This study is refreshing but will almost certainly be buried as doesn't fit in with Government diktat. It would also now be practically impossible to implement because of the lack of GP numbers. Patients need to be more patient and be more prepared to wait for their preferred GP rather than opting to see the first available.
Thought the evidence for Tamiflu was very poor so it is probably not going to change any outcomes
Why not put postings on Tripadvisor as well.
The difficulty is that if a service is no longer funded, it will then be withdrawn. It can be very difficult to get the personnel / infrastructure back again if it is subsequently funded again, so the cost to the NHS is inevitably increased
When you do the calculations with patients at 10% risk, most of them feel there is such a tiny benefit to them personally (given that you can't really extrapolate from a population to an individual) that the majority say no.
Excellent article. Fully agree the point about why A&E was mysteriously quieter up and down the country. I wonder if anyone in Government will take note. Thought not.....
I have no idea how many of our patients were vaccinated elsewhere. I regularly find ad hoc when seeing patients that they were vaccinated at Boots or some other pharmacy, when I had assumed they had simply declined vaccination after we had asked them to attend.
Sadly it seems that often we have not been informed which is unsatisfactory and may be an issue of safety if there is no reliable database of who has(n't) been vaccinated. If the system is complex, it risks failing.
This guidance places GPs in a difficult ethical position if there are no new resources. Each case will mean probably another 2 to 3 appointments per year on a lot of people we wouldn't otherwise see. People who are or think they are unwell already have a difficult time getting appointments. Taking on this work will choke off the likelihood of them actually getting an appointment at all. So - unethical and therefore should not be touched as per GMC Good Medical Practice (unless properly resourced).
We haven't had one. But I have opted my entire family of 8 out of this nonsense.
If you are employed in a trust, you have mandatory training expected of you (CPR / infection control / fire etc etc etc). This is done in work time. Why should it be different for GPs?
This has been handled so badly by NHS England that no one seriously trusts the motives or believes anything that is expressed here. NHSE had an opportunity to properly go to patients and ask permission. Instead they chose to tell GPs it was their responsibility to ensure people consented. We therefore ran a campaign in our practice (when it seemed we were on our own) to tell our understanding to patients (which may have been limited because NHSE were so crap about explaining things or taking any kind of responsibility). The damage is done. Most of our patients have opted out and are continuing to do so. I imagine many colleagues will have done things in their own way.
No data coming out will therefore have much value as all practices have been left alone to make decisions about how to pass this information on. Bias - Bias - Bias for any studies.
Once again NHSE have demonstrated a lack leadership or coherent policy. They seem to think that throwing their weight around will get them what thy want. Think again!
Q. What is the point of NHS England? A. To waste tax-payers money dealing with the pithy things. Sure ain't to do with management and leadership. What a joke!!!
It is simply not safe to our patients to take on more work for the sake of more work. Patients have a responsibility to contact us if they want our help. Anyway, I have difficulty understanding the 111 discharges as they as so full of what the patient doesn't have!
Record secretly....Where! What about Data Protection Issues? Does this include all individuals on regular cocodamol for back pain or sleepers in older people who have been on them years...etc....etc? Why bother? This appears to be more nonsense from people who clearly have little idea about primary care.
Not sure what she means by 'poor general practice'. Is there a validated measure of this, or is it a soundbite that can be massaged to mean whatever she subsequently chooses it to mean? If practices are not performing, there are an army of regulators whose responsibility is to raise the level. So....what is the point of her saying things that mean nothing.
NHS England insists GP practices remaining fully open on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve is 'non-negotiable'
I wouldn't mind if NHS England actually paid practices for all the services they insist on!
It would be helpful if the psychs could remove the blocks to referral. I had a case of a young woman who was sure he was a man who I referred to Charing X gender clinic. They wouldn't see him until she had been assessed by local psychs who (surprise surprise) thought he needed to be seen in the Charing X gender clinic. Complete waste of 8 months while that pantomime went on.
Is this a sign of a more litigious society, or hard pressed GPs making more mistakes through an ever greater workload? What then will happen then when fatigue ++ is added in by the 84 hour working week in addition to the 24/7 commitment to the vulnerable elderly. That's right! More mistakes and eventually some avoidable deaths. Is this what Jeremy Hunt wants? It would save paying pensions to those affected. 'Every Little Helps!!!'
One problem with this is that if GPs do that, their CQC bill goes through the roof and being independent contractors, you can guess who will pick up the tab