Council of Despair
I'm pretty sure that Massy boy is getting £230,000 to £235,000 and...
Annual holiday entitlement of 25 days per year, increasing 1 day for each year of service up to a maximum of 30 days.
Opportunity to buy/sell annual leave.
35 hour working week with the opportunity to work flexibly, including the opportunity to work from home one day a week for most roles.
Defined contribution pension scheme.
Health screens and private medical insurance.
Employee assistance programme for staff and their immediate family members.
Childcare voucher scheme enabling staff to reduce the cost of their childcare through tax savings.
Cycle to work scheme enabling staff to save on the cost of a new bike through tax savings.
Interest free season ticket loans.
for a job that involves NO accountability and NO sanctions.
all courtsy of the very kind doctors of the UK who pay the GMC fee.
we, however, can only dream of such a deal but we ARE accountable and WILL face sanctions for our actions.
life just isn't fair
out of interest did any of us have a say in his appointment?
even the Russian elections are more democratic than the GMC!
Archer | Locum GP14 Apr 2018 12:28pm
I like it ! if only we had a vote I would vote for Dr Bawa- Garba
but I repeat what I said earlier the GMC can not aim to protect patients AND support doctors - they can only do one not the other.
I would also mention that during these interviews which of these candiates are they likely to hire?
1. The one that is pro-doctor and cares about the working conditions that doctors are put in and as such will give them the benefit of the doubt except in extreme cases. And who will look to change GMC policy to fit that narrative.
2. The one who is fair minded and will look at developing a fair system and speak out against GMC policy if it undermines those values.
3. The one that is pro-patient and will not give doctors the benefit of the doubt and is willing to comply and enforce exsiting GMC policy.
It's obvious they will hire someone who is like them i.e. number 3 above so how can the GMC say they are supporting doctors - where is the evidence for that?
The GMC is a blatantly pro-patient organisation - I don't have a problem with taht but why deceive and pretend that they 'care' and 'support' doctors?
Ex-GP | Locum GP13 Apr 2018 5:46pm
some of us have been trying to find out
given the other 'leaders' we have in the other quasi-'independent' - he is rather a good fit?
there is no point getting a new chair - you can go to IKEA to get one and it will probably to a better job than the ones we've had.
you need credible leadership which is impossible as the GMC itself is deeply flawed
this just one example - you can not both be an organisation that protects patients but supports doctors! you can only be one of those things as it's mutually exclusive.
I'n not sure that this is an issue - yet.
My local practice is one of three that has been closed - out of curiosity I didn't register at any of the local practices and was automatatically placed at another quite good local practice.
The point is this - the issue is patient access and as long as patient's have access to a GP it it not a concern to them.
There is no loyalty - sure my existing practice had great GPs but so does my new practice. I don't see many of the public falling over themselves to keep their practice open but change the UK passport colour and see the anger.
Until we reach the point that patients have no practice access at all then it is not an issue for the public.
The argument of being far from a practice would be true for post-office closures, local shops closing etc which already happens and people have adjusted.
As a locum I've worked at practices which were forced to take patients from other practices that closed and the patients just moaned and took their frustrations out on the practice staff of the new practice. You see they have been told that GPs handle the budget via CCGs so see closures as our fault.
So the best thing that could happen is the case where patients have no service at all - it is at that point they will take their frustrations out on their local MP.
I would sit back and enjoy the closures.
if the BMA is intervening then gawd help her.
the BMA will only look for it's own interest - rest assured - they do not care about ordinary fron line doctors
'council of despair' sounds like a rebel organisation in a star wars movie - cue star wars theme.
i'd be happy to be a member of the 'council of despair' it sounds cool.
PULSE ought to do a survey
'Do you believe the GMC is affecting your mental health?'
GMC to launch 'very serious' review into complaints against BME doctors
we can already predict the outcome ... just pay me the money and i will do a 140 page report describing the sky as blue and grass is green followed by ... GMC not to blame, unforseen circumstances, more research needed.
i believe the term is whitewash.
i feel sorry for my colleagues being investigated.
i'm sure many of us were offered the chance to do online consultations - i took the training for pushdrs but pulled out
1. the quality of the video feed was poor and i felt unconfortable making decisions when it was hard to pick up non-verbal clues let alone perform an examination.
