Council of Despair
I recently had a haircut - it took about 10 mins and the charge was £14.
Out of interest, I calculated my income per patient and it works out to... £15.60 per patient.
forget day rate, hourly rate and look at it from a per client basis - we are currently valued as no different to cheap hairdressers.
I'm in favor of an exit from the NHS with the market dictating our rate and it will be a lot more than £1400 a day. I'm thinking the rate will be £500 per hour.
I'm not anti-NHS - I like the idea BUT the public as a whole don't value us and I'd like them to see what the true costs to them would be if we left - only then will they start valuing us again.
And no technology will only do so much as we are effectively taking on the risk - Babylon doesn't - it passes that risk on to its clinicians. As good as AI might be - it will never take on the costs of risk.
I really liked him - he was so close to finishing his mission of destroying the NHS and freeing us.
I hope he leaves his skin to medical science as nothing ever sticks to him. How he got away with things was amazing - he would make a great future Tory PM.
where my family comes from we have a saying ...
people don't treat you bad, you LET them treat you bad.
there is a very simple solution to the problem but alas there is not the will - that is the mystery - with our backs to the wall why are we accepting our fate?
this was the article
You were critical of the recent government announcement that the GMC would lose the right to appeal MPTS rulings. Why do you believe this was a wrong move?
Sir Terence Stephenson:
The Health Select Committee pressed the government for legislation change before we were granted the right to appeal decisions in December 2015. We also called for the change because patient safety is at the forefront of the GMC's work. Doctors have a right to appeal decisions. However, previously the GMC was powerless to challenge decisions when we thought they were too lenient, too severe, and could undermine the profession or put patients at risk.
I'm just curious if the GMC has ever challenged a decision that they thought was too severe - if not then he should be held to account and explain his answer above.
I read an article somewhere where Terence Stephenson claimed that the GMC appealed an MPTS decision that was too harsh - does anyone know if there is such a case?
All for one ? | GP Partner/Principal03 Jul 2018 5:33pm
hopefully, the appeal will look into these matters
there are wider issues,
- professionals being judged on technical matters with a lay jury
- the 'expertise' of expert witnesses
- the GMC defaulting to the decision made in criminal courts without thinking through the wider implications i.e. if you are always going to side on the decision made by the courts then why do we need the GMC at all? It then defaults to a rubber stamping mechanism of 'you were convicted in court, we don't need to see the evidence or balance the ramifications so we will automatically strike you off'
Massey is paid 250k a year to lead - if he is just going to abdicate his duties he should go.
I thought we were learning from Babylon? i.e. charge and cherry pick?
who are the leading doctors? I know the same ones that have led us for the last 10 years - with friends like that who needs enemies?
one of the things that is never mentioned is that the local population don't want foreign doctors - so it seems wrong that a branch of the UK government i.e. NHS is trying to encourage innocent enthusiastic professionals into the UK knowing that the British taxpayer doesn't want them AND if you upset the local British taxpayer the very same organisation that has recruited you will hang you out to dry.
do yourself a favour and stay clear of the UK.
should change it to ' Welcome to UK penal system '
‘GP at Hand - disruptive innovation at its most disruptive at the moment. Phenomenal technology, phenomenal business mind behind it, actually some very good clinicians, some great training for the doctors who work in it.
sorry, but how does she know, where is the evidence and research to back up such a claim?
it sounds as though she is trying to get a job with them??? let's wait and see....
I know this is not very pc - but thank god no BME was involved or the daily mail would have had a field day.
I'm sure the outcome will be to heap more pressure on us and I'm so glad that I'm on my way out.
whenever I think of 'expert' witnesses I've reminded of the Oscar Pistorius case in which two of the best psychiatrists in South Africa had different opinions based on the same information. If the 'best' experts can differ then which expert do you trust?
If you want a fair trial then you need a jury of peers to make a decision - not as in the Dr Bawa-garba case a lay jury.
This aspect has not been discussed but if this is not remedied we are going to see more cases such as the Dr Bawa-garba's. I hope the appeal looks into that.
babylon must be rubbing their hands with glee.
we won't see a penny of it BUT it will be implied that frontline staff have taken the money so we can be blamed for a failing service.
follow the money - who will actually get this money?
Devil'sAdvocate | GP Partner/Principal12 Jun 2018 8:01pm
you've missed the point - how much you get is irrelevant - what is being offered is 72-80k.
it's like saying if you were a top footballer you could get 10 million a year the offer to those GPs will still be 72 to 80k a year.
frankly, I don't care about sympathy from the public as in an open market with the normal laws of supply and demand GPs would be getting 250 an hour if not more.
the 'rewards' relative to the toxic environment are simply not worth it.
by toxic I mean litigious, high risk, high demand, workload dump, the xenophobic population that blame immigrants for everything, lack of support by 'leaders', rampant self-interest ... and more
there are so many better options;
or even change career - many careers offer 80k or more.
you have to be truly desperate to come and work as a GP in the UK.
the worse part is that the recruiters are going to be nice to you until you sign up then the real pressure will start - you will only be too happy to return the 9k to exit.
don't blame Babylon for this - they are businessmen looking to market and sell a product.
since I've been a GP the very same people have been representing us for years (i didn't vote for them) and look where we are now so I blame the turkeys that keep voting for xmas.
What they are looking at is the long-term trend i.e. increasing demand for healthcare with decreasing supply (doctors, money, time).
AI doesn't sleep and doesn't need a regular income - once the expense of developing the algorithms are made then it can be rolled out cheaply and run 24/7.
effectively we are going to be replaced - I don't blame the tech companies, AI or the government I blame my colleagues as when we had the chance to go out on our own we fluffed it and the reason was we needed to save the 'NHS' - I said then and I say now the price is that we are expendable. Had we gone the way of our dental colleagues our situation would be very different now but nobody wanted to rock the boat and as a consequence, there will be continual workload dump until we are replaced. The logic is simple we are being paid by the government and the government wants to cut costs. Dentists are being paid privately so the state has no interest in getting involved.
- | Locum GP15 May 2018 1:13pm
well said and I would agree.
it's too late now as there are absolutely no positive initiatives proposed to reverse the problems we face.
the rcgp backed the 5YF which many predicted would fail and all that will happen come 2020 is that there will be another 'bold' promise for help by politicians. This will be lapped up by the RCGP and BMA and any dissenters will be labelled as troublemakers. If you look at the big picture there is a continuing decline in supply and continual increase in demand - there are no proposals at all to tackle this - logically that means things are only going to get worse.
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?