So in short consider anything you document to have the potential to bite you in the arse and record appropriately.
STP's are simply a way of government saying there is a plan when none exists, well none of any benefit to the NHS.
Brexit will see not just workforce decimation but also a fall in GDP and consequently a fall in revenues and then a fall in funding. Less staff, less money, less healthcare.
So in essence Field believes presentation rather than substance warrants outstanding. What a sad state of affairs.
I seem to be a lone voice in feeling this is not appropriate, or perhaps a lone commentator.
I guess we have to see if this marks a change in direction or simply another shuffle of those on counsel. The RCGP needs to, but sadly I suspect wont, stand up to the politicians.
Resilience training in the military. Remind me of the suicide rate of ex service personnel?
I think it is quite clear that the risk ratings were inaccurate and flawed simply so that the CQC could ensure more complaints as we have all clearly been lacking in our ability to generate more complaints. God give me strength.
Clinical pharmacy time is something as a practice that we are always asking our CCG for. In fact as a group it formed a substantial amount of what we wished to commission with our Five pounds per head. We are keen also to have a face and a physical person with whom to interact.. Unfortunately the CCG seems to be going for the faceless, distant, changing e-mail version which limits the effectiveness massively. The fact remains that at times of hugely reduced income it is a massive step to employ when time and again we have seen people moving on, moving to more regional or managerial posts because the skill level required to really benefit General Practice is too close to the skill level to earn much more money than we can afford.
Clinical pharmacists that are good (and I have know 3) tend to be in post in general pracice as a stepping stone to higher management positions. This is good experience for them and they do some excellent work, however it is an expensive experiment on falling practice incomes.
I think twaddle is a very generous description. And I think hat describing the level of detail as even approaching that of a three year old is positively gushing with generosity.
The serial demands made on General Practice, principally in the name of patient choice are removing that very thing.
Soon you can have access to General Practice surgeries whenever you want. But the inconvenient truth is that there will be no GPs for patients to see, less choice of who you want to see and less continuity. Keep on slamming and damning us because if you don't give us a break we will do just that...break.
Simplistic in the extreme. Does Prof Field provide a convincing evidence base for the actions of the CQC? Is he able to show evidence of cost effectiveness and proportionality?
Perhaps I should read more closely but are these principally complaints from patients?
Orchestrated destruction of GP could not be better designed. Decimate funding and pay year on year, increase demand, increase expectation, destroy social care, fragment services, media onslaught, enforced tendering, enforcing CCGs and thus political blame upon GPs. Retention crisis, recruitment crisis also GPs fault (allegedly). All the blame, all the risk, all the bad press and none of the money, how the hell did they fill 88% of places. Step away from general practice there is nothing to see here.
I partly agree with Dr Baker. I believe pharmacists can help but in truth only in imposing CCG prescribing dictats and "suggested changes" to balance the CCG numbers. This is the prescribing targets that we break our backs to achieve the gains from which are wiped out many times over in secondary care gaming of tariffs. Pharmacists can indeed help with delivering (usually pharmacy dreamt up) changes enforced upon us for financial "gains" to balance CCG books and create a saving for the treasury. So as normal we pay to provide benefits to all except ourselves because the work load stays the same but we get less.
Given the clear fact that all major parties are doing nothing to reduce the souring demand for healthcare and are suggesting sums of money that simply cannot cover the demand do you feel that it is time for the college to be openly hostile, if needs be to, the self serving politicians?
Do you feel that current GP training is producing qualified GPs who are resilient enough to survive the un controlled onslaught that is current General Practice?
Let's just stop there. Let's not find new ways of doctors working, Let's have a new way of politics where the politicians stand up and say this is what we will pay for, this is what we won't pay for. Obviously this would mean politicians taking the blame for political decisions. New ways of working needed......... but for the MPs.
So basically any lay member on a CQC inspection team can sit in on any consultation they request and view any notes they see fit for any reason...... and this is legal, has been approved in terms of data protection and medical confidentiality by all bodies? And the CQC is already a well established organisation fit for purpose? With a clear set of lines telling them where their authority ends. The CQC is not an entity that is clawing its way into areas and creating its own kingdom with a seemingly ever changing portfolio?