2. although they had a list of meds not to prescribe - in general i was uncomfortable prescribing for patients meds for whom no info was available
3. there was a rating system of drs by the patient and you had to get a certain score to be kept on - hence there was pressure to keep the patient happy.
i pulled out and am glad i did - unfortunately colleagues are finding out the hard way that it isn't worth the risk.
so yet again entities that make money escape scrutiny but it is the clinician who is the fall guy.
bit too late i'm afraid.
also it confirms our worst fears that right now we are vunerable - it's not a perception - the GMC have effectively admitted reflections can be used against us.
the current logic is as follows;
1. an incident occurs
2. whether the doctor is right or wrong an apology is expected
3. whether the doctor is right or wrong reflection is mandatory
4. it is not good enough to say in reflection 'nothing can be learned' so you are obliged to put something that you have learnt.
5. putting down that there was somthing to be learnt is viewed as akin to admission of fault
6. those reflections can then be used against you - do you think that now lawyers are aware that reflections can be used in court that they won't ask for them when prosecuting doctors?
7. in court 'expert' witnesses will be brought in to state that you got something wrong as it is impossible to provide perfect care and perfect documentation a fault can always be found.
8. you will be hung out to dry
the shrugging of shoulders by the GMC, RCGP, etc etc and declarations that it's c'est la vie and it's the price for being a doctor isn't going to help you.
i would go so far that the Dr BG case is the most important case in UK medical history - if she fails we all fail.
nothing will change as all the representative groups are working together - this issue will be ignored in the hope that we forget it and move on - unfortunately we can't as this case exposes the risk we are all in every time we see a patient. the powers in charge don't care as there is a queue of young people wanting to be doctors. It's unfair but that's life. when turkeys keep voting for xmas expect to be slaughtered.
where is accountability? why are the GMC not being held personally accountable for the decisions they make like we are.
why assume all complaints are legitamite and apologise? where is the right to defend onself from a malicious complaint?
I think it's time doctors take more legal action against individuals at the GMC and patients - this is the only wat to address the current imbalance.
I've said once and I will say it again until those in the GMC are personally accountable nothing will change as they themselves have nothing to lose so they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. It will take a very brave person to take them on but even if they win no individual at the GMC is accountable but we always are. Can you see the hypocrosy?
lambs to the slaughter.
it's the reason why nothing will change as the Government knows there will always be a willing cohort of people wanting to be doctors.
unfortunately, the reality of what it takes will be a shock to them but by that time it will be too late.
count your self lucky if you 'failed' - it should motivate you to go somewhere where you will be appreciated. why would you want to do a job that others are trying to get out from? things are set to get worse not better so don't feel bad if you have 'failed' - it isn't you that has failed it is the system that has failed you.
no worries, the patients will be allocated to neighbouring practices or alternative providers sought. The government also has a robust 5 year plan fully endorsed by the RCGP and as part of that plan 5000 GPs will be available by 2020 ... by 5000 GPs I mean by 2020 there will only be 5000 GPs left in England!
it suggests we are the only individuals in the UK who have to confess to a perceived error knowing that the error can be used against us.
at least in the middle ages you could deny you were involved in witchcraft - you were still bumped off though! but in 2018 we don't have a choice - we must confess and be crucified!
with increasing workload / demand / risk how many of us are going to be in jeopardy ? so saying we MUST reflect seems very unfair?
I think the author is wrong and there is a flaw in their logic ...
the recommendations made -
2. The recent amendment to Section 35 1A of the Medical Act 1983, which enables the GMC to compel registrants to disclose information that could incriminate them (including personal reflections), should be repealed.
3. To build a ‘safe space’ for reporting and learning, the Government should accelerate the process of giving the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) a statutory underpinning. The HSIB should then give legal protection to individuals (and their comments) engaging with an investigation. This protection should prevent any of their disclosure from being passed to a third party – including the court, regulator, employers or the police.
there is nothing wrong with this BUT it suggests we are currently at risk so why should it be manadatory to reflect when clearly we are at risk? Should it not be the case that we should as recommended by the BMA withdraw from reflection to mitigate this risk until appropriate safeguards are in place?
don't blame Babylon - blame yourselves - if we stood together and walked out like our dental colleagues things would be different now - we would have had more independence from the state, more control over workload and actually be respected.