it is an interesting list of achievements, but demonstrates what little respect they have for General Practice or for statistics.
Whilst there may be 3900 FTE other practitioners how many less Nurses and Doctors are there?
Whilst there are 2100 staff who have done the 1 hour 'care navigator' course to do what they were already doing is that course of benefit to anyone?
And these same staff now look at letters? well who was it opening the post before?
2100 practices 'benefitted' from resilience funding. £100 for a group of 4-5 practices to hold a meeting is very beneficial, but unlikely to turn the tide of the 'hostile environment' flowing daily from DoH to NHS E to CCG to practices.
mixed feedback = trying to think of something positive to say about this.
They are all nice ideas, and there may be something that a practice can get from the whole package, if it has enough funding to 'play' with how the ideas work in practice.
That is the problem, the funding is dependent on using these ideas, and often goes to the management consultant advising NHS England and not to the practice doing the work.
Perhaps if federations want to do something to bring this money back to general practice they could set up as management consultants so that NHS England can give them the 'money for primary care' and it can be put in to practices!
The business modelling around this needs aspects from Babylon, but also demands a review of business planning from other affected practices, from affected commissioners of 1ry care, providers and commissioners of community services, and from the NHS as a whole.
Whilst this organisation may be loss-funding this program for 'data gathering' or 'market busting', contingencies need to be built to prevent an evermore predatory approach to the UK treasury. At present it seems that the break point is the Health dept as even 'NHS' funding seems unable to use its structures to regulate funding to organisations set up with a predatory manner. The structures seem to be effective only for 'traditional' organisations, or 'gentlemanly conduct'.
the promise of resources in return for more work based on a gimic
this is how the world is being run at present
does this mean that previous reviews were 'not very serious'?
Why has the GMC though it not 'very serious' until now?
There are quite a few differences between the industries given above and healthcare. Many of those differences are relevant to the discussion. I agree we will see much more of this.
Not least from those who do not understand how ill health affects people who never have their photograph taken, do not use barrels, and even manage without socks.
'bid' for 'grants' so no money actually being delivered then
Perhaps the school based educational psychology service would be ideally placed to manage this. If they did the screening tests on all children, instead of waiting until parents reported 'issues' then the pick up rate would increase dramatically.
Of course you would need a lot more psychologists, and a lot more LD 2ry care, and a lot more drugs, and 'austerity' is far more important than lives. So it's not going to happen.
CJ: I didn't get where I am today by not being able to say one thing and do another convincingly
It would be expected to have more strokes in the at risk group, but studies in patients with a wide variety of conditions need to be done to balance the unthinking protocol driven increase in anticoagulation.
'i've not met anyone who wants it closed'
She should perhaps talk to the CCG, NHS England, the DoH, and Mr Hunt.
oh for the diagnostic certainty of hindsight; it turned out to have been bronchiolitis, so that prescription for possible sepsis or pneumonia was obviously wrong. Why did you follow that wheezy baby pathway and not this ill baby pathway, both have tachypnoea as key symptoms, but in retrospect and guideline club there is never any overlap.
When the evidence reflects the actual situation and not some imaginary ideal world than it might influence practice.
of course if investment in staff and other resources was 'following the patient'.. ie 'more work, more pay' then it would be less of a problem (although there is still the issue of nobody left to do the work due to loss of staff following years of persecution, lack of trust and abuse)
is it just a coincidence that my friend over here at 'keep paying more guv' is a seller of wheel trims and was asking how he could make a few million?
He does have big speakers, and fluffy dice too. All available at a good mark up over cost, and with extra longterm lending which means you get to pay for them long after they have fallen off.
..and what were the criteria for funding again?..
..and how long are they funded for?..
..and then they are funded out of practice savings.. oh I see, another pay cut.
How was it you thought this would boost morale?
As your article implies, they have already been assessed. CQC assessments have been based on registered address. The failures of each service have been hidden by moving registered address.
The response that CQC assessment's are 'unfair' is true. As it is true for every service that this organisation assesses. As a 'quality' organisation, CQC should be expected to understand how to write consistent reports, which are accurate, and measured against published standards. They should have a standard policy for review of demonstrable inaccuracies. They should have inspection approaches in primary care which address the multiple ways services are provided. They need to inspect single handed practices differently to GP lead multisite organisations.
Or they need to accept that their organisation is not about quality, but control, fear and intimidation with the aim of pushing General Practice into extinction.
'A provider survey' will have been completed by the relevant manager. In hospitals and other services this will be someone with no idea about the impact of CQC on professionally run organisations. In many cases it will be someone who feels that they need to put the 'right' answer to continue their career.
Have they any idea what their baseline variability is for any of the services they have studied?
That it is less than last year means almost nothing, while it is nice to have a 'control' it is essential to identify how the 'intervention' differs from the control.
Is this is an opportunity for academic GPs to establish some credibility? Is the college able to take an academic lead when it is so involved in the cheerleading?
..of course the questions were 'does this contract address..'. Which it does. However, the questions do not ask 'does the contract successfully do anything...'
The survey does not even ask if these people would support the contract, or if it is on the right lines...
This Hurley Group product, econsult, is being taken around the country as a perfect fit for NHSEs Hi Impact Actions and 5 year forward view.
'to enable more efficiency, and productivity' ie for practices to do more work.