I agree. If only he’d listen to those of us doing the job instead of to those trying to tell us how it should be done
Not just me then
Why are we expected to accept a whole new contract renegotiation (agreed without consultation) every year with strings attached to any increase in funding? Is any other professional group micromanaged and subject to such political demands?
If the reason is indeed transparency, surely an hourly rate is a more useful and informative marker than a total amount with no context. Why did BMA/GPC score yet another own goal? I thought they ere supposed to be looking out for us. How much are they paid?
Why should GPs be responsible for employing podiatrists, OTs, dietitians, etc? Which part of "over-whelmed with work doing our own job" and "leaving in droves" is failing to get through. Extra money to spend as we wish or don't bother. This is merely an attempt to force GPs to take on additional work to fulfill someone else's vision of primary care rather than supporting practices (which was what drew us in).
So more money tied up in the network DES without checking to see how many plan to continue? Great.
Ha ha ha ha ha
Trying to take on additional admin and business roles with uncertain funding and external restrictions is time consuming, stressful and a waste of clinical skills. I do not understand why this was ever thought a good idea by anyone in practice.
Were all the responses from GPs? I thought it was open to anyone and I don’t remember stating my occupation. Poor response rate might perhaps have been down to the timing and lack of publicity. I would not have known about it had I not seen it in Pulse.
Networks don’t help in my opinion - they just create more work, responsibility and stress and take clinicians from clinical work. Why does every “improvement” take me nearer to quitting?
While we are at it, can we throw out last year’s changes on which we weren’t consulted and which pave the way for more work and service responsibility to be dumped on primary care?
Given my head in hands instinctive reaction to reading this, is there any evidence to support the claims made? What's wrong with referral letter and clinic letter containing the salient points?
No. We have no extra staff. None of this seems likely to reduce GP workload (indeed, quite the opposite) and NHSE has indicated clearly the micromanagement approach which it intends for the foreseeable.
Consultation seems open to anyone and does not request identification of role so not sure what use can be made of the responses
First question on the survey is asking what else should have been included; could they be further from GP reality?
I don't see how one can expect to "facilitate more patients being seen" by forcing remaining GPs to spend more time away from clinical practice doing things for which we aren't trained while increasing numbers walk away in the wake of the latest proposals (by those who can't possibly work as GPs) to redefine and micromanage primary care. Layer upon layer of complication with every change making conditions worse is no solution.
This is ridiculously onerous, time-consuming and would take GPs away from useful clinical care. Were any practising GPs involved in drafting the proposals? If so, can they please explain how they see it working in practice. if not, why not?
The system becomes unmanageable when abused. Home visits used to be requested for genuine clinical reasons only on the whole and with consideration for the doctor (so not the late Friday afternoon “like this all week” demand). Once you add in the requests on the grounds of no car/relatives too busy/don’t like to trouble them/it’s my right/it’s your job/it’s snowing etc. the stress about the wasted time mounts, I find. Perhaps an NHS taxi service would help (at a cost to patients).
District nurses prescribing dressings would be a useful start