Oh my god I cannot believe I've just written 400 words for Pulse and not been paid for it.
Hi Nish. Don't normally head below the line myself, but couldn't let the Prof's straw man about all dissenters being anonymous stand so as someone whose stock-in-trade is whinging about the powers that be, here's my chronic unfocussed two cents.
Let's be honest, this article never had a hope of hitting the fabled 5 stars, but it already has you drowning in plaudits from what Pev might call the wider Morlock community, so swings and roundabouts eh.
I do think you make some valid points. Of course the people you work with in NHS England are not evil, just as my appraiser is not evil, my CQC inspector was not (provably) evil, and the U-boat Kapitänleutnant in Das Boot isn't evil. They're all normal people trying to do the best they can in tough jobs. But that doesn't mean that their actions and the system they support have a benign effect on us ordinary working GPs; quite the opposite. (Except the U-boat guy, on whom the jury is still out).
There's a reason we're in a spiral of negativity. In the ten years since I was a GP trainee like you virtually every aspect of the job has got worse. That ain't fake news, it's just a statement of fact, easily backed up by looking at the stats on GP workload, GP pay, indemnity costs, numbers of applicants for jobs and so on. I'm sorry-not-sorry if my response to this is criticism of the forces I perceive to be worsening the situation, whether through malice or ineptitude. But the idea that my criticism is now a bigger problem than the *actual problem* is just daft, frankly.
"Why are you retiring/quitting/moving to Australia?"
"Well, my job is fine. In fact, I couldn't be happier. But I keep reading in the papers that GP is bad so I thought I'd better get out". SAID NO ONE EVER.
I don't know if NHS England can make the job better. I don't believe they go into work each day to actively try and make it worse. But that's what keeps happening anyway. So here's some targeted inflammation for you; tell your BFFs at NHS England that if they really want to Make General Practice Great Again they should take all the five year forward view money and put it directly into the global sum. Nothing puts bums on seats like cold hard cash.
In the meantime I will continue to call it as I see it. There is a great British tradition of therapeutic grumbling in times of adversity; it's not chronic inflammation, it's catharsis. And without catharsis you know what you end up being full of.
Liam Booth-Smith of Localis has pointed out to me a section in the report that explains their use of the word appropriate:
"Note on terminology
Throughout the report, we highlight referrals that have not met thresholds as ‘inappropriate’. This is not a value judgement on the ability of or concern noted by professionals referring young people onto CAMHS. We have simply chosen terminology that is already in common usage when highlighting referrals that have not met service thresholds."
Nice to see you back Samir
There's a good article about Boots which should have linked from the second paragraph but I don't think Pulse like me hyperlinking to alternative news providers. Anyway you should all read it. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/13/how-boots-went-rogue
Sorry to hear about your wife Richard. I wish her a speedy and straightforward recovery.
Hi anonymous sessional/locum GP. I'm always open to constructive criticism, so take your "victim-searching drivel" comments on board. Of course it isn't racist to increase the number of doctors we train, but I don't believe that's what I said.
Does the the headline "You're only welcome until 2025!" make non-UK-trained doctors feel valued? Does Amber Rudd's suggestion that companies employing non-British workers should be "named and shamed", with its implicit suggestion that foreigners are shameful, make non-UK-trained doctors feel valued? I don't think so.
My point is that, as proven by the increase in racist abuse experienced by colleagues since the Brexit vote, the tone set by politicians and headline writers effects how our colleagues are treated in the real world. As a white UK trained doctor I've never been the victim of racist abuse, but it's happened to enough of my friends to make it my duty to stand up and say it's unacceptable. It's not "victim-searching drivel" if there are actual victims.
Finally, I'm saddened you misrepresent me as "utterly terrified of causing offence". You could easily disprove this by having a look through my previous blogs, but if you don't have the time I could clear it up now by calling you a tedious sadsack who's too cowardly to put their name to their brainless opinions. Utterly terrified? Not me my friend.
I think the rule is there to protect both patients and doctors. Not being able to have sex with your patients might be a bind but probably less of one than either a) being sexually exploited by your patient or b) being sexually exploited by your doctor.
Pev wrote about this a while back: http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/blogs/peverley/no-sex-please-im-a-doctor/20006842.blog
That's a valid question - so I asked it.
Joe Public is 2:1 against legalised patient-shagging.
Interestingly the BASC have issued a statement that their members should refuse to pay. This one is likely to run and run. https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-says-dont-pay-medical-fee/
Er...I want less work *and* more pay, please.
"A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘We are committed to our target of 5,000 more doctors in general practice by 2020.'"
Note "doctors in general practice". As opposed to qualified GPs.
But it's gone to my chest...
But it's gone to my chest...
George Osborne has a degree in the humanities.
Dr Pete Deveson
Can we stop calling Dr Dan "a former obstetrician" because he's done an SHO job in O&G?
By that rationale, I'm a former orthopod, a former urologist, a former surgeon, a former sexual health specialist, a former paediatrician, a former geriatrician and a former dermatologist.
"Former junior doctor" is correct without being misleading.