it would “not be credible” for him to sit as an independent'.
does any more need saying?
Interesting to see that Baby-Lon have put their 'medical' director up to speak.
It is often that role which is left holding the responsibility when the other directors are ....
It does seem that not only does he not understand the health service, but that he has no understanding of required standards of public life, or even of the subtleties of politics.
It is almost as if he is the son the family didn't want in the family business so put in to a bought parliamentary seat 'to keep him out of mischief'. Unfortunately any one with any talent in the ruling party seems to be keeping their head down (I'm sure there must be some...)
Hairdressing salons across the country are closing down. The Hairdressers are being forced out of business by a new technology combined with a bigger is best mantra.
Economies of scale mean that in a large chain of hairdressers only one administrator can track all the qualifications of the stylists, book all the appointments and make tea and sweep up in all the salons across the whole country.
At the same time Hairdresser at hand and Barberon are competing to develop a new paradigm in coiffure. The online barbarism apps allow the young, fit, and hirsute to have their own selection of cranial topiary, martini style.
Traditional barbers and stylists in quaint back street chop shops are being outpaced by this disruptive technology. Ed the scissors said " young people will miss us when we're gone the knowledge we have of which way their parting goes is indispensable."
Spokesperson for Barberon states that 85% of hair dos can be done online. He seriously intends to sell his stake in the business for several million. He has advised his investors in a clear regulatory statement that 'there is absolutely no way you will make any money from this in your lifetime. Look we can only pay the day to day bills by stealing the cash from the cafe next door, and trading barber poles on the second hand market.'
Hairdressing regulators and trades descriptions officers have been accused of taking bribes. They have repeatedly stated that online haircutting is a matter for the clients and that if the national hairdressing budget is all syphoned off to panama it will not have been their fault.
Wicileeks was unable to cover the story due to current legal difficulties. Private eye did a 16 page spread, attracting the disbelief of hundreds of political watchers, but who forgot about it after their next editorial meeting.
Oh no you made me look...
The authors seem to have assumed that drugs issued caused no harm!
They didn't identify harms relating to drugs
which were changed.
...or any of the multiple reasons why senna, morphine, zopiclone, paracetamol, and oxycodone should not have been recommended by anyone in the first place..
I would call for a follow up piece where they look at how many of these recommendations were actually contraindicated based on the comprehensive (well it can be/used to be) lifelong primary care record.
I hope this statistic is not an example of believing your own hype.
The paid for opinion piece submitted to the ccg to justify expansion by this organisation was not an effective smokescreen. It merely stated its assertions as above, then justified them by saying that some people (slightly more than 5) on facebook gave positive reviews.
If you want to make up stats, at least make them believable!
It might be a good idea to take any pay off early. The chance of share options being of value is limited. Perhaps if there is a buyout?
Might be worth not burning too many bridges..
The influence of a sales rep lasts as long as there is a 'mark' who wants what is being sold. The 'Hancock' is and ideal mark, deluded and in need of shiny wares to 'impress' others.
His civil servants are happy to support the 'rep' at present, as he serves their purposes; to depower the medical profession and ensure that they are in charge. Unfortunately they don't quite realise that without the medical profession there is no health service to be in charge of.
the report says that they could use the service, in the opinion of the writer, who was paid by GP at hand to say that the homeless could use the service. So that is alright then.
Is there a diversity breakdown of cqc inspectors, non clinical and clinical?
I'm sure that the headline is not justified by the content of the connected paper. The paper takes eds2 criteria and then does a literature review of all the difficulties people with these characteristics have in accessing 'standard' GP practices.
These are balanced with the author's opinion that the app 'does'nt have this problem'. The only actual evidence is that there are 23 LD patients registered out of ?several thousand! and several 5 star reviews on facebook!
Maybe there is another paper, but the one linked above is a paid for opinion piece in the style 'I like monster munch because they are cheesy and smiley and taste great'.
whatever they do it probably isn't general practice
important point re adverts! 'a highly selective digital based organisation' is trying to take on 'a locally based, intimately connected organisation' in a competition to drive primary care (previously general practice) into bankruptcy taking the NHS with it.
It would be useful to publicize the impact assessment describing how you ensure that disadvantaged groups are not further discriminated against by this new service.
There are many who feel that this analysis demonstrates that introducing this service is unethical. If your analysis has a different answer please share it so that we can all learn.
The results of your pilot study should really be published to ensure that there is no unconscious bias in your interpretation of the results. For example How did the patients unable to use econsult fare? Did they feel that access was improved by this service? Was it easier for a homeless person to use than traditional General Practice?
What were the satisfaction scores of patients who never contacted the practice? What was the awareness of patients regularly using services like?
If you could let us see the analysis it would allay the fears of many specialist primary care consultants with many years experience who are a little skeptical at times about this particular 'new' technology.
of course with all the extra diagnostic tests they already do in hospital that must mean they treat less people with antibiotics empirically? Is this what is found when it has been measured?..... oh you didn't measure that yet, .....and actually after all the tests they still treat too many
Is it asking too much that you think for a few seconds before trumpeting your master's latest distraction?
The history of UK General Practice has been one of innovation and development especially in IT. It has worked much more effectively in the UK because it has been championed by small independent businesses. These have had an incentive to make and then evolve systems which actually work.
At the time in the 90s, development has seemed slow, but the electronic records in general practice are patient centred in a way the the fortune spent on the NHS IT project never could. Even now 20-30 years later hospital IT is a long way behind.
This announcement is nothing of the sort. The ability to access appointments on line is already in place. The aim of this announcement is therefore not to inform the public about its existence.
What is the reason? Could it be to have a 'good news' story to help celebrate 70 years of the NHS. 70+ years of opposition to publicly funded accessible equity driven health care delivery from the conservative party and from money/profit driven individuals.
Government ministers are responsible to the crown and to the people. They are not supposed to be responsible to a small group of wealthy companies, and individuals. Those elected representatives may claim accountability, but the upper chamber is supposed to champion experience, and wisdom.
Unscepted, these were the APMS practices, they still couldn't make it work.
2-3 % of Livepool population so may not cause too much of a domino effect yet.
If econsultation is so great just give the money to practices and because e consultation is so great they will buy it.
What, you don't think they will?
You think they might have several hundred more pressing, and effective things to do before econsultation comes anywhere near to being the answer, yes that right that's what everyone else thinks too!
ACO is a lie boldly stated.
Accountability requires transparency and openness.
Caring is expensive and we have and efficient system which has been driven to destruction.
Taking funds out for increased 'administration' and 'share holders' reduces cost efficiency.
This arrangement in rail has been shown to be a poor deal for the people, and for taxpayers. The disorganization of rail franchises clearly demonstrates the failure of this model. Strangely they involve the same companies too!
The investment may have flowed out of NHS Engand, but it has not gone to General Practice. It may have gone to the companies whose lobbying secured the funding. Those handy management consultants who set up the schemes outlined in the 5yfv.
Still as long as their shareholders are happy we are all happy as our pensions are invested with them... what... they aren't?