NHS mail has been down for a bit at least twice this week. Perhaps he needs to spend a little more time getting his house in order...
‘If they truly don't want to run this centre the contract should be given back to the health board to find alternative doctors who will run it,’ he said.
Good luck with that...
Interesting. Thank you.
This brilliant. I can't remember when I laughed so much
There does some a body of GP academics that are so divorced from the everyday business of seeing patients that they seem to think this is ground breaking research.
Sorry for your loss...
Would have loved to be one of those Dr Finlay type GPs but those days are gone. A random selection of KPIs to meet each year, private companies winning contracts they shouldn't and constant shifting of all the services around you who seem only to be commissioned on short term contracts.
You will be missed. Best of luck in the future
"However GP at Hand refuted the claims, responding that their patients include people of all ages."
"6% of the practice's patients - 1,400 - live outside of London, while 'almost all of the new patients are in the 20-64 age group, with three quarters under 35'."
Hmmm...which statement to believe
It's not that bringing in others with differing skill sets isn't of huge value to individual surgeries but I'm not sure that a convincing case is made for them to be offered partnership. Maybe it ties them to the practice more in the way that stock options may bind a CEO to a company and force them to tie their financial future with that of the company.
I think all too often it's the role of the practice manager that hasn't kept pace with changes. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of PMs that have degrees, MBAs or professional qualifications e.g. in accountancy or law. The salaries advertised tend to reflect this fact. But plenty of companies seem to manage with a Chief Financial Officer or a CEO without forcing them into partnership.
It's not that practices shouldn't be having the dynamic individual you describe working for them, but why do they need to be a partner?
I thought this was the point of the practice manager?
"Everybody wants doctors to simply, effectively and cheaply resolve distress and discomfort and won't tolerate any caveats. Doomed!"
I think the view by Decorum Est is perhaps more realistic. I'm pretty sure I'm not enthrall to big pharma and that isn't what is driving my prescribing. I resist all these drugs as much as possible but patients demand them. Yes we are medicalising unhappiness and political suffering. Yes most of the problems are caused by structural issues and as general practice we bear the brunt.
I believe solicitors can now have partnerships of non=lawyers.
But I agree. It would be good have partners from other medical specialities (who wouldn't want an in-house psychiatrist) or a two session cardiologist as a partner
I think my worst is the patients who demand a home visit and then aren't there when you visit. One in particular I remember as he asked me if I wouldn't mind waiting 20 mins till he got back from shopping!
Would be interesting to look at whether care actually goes down when you reduce DNA slots. I think for me it would. I generally over run and DNAs keep me vaguely to time, also if I knew a full clinic would be attending each time I think I'd be able to give less to each patient, be stricter at enforcing the number of problems a patient can bring etc...
Again I'm not entirely sure the big worry is here. Thanks to targeted internet advertising most patients who google their condition will be getting adverts any way - type in "hip replacement surgery" and the first hit you get is for London Hip Specialists.
I think however that these centres need to bear the full cost of treatment including complications. There should be a way of charging providers for when the NHS has to follow up on their work. Admittedly seems more of an issue when patients travel abroad for private treatment but still....
A little heavy on the metaphors...
I do worry about these consultations, about the way we in which I feel I am being made to medicalise the suffering caused from political decisions.
Thank you - good article as always.
It is a shame that promoting equity isn't a more key criteria when it comes to these services being commissioned. I don't think anybody on my list this morning would have met their strict criteria to be seen.
I have to say coming to the end of VTS was a bit of a jarring experience. Say what you will about training, but at least it feels you are climbing in vaguely in the right direction. It was difficult to find a path post-VTS, partnership seemed potentially professionally satisfying but financially ruinous whereas being a locum is professionally unsatisfying but personally rewarding. Being a salaried occupies some unhappy middle ground between the two.
I don't think it's fair to characterize millennials as people who don't "want to work 55 hours a week and certainly don’t want to commit to working in the same practice for the next 30 years. They want a life and a career". I certainly work more than that and have no real issue with commitment either. What you fail to mention is the environment is an ever changing toxic swamp and we can hardly be blamed for not wanting to dive in.
It does seem a shame there aren't more formalized opportunities post-CCT. Any learning or training seems to come at ones own expense.