I married another Dr Hughes, so neither of us faced this dilemma: suspect she would have kept her own name if it had been different.
TTIUWP (or should that be TBIUWP?)
We need photographic evidence to inform our decision on whether or not shorts are appropriate for you.
Quite right, Pete, and even HEE's 'accidental' miscalculation to apparently boost trainee numbers for next year didn't even reach the replacement requirements, never mind any extra GPS.
Agree - time for BMA to abandon the tedious nitpicking procedural niceties of conference/ARM, have a proper open debate and discussion of the issues and then write the legalistic policies once the real views of its members are known, instead of wasting speaking time at the conferences on debating society protocol.
So if GPC haven't agreed to this, doesn't this constitute imposition just as much as the threatened imposition of the Junior Doctors contract?
This sets a very dangerous precedent, as it gives NHSE a window to interfere in how a practice delivers the contract, what staff it employs and how much it pays them, i.e. the crack in the independent contractor status which may be subsequently wedged further and further open until all practices are merely delivery agencies of the DH.
Very good points; we also need to ensure focus is on the system failures leading to claims, not just on the individual clinician, and to remove the multiple indemnity facing GPs, who can simultaneously be subject to complaints to practice, CCG, NHSE, GMC, Ombudsman and litigation - and zero redress for vexatious complaints.
I think Peter Gordon has got it spot on; this extra payment was always a political initiative to make the Tories look good for the election, and the timing of the scheme, particularly the 31 March end, simply confirmed this. Simon Stevens is being very diplomatic in his use of the description 'an unusual situation'.
Excellent summary of the reasons GPs are angry; just misses one other vital point - we do want to care for our patients and do the best we can for them medically, but are distracted and prevented from doing our job by pointless government initiatives and lack of resources.
Contrary to what DH and DM think, NO-ONE else can do the job of a GP - they may do little bits and the easy parts, but only a GP can provide the holistic medical care and risk management for less than you pay to insure your hamster each year; stop trying to reinvent the wheel, let GPs get back to what we do best.
Long incubation period and the initial non-specific symptoms make diagnosis tricky; some patients may be unwilling to admit to travel in high-risk areas so there may be delay in diagnosis; unclear why PHE so reluctant to fulfil their Port Health function and at least screen travellers from high-risk areas at port of entry to UK as the USA are doing; allowing suspect cases to wander in community until symptomatic and presenting at GP or A&E increases risk of spread to contacts.
What Peter Swinyard said.
Peter Holden is correct - not only have doctors not asked, they have been actively discouraged and advised not to ask by PCTs and ATs as 'there is no money for premises'
Mystified as to why NHSE are only now doing an audit, especially as the outgoing PCT Estates were supposed to have done a full audit prior to handover on April 1st, a date which does have major symbolic significance as more and more evidence of the utter shambles emerges.
Assumimng the CCG agreed this unusual course of action with ALL their member practices before approving? Calls into question the competence of the due diligence process in the original awarding of the contract to an organisation which had obviously seriously underpriced their bid - shouldn't the contract be terminated and awarded to a more realistic bidder who can manage their staff and finances appropriately?
'Dramatic' changes to GP contract by next April as Hunt spells out detail of general practice reform
So ... less box ticking on QoF and DES but probably substantially more on the new Care Plans (assume thse will be based on the massive folders of tripe curently in use by District Nurses) ; substantial investment ..not really new money but some (why not all?) of the savings from reduced urgent admissions , resumably using the current baseline where we have worked for the paat several years through PCG and CCG initiatives to pare these down as far as possible, with little scope for further 'efficiencies'?
Big words Mr Hunt, but little of real substance to make anyone think this will improve matters at all
I thinks this group's enthusiasm is misdirected - surely the issue is to make the original assessments fit for purpose and thus significantly reduce the need for appeals, rather than to pressurise GPs who are already working at capacity to spend even more time away from direct patient care producing tick-box templates which may not even be taken into account by the appeal panel - BMA has already publicly condemned the ATOS assessments as unfit for purpose, both from LMC Conference and ARM - GPs are not the problem here, it is the dysfunctional assessment system