Let common sense prevail
GP Principal, counting the days...
Is it me or did the CQC flee to the hills at the first sniff of Covid, and now comes skulking back to criticise how we managed whilst they were away? Is the CQC the world's largest chocolate teapot?
Saturdays and Sundays anyone?
"A redefinition of core hours allows us to...."
...do whatever the f**k we like!
My problem is a more fundamental one - who has the right to send a letter to my patients which purports to be from me when I haven't even seen it? All letters should be signed by the person who wrote them.
Defence: "M'lud, I am a noctor - equal in all senses with a GP"
General practice delivered around 1.22 million appointments in England in 2019.
I think this should read PER DAY
I've completed the online survey. At least that bit was fun.
Lots of comments saying we shouldn't have signed up to PCN's. Let's be clear, we had no choice. CCGs were mandated to get all practices signed up, and this latest spec suggests that if you aren't signed up you'll have to do the work anyway.
The thinktanks that are trying to rescue primary care are doing a great job of destroying it!
I would suggest that we should be concentrating on teaching registrars to be able to do a full day's work. After admin time, study time, study leave, educational time, time in lieu, etc etc they barely have time to see a patient. I guess if they were proficient in Skype consultations they wouldn't even have to get up in the morning - just take the laptop to bed.
Interesting. It seems that this locum was working for her own company (presumably because of better tax situation) so surely her own company is responsible for her conditions of work. Or can we now all have our cake and eat it?
You get what you wish for.... Give up partnership and become an employee of a large and expanding managed organisation, and you also give up control of your practice and the ability to maintain the high standards of care that you give. It's a personal choice but I know where I sit on this.
Is it just me or is the equation wrong here? Will the time, money and manpower expended on a massive expansion of screening and health promotion actually achieve savings (in money and morbidity) that exceed the investment?
No amount of investment will ever prevent people from developing disease, we just might catch them earlier.
Look out A/E in Brum - the floodgates are opening...
FSRH can only blame themselves. After 25 years fitting IUD/IUS I was suddenly asked to retrain, fit a minimum number per year, audit all fittings etc etc, plus pay an annual fee that meant I was fitting for nothing. So I stopped, and I am sure that I am not the only one.
It's very easy to whinge isn't it? If you feel the pension scheme you are in is crap then you can opt out. Here is the link to the form you will need.
Looks like an astute career move. Should be able to avoid seeing any patients at all from now to retirement.
At last, a bit of research that asks the right question!
I agree. The outcomes of this approach need careful evaluation. Are we catching cancer earlier and treating it successfully? Are we overtreating people with little benefit? Are we diverting resources away from other areas of the service? More referrals does not equal success.
As with any service, if you want to know how it is performing measure outcomes.
This move establishes the principle (long suspected) that the government consider YOUR pension to be THEIR money. It is not. It is yours. You have earned that money and saved that money. They have no right to put their dirty little fingers in it!!
I employed a pharmacist for a short period (3 weeks) to help with the burden of repeat prescribing and prescription queries. When he wasn't covering the duties each day I objected, and was told that 'clinical pharmacists aren't repeat prescribing machines', which I took to mean 'you'll have to carry on doing that yourself, because it's not sexy enough for me'.