.
Having had a practice contract returned the commissioner is required to tender for a new provider before awarding such a contract. It would seem that this process has been quite brief and quiet?
Is it possible to prove that 'guidelines' improve patient survival?
Has the question been asked or answered?
Visiting a hospital in another corner of the world there was in the doctor's office a drawer filled with pills. All the colours of the rainbow, old new, certainly not stored in optimum conditions. These could be searched through to find one suitable for the current patient.
I don't know that the available pill informed the diagnosis, 'this week we will have epilepsy as we have antiepilleptics'; 'This week we are seeing a lot of hayfever as we have antihistamines'.
Important subject, might have been more GP focused in this publication.
In particular the point that we GPs don't get the information in time to act on it!
Also that many GPs around 50 may be subject to this even if not over the £110000 if the growth in the pension fund has been 'estimated' to be to high. This can happen if Capita fail to deposit a change in payments in the correct year!
Have NWIS identified the problems with their procurement which resulted in excluding the most qualified products?
Do they realise that these are problems, or are they framing them as opportunities?
opportunity 1 to stimulate the market
opportunity 2 to encourage innovation
opportunity 3 to break general practice by enforcing a massive unnecessary change on an industry with no financial flexibility
IT company 'optimistic' about its abilities, successful in winning contract, but struggling(unable) to deliver on time(at all).
Now where have we heard that story before...
The consultation is designed to produce the answers they want, with negatively phrased questions with yes no responses required!
The fact that they have no idea what primary care is doesn't seem to be preventing them from destroying it.
..of course now that the NHS owns the computers they all work perfectly...
Is your practice population really so small that 200 'early adopters' were making enough trouble that workload changed with an app?
The workload change identified in relation to these apps is real, but no-one is making any attempt to put any real understanding into the changes. What academic is going to waste their reputation when the commissioners of their research have already decided that 'Patients love it..' based on a skewed sample?
It is fun to play with toys. They only stop being toys and become tools once they are properly understood and applied in a rational manner. Call it science, or if that is out of fashion common sense.
...of course all the evidence could be wrong...
Is a cheerleading certificate a requirement for applicants for these posts?
How do the pom poms not interfere with wifi access?
It's true that a lot has been achieved, and we do need to remember that, but 'this plan is the only plan, and there is no other plan' suggests that 1984 wasn't high on the reading list.
Despite siphoning cash out of the NHS the babylon model does not seem to be making enough money to make a profit.
It is not sustainable, but that is not the point.
Massive paycut offered as solution to pension problem
..and no-one is keen. I wonder why not?
Headline should read;
"...flexible pensions are a paycut for doctors"