I filled in a Pulse Survey a year or two ago and said that "I despise 111 with every fibre of my being" - this got into the tabloids (I think I did consent to sharing my views) and at a meeting shortly afterwards I was approached by a hospital colleague whose job it was to improve 111 who told me politely that he was very disappointed in me and invited me to join their team - I didn't have the time or the energy and probably not the aptitude (and my ideas might not have been accepted) but it seems that so far nothing has changed. Should I volunteer??
She's clearly a genius and will go very very far. What joy it is to be led by these people!
A total outrage. Mr Behan attempted to justify these price hikes in a reply to my contribution to their feedback request last year. My suggestion, and I really mean this, is that ALL OF US REFUSE TO PAY, EVERY SINGLE PRACTICE. Let's see how Jezzer and the box tickets respond to that.
I completely agree with what you have said Zoe. Fortunately for me I have always had "nice" appraisers but I have had a very bad experience with a "responsible officer" from whom the appraiser had to protect me, so while much of it does feel pointless, I was glad to have the help of that appraiser. However, much of it makes you want to give up!
The vote has been cast now and the result is in my opinion a disaster but I agree with many other commentators that this particular article addresses issues that really have NOTHING to do with the EU so is ill informed. In or out of the EU we are going to face pressures around immigration and this is very unlikely to change.
Thanks 27th March 8.34pm - you will be right in your faith in protocols in some but definitely not all cases. An engine is not quite the same as a human being, AND, experience and intuition don't count for nothing, you must agree with that. Yes, you are right that a protocol guards against obvious omissions but at the end of the day the practitioner has to judge the outcome & make a decision. They are tools, aides memoires as Peter has said above. As such they are very useful. However, the sinister side of them is that they are being interpreted by some as incontrovertible truths and are being increasingly used as weapons to bully us with when things haven't gone well, even when the tool and/or guideline, even if it had been used to the letter, would not have altered the outcome.
I used to do overnight shifts, I know what this feels like, but it was never as bad as this. One day I might need these people myself, god forbid.....
Thanks for all the laughs Phil, get well soon then have a very good rest!
I emailed the CQC complaints department asking for Steve Field's resignation the day before these public calls were made. Yes indeed we are aware that there are some places that need to improve, but the vast majority just need to get on with the job & not be constantly meddled with. It was unfair of an earlier commentator to imply that Clare Gerada was hypocritical because of having made positive remarks when Steve was first appointed. How could she have known how things were going to turn out. Her current comments are absolutely appropriate and do not represent any sort of Volte-Face. She makes reference to the forthcoming fee increase that this useless behemoth is planning to impose on us. I think we should all WITHOLD any payment to them. Their funding, if they are to be funded at all, should be separate from ours and ours should not be eaten into for it. The current arrangement amounts to a pay cut.
I have just sent an email to the CQC complaints department (which I expect will be auto-deleted). Here it is:-
I have many complaints about your organisation but here and now I do not have the time to enumerate them all. I write now to complain in the strongest possible words about Professor Steve Field’s monumentally bad choice of words and emphasis in his recent Daily Mail interview. We all accept that within any group of workers and “care providers” there will always be some who fall below the accepted standard, although many of the “standards” expected by the CQC have precious little relationship with good standards of care.
Be that as it may, and wherever the line is drawn, it is still the case that the overwhelmingly vast majority of UK GP’s provide exemplary patient-centred care, even by the bureaucratic standards of the CQC. For Dr Field to say to in the National press that he is “ashamed to be a GP” and that General Practice is a “failed profession” is offensive, misguided and insulting to GP’s of every generation. To say this at a time when the profession is struggling to recruit and suffers daily opprobrium from the Government, the public and the gutter press shows misjudgement bordering on spitefulness.
I call for Steve Field to resign. I am deeply ashamed of him and all that he represents.
I'm ashamed of Steve Field. End of.
I'm in favour of mass non-payment.
In response to John Dale & Iain Marshall I stand by my comments while of course understanding completely that they are the results of my own experience. Of course I have not done an analysis of the total numbers, how could I have done? It's disingenuous of John to suggest that these comments are borne of "lack of professionalism" - in my case the sentiment is entirely the opposite.
Oxford medical school director: 'The variation in GP numbers between medical schools is not undesirable'
I'd say that most of us aren't wired for research, so it's a good job that there are those who are happy to go into the details, just as long as they don't lose sight of the big picture and understand what we do and don't have time for in the real world. Of course Tim is right that fixing the job will fix recruitment.
Well done Gordon, we're humbled by your amazing work! We're all looking forward to seeing you next week - will you be bringing your space suit?
What a great service to primary care this "mistake" was, if only it happened more often. It would save enormous amounts of time & resources without the slightest detrimental effect on patient care. In fact it would improve care by reducing the ridiculous deciphering time currently required of the perplexed clinicians on whom these reports are imposed.
HELLO everyone - the ability to send SMS messages and Faxes via NHS.net remains ESSENTIAL until everyone, both patients and hospital departments are all reliably on email. This will never happen. I don't know how the rest of you organise on-call but we have a list of patients to call back. So often there is no signal and one gets voicemail. In this case I send an SMS asking the patient to email me and then we can usually sort things out very quickly, often without a long conversation or the need to see the patient. Similarly there are so many departments with whom we have to communicate who just DON'T use email - they are wedded to the stone-age technology of fax so at least we can email their fax machines. If or when these services are stopped our lives will get very much busier as we will have to have very many more long phone conversations. The funding absolutely has to continue and I agree that it should cost almost nothing in any case.
Shaba is absolutely right to do what she did. We, like any other group, should base our behaviour on mutual respect, exactly what Prof MT DOESNT have. As for the anonymous trolls who have posted disrespectful things about primary care, you should be ashamed of yourselves, if you are capable of it. As for the comment on editorial input, I agree that even if people choose to withhold their names (which is OK), their professional (or otherwise) background ought to be stated. I'm a GP, by the way.....
I am full of respect and admiration for Amir Hannan's work. He is motivated I'm sure by a personal belief in sharing and transparency, something that was imperative given the notorius crimes of his predecessor - so why have I not implemented the same yet? David Barrett hits the nail on the head here - we interpret and live with uncertainty on behalf of our patients, we know which numbers matter and which don't, we know that results are only useful in the context of the bigger clinical picture. As for coding errors by various colleagues (professional and non-professional) we correct those when we can, but there aren't enough hours in the day. Many years ago I asked a patient when his migraine started:- "oh as a child" so I coded it as starting in 1952. This week, in response to his super useful care plan he complained to another partner "I never had a migraine in 1952" - talk about wood & trees!! How on earth can we advance transparency without fuelling obsession and neuroticism? Any ideas out there?
This is appalling. It's only been put there so that this stupid demented government can say they've "done something about dementia". Do they know how under-resourced the support and specialist services are and what a small effect (if any) that the very expensive "cognitive enhancing" drugs have? While there is not much any of us can offer these poor people we should not be rushing to label them, but once proper support services are in place then perhaps yes it could help them if we give a label. Accepting £55 for something meaningless is NOT what we should be doing. Perhaps efforts would be better aimed at measures in earlier life which will make later dementia less likely, but as our job now seems to be to keep people for alive forever we will never win that game either.