It's odd isn't it? In a recent MORI poll, GPs remain the top professional that the public trust to tell the truth. Interestingly politicians and journalists are right at the bottom of the list. It's not surprising therefore that they need to bash GPs all the time in an attempt to confuse the public. In my experience the public are in the main a lot more canny than that and see through the rhetoric of the Daily Wail and Hunt.
Peter English, you are a public health consultant and therefore have a different view on things than we do at the coalface. You are in no danger of breaching the DPA; we are. There is no cost to you (time; postage; etc.) of informing all our patients so they can opt out which in my view is contrary to the spirit of the DPA in which people should consent to opt in. If Government feel that because NHS care is free at the point of contact that any data that comes out of a contact should be available to researchers etc, then Government should be honest with the public about what this means. People could then choose not to use the NHS if they felt that was relevant to them. In our practice, we are very concerned about confidentiality and thus are seeking to allow our patients the right to opt in as the default with fully informed consent, which is not the position NHS England appears to want to take.
60% of the time - does this mean working (being available) for 101 hours a week? I doubt that will be safe or humanly possible.
Oh dear! Mr Hunt is clearly demonstrating his lack of understanding of general practice, assuming this has been reported accurately. How he thinks the 2004 contract has anything to do with 'undermining the personal link between GPs and their patients' is difficult to understand when much of the country were operating successful GP out of hours co-operatives prior to 2004, which rthemselves were started because of the spiralling night work. Even before the co-operatives, we often didn't know the patient who called us at 3 a.m. We already provide a 'named clinician' basis of care for our vulnerable patients. He can write words but unless his ideas are going to be properly resourced, nothing much will change. If he is a serious health minister then to instil change he will need to engage with the profession instead of handing out soundbites to newspapers; no one will take him seriously otherwise.
OOH providers have to CQC regulated. If it is ok for CQC, then by definition it has to be good enough for our patients. Simples!
Value for money has to work both ways. If QOF is going to be linked to QIPP which is a euphemism for doing more for less, then practices need to make a decision as to whether it is still worth the while. Chasing meaningless targets to collect data for the NHS to sell on is not in my view a part of quality patient care.
Rather than charge patients, why can't we charge per item of service. That way it would be a lot easier to budget for care provided and would be popular with the public as we could put on surgeries outside normal hours knowing they would be paid for. I suspect Government however would not like this model (even though it is more akin to the Tesco rubbish that is put out), simply because demand would then have to properly funded instead of continually squeezing further our finite resources.
Why do we have to wait 9 years for extra funding. If GPs are expected to shoulder the NHS and keep people out of hospital they need the funding now.
1/ GPs are not allowed to state someone is fit for work. We can only say they are not fit, or they might be fit. Only an occupational physician or nurse can determine if someone is fit for work
2/ GPs are not trained to understand workplace hazards and therefore should provide very generic advice about their patient e.g. ticking the box on the Med3 and doing little else. It is up to the employer to take the responsibility for any action. This could include seeking an OH opinion.
Problem is GPs can't show activity like hospitals as they don't work to the same system. We simply have a block of time and everything must go into it. Until it is understood by politicians that what is happening is that our time is being used to saturation, which I suspect they don't want to hear as it is easier to blame us knowing we can't show activity so easily, then more and more will be put upon us and more and more people will have to use A&E as appointments will become more and more scarce and it will be more and more our fault for being lazy and inefficient.
Government claim to want to move services into primary care to save money, but unless primary care sees a resultant rise in funding to resource this, there will be a net movement of unscheduled care to A&E, probably negating any possible advantage to the NHS. Makes you realise that privatisation of the NHS must be the agenda. The only other way to stop the rot is making patients pay at primary care. Clearly the UK plc can't afford the aspirations set out for the NHS. Mr Hunt should stop being a hypocrite (or at least find some advisors who know what is really going on)!
Don't worry!. The little men in white coats are on their way.
I am a great believer in constantly encouraging people to get off their arses and alter behaviour. The problem is, that unless they can take a tablet for it and no responsibility for themselves, they will not do it. They don't even bother to take tablets all the time. So yes, I will continue to pontificate and tick any boxes for QOF to say I have given advice and it will make not one iota of difference because there is no motivation to change until something catastrophic happens and then it will be my fault for not telling them. So the box ticking will help me prove I did tell them. I wish I could go back to doing medicine again!
GPs do all the giving. Government do all the taking. Is this guy some kind of a joke?