Council of Despair
unfortunately, I can't find any stats for mortality rates for doctors re: COVID let alone any data re: family physicians / GPs. It's probably data that no one wants to release but I think the government are prioritising secondary care as the optics will look bad if hospital doctors start dying in hospital due to lack of PPE. I think they view GPs as low risk and so we are back of the queue but it's the constant lying by the state about how much they are doing and the complicity of the media that bothers me. No interviewer has put Hunt under pressure as he was in charge whilst the NHS was being run down. No one has questionned the drop in GP numbers or ITU beds. The government gets a free pass and the NHS takes all the risk as usual.
it's strange how we don't see any politicians having photo ops in hospitals? in the election you couldn't keep conservative MPs out! I wonder if any conservative health misinters have bothered to even pop into their local hospital to offer help?
where is the RCGP and BMA on this???
where is there representation and why are the issues put forward by concerned front line staff not being put forward to healthcare leaders?
This is a bad idea.
None of us know if we are carriers as the UK government can't be bothered to offer routine testing to healthcare staff.
There is no PPE wher I work.
We visit the most vunerable and most ill patient groups.
Imgagine the scenario that we are unknowing carriers visiting extremely vulnerable patients with no protective care (masks reduce spread to patients) and they then become infected and die. Where will NHSE be then? NHSE will be refering us to the GMC that's where.
The answer is NO
out of interest what would the CQC do to us if we dared to have something out of date in the premises during their visit?
forcibly detaining patients is bound to go down well - what could possibly go wrong?
it's likely too late - the press are having a field day over the second fatality but that case didn't reach PHE criteria so was obviously missed. the point is we are getting caes that don't fit PHE criteria now so the criteria isn't helpful.
in another example - in australia they are having a go at a doctor who happended to contract the virus on a flight in the usa and turned up for work. the point is if we applied PHE criteria he would not be screened for if he happened to be working in the UK.
so if you have a runny nose for all you know you might be a carrier even though you don't fit the criteria and won't be screened!
just wondering why target GPs, what about if police, military, firemen personel etc lose staff why not have a contingency to bring in other retired professionals to cover other sectors?
This strikes me as a pure PR stunt as practically it makes no sense and if anything it highlights the governments recognition on how poorly staffed primary really is.
but it generates a 'dads army' mentality which plays well to the right wing tory voter.
not sure of others experience - but this was my experience at the practices i've locumed at this week: None had face masks or eye protection and several patients who presented with respiratory symptoms were booked in without triage i.e. it was at f2f contact that travel and contact history was taken. one patient said to me that they were surprised that i was the first person to enquire about travel and contact history and they had sat in the waiting room for 20 mins.
I'm sorry but as usual basic stuff isn't being done.
Sadly, it is the tip of the iceberg.
There will be many more suffering who haven't contacted the service.
The bottom line is that if you are stressed and are struggling then please get help.
my main worry is the rise of Cthulhu - has anyone planned for that?
what about Godzilla, planet X, alien invasions - surely it must be part of CQC checks by now?
what I love about the RCGP is that they are great are describing the sky as blue and the grass as green BUT what has the RCGP actually done for grassroots GPs in the last 10 years? Can anyone explain the point of RCGP's existence? I mean if the RCGP disappeared overnight would it make any difference to our day-to-day work? I don't want to be harsh but most colleagues I know just laugh and ignore the RCGP as it just seems to be a historic legacy of a time when GPs were taken seriously. And let's be serious whatever the state comes up with you KNOW the RCGP will back it! So I don't see the point of whatever comes out of the RCGP - it's just a distraction.
agree - hand back the contract - no one will blame you
we have enough stress at the moment just dealing with clinical care - life is too short for all the other ****!
I'm afraid that many doctors - perhaps most - have lost their faith in the whole system.
The 'system' seems to be only concerned about their own interests and 'we' the front line staff have to look after ourselves.
It's simply the law of the jungle now and it's just about survival now for most of us.
saying and doing are two different things.
I've lost count on how many 'red lines' have been crossed and how often people have stated 'this is the final nail in the coffin' but yet the same system carries on. The job now is just about survival - you hope you don't make a bad error and hope you can make it to retirement or a career change.
There have been opportunities for change but at every turn, we back down or bottle it.
The pattern has been the following for the last few years;
1. people will moan
2. the government will come up with a shiny superficial policy with no clinical merit
3. the RCGP, BMA will back it once it says 'good for patients'
4. demand will increase
5. supply will decrease
6. absolutely nothing changes
7. back to 1
I think the Lion King called it the circle of life
Vinci Ho | GP Partner/Principal17 Sep 2018 9:39pm
it's an interesting perspective
GMC vs MPTS
the MPTS seems to have the support of the state indicated by the ruling that the GMC will have the power to challenge the MPTS removed. also reading in between the lines from the comments on PULSE it appears that doctors are more supportive of the MPTS. So it appears that the GMC has alienated itself - but for what purpose?
in addition - is the GMC actually fulfilling its aim of protecting patients and restoring confidence - where is their evidence on this? I have not seen any patient groups come out in support of the GMC - if anything the GMC has been criticised by the public eg Nick Ross' letter.
