No money, more work, RCGP monitoring implementation of GPFV.
Rome burning... fiddlers everywhere.
Professor Field seems to have no insight into the amount of time that is taken away from leadership and mentoring to ensure CQCs hoops are jumped through. Far from improving things it removes focus from patient care to achieve unevidenced outcomes of a political nature.
Any system in which doing everything in the contract perfectly can only achieve a good rating is a farce. To do things out of contract is the only way of achieving outstanding.
I tire of those with CCTs in general practice claiming to be a working GP when they maintain the fewest number of sessions to allow appraisal and revalidation.
Any news on the sex robots?
Asking for a friend by the way.
Not only was it redundant before it started it was never the right answer to the question in the first place. It was doomed to fail as it never answered the problem even if fully implemented
A readable blog. However one with a few glaring problems.
Firstly a (n=1) study to justify the view point. Whilst these can sound compelling they are poor science, let's face it they are not even science.
Secondly I am certain the author could not function as a GP seven years ago as she wasn't a GP seven years ago... the GMC entry seems to indicate she gained registration seven years ago.
Thirdly T3 is very far from normal management of hypothyroidism in U.K. medical practice. It is a drug which is associated with a markedly increased risk of AF and drug induced thyrotoxic states compared with T3 treatment. It's prescription and advices prescription has been the subject of several GMC cases for its use outside of suitable oversight by endocrinologists.
I personally feel that the colleges aims are similar to any large organisation. Those aims are to create in it's own image to potentiate and strengthen itself.
The hostility, I think, in no small part comes from the fact that many consider the RCGP model or blueprint to be at best flawed.
The feeling is that change is long overdue and what is being offered is rearranging deck chairs on a rapidly sinking Titanic.
Unless the review has the prospect of significant change then I would agree with you.
Well Done Krishna
Does this mean that they can send the patient away because theirs a manufacturing problem with the patient?
Well it's an increase of sorts... almost back to baseline...
Everything is awesome, nothing bad is happening...
I suspect there are plenty of experienced partners who still don't know what they are looking for in a partnership. The novices view may of course be different and a fresh pair of eyes. For a fresh pair of eyes I see little new here.
Dr Manek reported there was no conspiracy within NHSE but people doing their best in a hard place.
As to a conspiracy, that would presume that there was no open evidence of the direction of travel. In her analysis she elected to miss the evidence of what is actually happening or was unable to to interpret it.
This is no longer a conspiracy but the final chapters of an outcome.
The statistics on your chance of passing at a six attempt were... catastrophically bad. These were candidates who had intensive extra help and input. How is this different to the previous farce of six attempts.
It seems like an expensive way to destroy more souls.
All for one... you must remember though there is no conspiracy
Well its good to have a hobby I suppose. I wonder how being a critical friend to the politicians is going to help.
As I have written elsewhere newly qualified GPs are increasingly viewing full clinical sessions of GP as unsustainable, and they are right.
Unfortunately the colossal work load is not going to go away. As such those already lumbered with the increased hours of partnership increasingly have to pick up the inevitable slack that those working patterns bring about.
If this was recompensed by a large uplift in global sum then partnership would (possibly) be worth the considerable stresses it comes with and more would wish to pursue it, sadly this is not going to happen.
Instead more will be forced into employing allied professionals where they see a need for a GP. This will play beautifully into the hands of larger providers keen to maximise profits by employing cheaper staff.
Whilst no-one can blame you for wanting flexibility and a sustainable work life balance and to maximise your income, there is an inevitable cost attached to accommodating the ways in which you wish to work. Someone does have to pay for and do the work that is not being done. This is why partnership is unattractive because at the end of the day... its the partners carrying the can for a smaller and smaller financial reward.
So another college aim comes to the level of fruition to which we have become accustomed?
PFI... because that worked well for everyone.
Where can we read this wonderful piece of work? Will it reach the dizzying heights of BJGP?
Largely agree, though I see one potential weakness.
The career that many are choosing to work in is missing something crucial. For very good reasons they are looking to less than full time working; they are looking warily at partnership (biding their time); they are looking at what else a CCT in general practice offers. None of these are bad things.
However the workload outstrips what is on offer in terms of workforce. This means those already firefighting to keep stuff standing whilst changes can occur are taking a double hit of less choice and more demands.
So "someone" has to have it worse than "someone else" for an understaffed underdoctered primary care to accommodate the career these newer ex trainees wish to pursue.