From what I have gleaned the 1-2% mortality is only if you support 5-10% in hospital. If you cannot do that the mortality rises.
I'd still use them ! Unless the paper or fabric is likely to deteriorate it is better than nothing.
"Elective treatment" does not mean inessential. We can all think of hip replacements getting people back on their feet and paying for themselves in reduced need for other services.
Funding depends on political will, and somehow I feel that the Government hates GPs. The reason the partnership model is collapsing is because the Government stopped supporting it. Once you lose the confidence of GPs, then no young doctors will join and older doctors find it difficult to recruit. It is like a run on the Bank. Confidence is needed for the system to operate. It is incredibly expensive to rescue once confidence is lost. This wound has been self inflicted. The Government is very slow to learn, if at all.
If GPs have to pay market rents, then I want market rates for my services. Mark Smith, explain why that does not happen ?
" Where will that leave GPs "
Answer - they will leave ! And leave the NHS to reap what the Government has sown. I have already disengaged, so I can watch from a distance. I am not going to attempt the impossible, with no resources.
Two days per week is likely to be equivalent to full time in the 1980s, in terms of patients seen and dealt with.
Locums are likely to deliver safe care, but it is likely to cost the NHS more. If locums do not know the patient well, they are more likely to do more tests and make more referrals. Continuity of care is the most cost effective way to deliver health care.
What a good article. I prefer my day to be full of minor illness and chronic disease, so that I can cope with the occasional patient who has the life threatening presentation, that I have to sort from the triva. No one can cope with full on high drama, all of the day. That is the way to burn out.
Capacity is assessed at the time of any procedure and is specific to that time and procedure. So no I will not be doing them on another's behest.
Watch the dominoes fall, all the singlehanders destablised. Then when digruntled patients try and return to their old practices, they will not be there.
Annualisation means I stick to my regular GP sessions and refuse any extra work, no matter how stretched my practice is.
Unintended consequences. Let the Government reap what it has sown.
It is often better to eyeball the patient, telephone triage can miss desperately ill patients while a sight of then gets them blue lighted to safety.
Good and safe medicine cannot be done on the cheap.
The only comfort is that the accrual rates in the 2015 scheme are 1/54 compared to 1/80 so that offsets the reduction if you go at 63. This is if you ignore the lost lump sum.
None of us are honest when we give feedback on our appraisal. We don't want to rock the boat, and we do not want to disparage our appraiser, who is probably a nice enough chap.
I think this might be the last straw for many. Just when you thought it could not get any worse.
" We can't provide continuity - which is the only unique feature of general practice and the tool of our trade. "
To that I would add, that we have less and less places to refer patients who need more than the ten minutes of care that we can give.
When that happens, our job satisfaction breaks down. We know that we are failing that patient, but we have no other choice.
30 patients a day would be luxury for most of us.
Does this not discourage established salaried GPs from taking on any extra adhoc GP work. Surely the Government would want GPs to be flexible and do extra work.
The way this is set out will discourage any salaried GP from taking on any extra sessions. Bizarre !
Money needs to follow the patient with a fee per service. That way if demand increases, so can capacity be created.
The fee needs to be adequate for it to work.