That they have felt the need to respond shows that they are nervous. Well done.
If you ask people who have signed up for telephone consultations, and you are clearly a telephone consultation organisation you have a biased sample. Why would you expect and unbiased result?
The problem here is the misleading headline. 'Perhaps telephone company gets free publicity.' Might be more accurate?
There is a problem with the stats, but that doesn't excuse the attitudes demonstrated above.
There are satirical seventies tv shows with less stereotypes.
Still it is a 'discrete' identifiable programme, run by a non-nhs 'consortium' so it may be needing non-execs retired from the civil service to sit on the board, on not at all inflated packages.
And the evidence for this being effective prevention....
...follow up of less than 3 years since the programme started, less still since recruitment started...
Doctors and other staff in these practices have had to work extra hard to try to stop them from falling apart for many years. The practices have been through PCT, then 2 lots of APMS with only small attempts by those responsible to invest the time and money needed to make these rundown practices better.
The level of investment needed to bring these practices back is much less than would be needed to encourage a corporate investor.
Recruitment is an issue here, but in a city with a medical school and a GP scheme, there are GPs if the terms are right.
The concern is that if the lists are dispersed that there will be a net loss of investment into primary care. These deprived practices in poor parts of a deprived city need investment from the commissioners. It is needed to make them into attractive places to work for GPs and other staff.
what was the equality and diversity assessment on this?
Did they include anyone without digital access? or with language needs? or possibly some of the young people with learning difficulties? what about those with physical health issues? maybe some BAME children? the occasional LGBT person?
what? none of the groups most at risk?
I'll definitely be following this advice then
This is not new evidence. It has been collated to demonstrate that the 'big is best' policy is not self evident and may be wrong.
It is in everyone's interest to look carefully at the report to learn how the dys-economies of scale work. Especially those who are already trying to cope with spiralling costs in big practices and practice groups.
Previous attempts , eg Wales, and NPfIT, at 'preferred suppliers' have resulted in the sensible candidates not taking part due to their unwillingness to comply with some odd specifications.
Those who agreed to the spec were unable to provide any acceptable product, but were preferred? anyway.
Capita's response to me after an SAR was 'we are just data processors'. I passed that one on to the ICO too. The ICO will be inundated if they don't deal with the complaints they are sent.
If it wasn't for 'b' the STP horse would would be already out of this stable.
The next lot of redisorganisation was supposed to have started 2 weeks ago. The intention to cut GPs/local involvement out, and to ensure that top down management was back in a big way.
Apparently the DoH/NHSE know best and we all need to be told what to do, such as use more apps. As long as that is ok with our sponsors CApita and Baby Lon/Babel on.
Is it to do with Capite/PCSE not being able to process requests for retirement due to incompetence?
another way to reduce the number of practices as a previous 'unnamed' correspondent on here was keen to do. It seems NHS England is still keen to close down general practice and replace it with something untried and probably much less efficient.
Can the MPTS be challenged in the courts?
The decision here seems to require a significant degree of collusion and deliberate abuse of power from two organisations whose responsibility is great, but whose reliability has been questioned repeatedly.
That they lack insight has been suggested, but is it more that they know what they are doing, and it is against their own rules, the rule of law and of natural justice.
They have demonstrated clearly that they have no legitimacy in a call to following rules, as they do not follow the rules they have set, or those set for them.
Either the organisations must be abolished, or at the least their current leadership must be removed to begin to reestablish any basic credibility.
The 'adding up' relates to paying hospital trusts, and 2ry care in general, whether or not they see patients. Trusts argue that the overheads remain and are increasing so allocate increasing proportions of their budget, leaving a smaller proportion for clinical services. They are then unable to replace staff, who can't see patients, so waiting lists increase.
The NHS commissions 2ry care to do less and less with more and more money, whilst claiming credit as they have moved services into the community, ie forced GPs to cope with more and more, on an ever smaller propotion of the budget.
If the piper payer calls the tune, who do these data officers work for?
Unusually I think that this could be good.
It will be useful to have a recording of the consultation. This can help to defend us from some of the wilder complaints and accusations.
The interpretation will be poor speech recognition to start with. The hope that is placed in AI is quite deluded, and demonstrates such a lack of awareness of the healthcare process that it suggests a high degree of contempt for what we do.
is it for with meals or between meals?
could the headline be a little different?
It should be something which explains where the blame lies...
GMC fails, Again!
GMC to do work it claimed to have done 20 years ago
GMC probity in question, again
GMC brings profession into disrepute
If any one is looking NHS England figures are to be found somewhere between game of thrones and lord of the rings in the fantasy fiction section of the library.
Its all right, following a SAR I sent to PCSE it seems they are only 'data processors' in relation to pensions and not 'data controllers'. As a result they don't have to respond to Subject access requests.
I did ask if they would refund the money that they have been paid for managing the pensions, but they didn't answer that one.
I have sent a complaint to PCSE, and intend to follow it up with the ICO after an appropriate timescale.