I just see extra work, more time spent in meetings, more management plus a quiet redefining of certain services as essential instead of additional (and so optional).
The cost should be the same whichever medical professional is responsible. In the interests of patient safety, funding, resources and choice must accompany any proposed work transfer.
It’s Friday and I’m tired but they seem to be arguing that as we care for our patients and work hard anyway, we don’t need to be paid but merely pitted against each other in order to obtain more work out of us for nothing. I know they are “academics” but really.....?
Is this really the intervention we need now? What proof can he offer for "much more secure and miles more effective"? If they were not useful and had no advantages over email, we'd have stopped using them naturally. The fact that he thinks he needs to impose a ban (or try to) speaks for itself.
In order to manage workload, I’d rather keep the clinical stuff in its infinite variety and drop the non-clinical extraneous stuff being piled upon us that others more suitably minded and trained could handle.
No additional funding for practices here and no funding for the locally arranged Winter pressures clinics so there won't be any this year. Everything to extended access centres and protected learning time cancelled for the next three months. Not impressed.
Make it possible for practices to state when they are full and allow them to continue with same income and services without penalties, then see how many close their lists.
Please strive for accuracy in choice of words. Super as a prefix does not mean what I think you think it means and is both misleading and derogatory to other practices
Don't know what level of illness they are seeing to make this claim but an extremely small % of my consultations could be properly handled without face-to-face contact and for those there is the telephone and email. A more useful statistic would be what % of consultations carried out using the app actually needed GP involvement in the first place.
We were quite happy as we were until the last few years of punishment funding cuts and stoking up of demand. The job hasn't changed in essentials - just the (lack of) support, funding and stability with the new political agenda. Do any of these "leading GPs" consider that they might not actually be right and that this forced direction of travel might be as damaging as some of us fear and certainly not applicable in all areas and types of practice? Any new funding is now only for those playing the current "locality working" or "open all hours regardless of need" game and then we are blamed for failure to recruit!!! Regarding the presumption that he knows what sort of general practice we all want - Dr Madan does not speak for me.
Here's a thought - ask patients what sort of general practice they want and are prepared to fund then work towards that.
Interesting. When we received an anonymous posting I asked what checks were made to ensure the poster was actually a patient at the practice. I was told that anyone can post on any site.
I wish they’d stop trying to remove/delegate/fragment parts of the job we should be doing and relieve us of the non-GP/non-doctor stuff instead. Why not ask us which part of our workload we’d benefit from passing elsewhere and work on achieving that?
Window dressing. Is he not aware we already have on-line appointment systems? If only some attention were paid to fixing the basics. No matter how many new toys are introduced, access won't improve unless workload is reduced and staffing increased. An additional way of being told there are no appointments left will not help.
Leading? Super?...... Really?
My summers are now busier than my winters used to be and the winters are all but unmanageable.
..an NHS England South spokesperson said: "Our duty is to make sure patients continue to have access to primary care"
I would suggest that their duty entails having an awareness of all practices in their area and a team of suitable qualified doctors ready to be parachuted in according to need, not merely passing the responsibility to someone who will be in no position to act.
Do they not appreciate that this is likely to lower threshold for consults as patients start to use it for anything and everything, swamping resources and leaving us with an ever expanding (if invisible) workload which must have an impact on care provision? Is it just me?
Please, just stop. Most of us now have systems in place to achieve QOF payment and while tedious at times, it does at least aim for quality.. Scrubbing it and replacing it with different schemes to implement (and public health ones at that if the examples given are typical) in order to receive the same payment is not an acceptable option. Are these people unaware of the crisis in general practice and how little it will take for some of us to walk away? Why should GPs have to keep proving our worth depending on the bright ideas of whoever is in charge? Does any other group’s contract change so dramatically so frequently? If the alternative is worse, a period of stability iwould be welcome.