I think the GMC needs to be challenged on their decision making and questioned more carefully as to why they are making the decisions they are making and on what evidence they are making those decisions.
This is an interesting statement
And Pulse revealed in March that 23 GMC appeals brought to date had all sought stricter sanctions, or to block a doctor from being registered to practise in the UK, while no appeal was for more lenient treatment.
As I'm sure that I read a statement from either Stephenson or Massey that claimed that the GMC had also appealed decisions they felt were too harsh? I'm sure this is worth looking into as if it is the case that the GMC is seeking tougher sanctions all the time it indicates their (the GMC's) thinking re sanctions. I'm not saying they are right or wrong but it suggests that the GMC views the sanctions on doctors as too soft. This will be useful for young doctors to know if they are contemplating a career in the UK.
I'm trying to look at things from the GMC's perspective - they have a duty to protect patients but are they going about this in the right way?
- Keeping the public happy should not be the GMC's objective, for example, I'm sure some members of the public want Doctors who upset them to be put in front of a firing squad but that would not be legal or morally correct. In the same token - what is Public Confidence? The GMC says it wants to maintain public confidence but they haven't defined it and how do you measure it? The vote on Brexit and some of the comments from the public in the media such as the Daily Mail make it clear that some members of the public are at best ignorant and at worse racist - so if those members of the public decide that they don't like foreign doctors - should the GMC for 'public confidence' be harsher on foreign doctors? This is effectively the GMC's argument that they want to maintain 'Public Confidence' and it is a weak argument as they - the GMC have not said what public confidence means.
- The expectation by professionals and it appears even by the government is that the GMC should be impartial, balanced and fair and be prepared to make thoughtful decisions that can be backed up with sound logic and arguments i.e. one would expect the GMC to make decisions that make you think - 'that was a reasoned, logical, well thought up, even evidenced argument that the GMC has made'. It appears that the GMC is not doing this at present and even worse than that they don't have insight into the fact that their decision making doesn't make sense and alienates professionals and even the state. The GMC may not care about this as they feel their main prerogative is to protect patients BUT they also have a duty of care to doctors and equally to look at educating and supporting doctors. If they can't see that their actions are actually alienating doctors and they haven't actually demonstrated that they have gained public confidence then this is worrying. Overall this reflects a complete failure of leadership in the GMC.
The GMC is basically saying - 'we are going to do what we think is right, but we are not prepared to explain our decision making or provide any sound evidence, and we really don't care what doctors, the state care and we are not going to even evaluate if we have gained public confidence'. It's an odd state of affairs and I don't see how the GMC can continue on this track? do you?
On the homepage of the GMC it says '
We help protect patients and improve UK medical education and practice by supporting students, doctors, educators and healthcare providers.'
The GMC went out of its way to reject its own tribunal decision.
Massey went on pulse and other outlets to justify the reasons why the GMC took that decision.
Sir Terence Stephenson was wheeled out on Pulse to basically apologise for the way we were feeling but backed the decision.
No medical professional could understand the decision that the GMC made - hence the anger.
Even Jeremy Hunt of all people could not understand the decision and launched a review.
There were even articles in legal journals questioning the decision.
The political decision was to take out the option of the GMC rejecting tribunal decisions.
Now the GMC sole role is to balance these decisions and to be aware of the impact to doctors and to patients but they took a very one-sided decision and had no thought or insight on the impact on the profession. If a non-legally educated front-line doctor could see the errors of the GMC' decision then why could the GMC not see it?
After the recent verdict the justification given is that 'the GMC has to make difficult decisions' and there are lessons to learn.
What about the difficult decision we make every minute of the day for which we carry huge risk?
Given the above - I can not see how Massey has the gumption to remain in his post and there has to be a hard look at how the GMC is run as no one in the GMC had the insight to anticipate how bad a decision they had made.
There needs to be a detailed investigation into how the GMC is run and how they make their decisions.
Until there are some real changes the GMC will not be trusted and I suspect has lost the trust of the majority of doctors - in that scenario how can Massey stay?
I'm still confused as what actual mistakes were made?
It would be useful for the profession to know about the 'mistakes' as how are we going to ever 'learn' if we don't agree on what went wrong?
My understanding is an 'expert' thought that it was obvious sepsis but pretty much most people would have done what the doctor did - so where was the error as I thought that if you made a decision in which a similar colleague would have made then it was one of those unlucky clinical incidents which could have happened to anyone?
The outcome raises a lot of questions;
1. The conduct of the initial trial?
2. Use of lay jury to decide on professional decision making.
3. The use of experts
4. Why was the use of the ACE not explored?
5. Why is there no learning for the legal counsel that made their errors in the initial trial - why is it that only doctors have to learn?
6. If the Dr had received no support from her colleagues what would have been the outcome? Why was her defence union and the BMA so useless - this should worry all of us.
7. why does Massey have a job? Imagine if any doctor had made such a feeble decision as Massey and come up with such an excuse 'it was a difficult decision' what would have happened to them? Say what you like about Dr Arvind Madan but he had the decency to resign.
8. The role of the GMC? Is it now purely political as it can not claim to support doctors - if so why should we fund it?
so many more questions than answers
sadly I suspect we will continue to get repeated episodes until the GMC is dissolved.