Sorry - if GPs are to part of the process, they need payment from the Police / licensing authority. End of.
There is a charge for a licence- some of that has to come back to GP for the costs incurred +/- liability.
GPs should not have to be put into a position of conflict (i.e. demanding money) with gun owners who they believe should have weapons licences removed.
In my view, user pays.
What about the myriad of patients who have had a tick bite who have a bit of erythema and are well and who don't have the bulls eye rash (yet).
Do we a)give antibiotics to all b)wait for bulls eye then treat c) test d) Review in a few weeks and test then. e) retest.
Clearer guidance needed!
I can't see many circumstances where closing a surgery would make the situation safer for the patients than keeping the surgery and improving it.
This is a great shame for the practice and patients involved. The report may shed more light.
Another outrageous money grab by the UK government.
"We are giving the NHS more money" - but taking it back from the employers (Trusts and GPs) by hiking Employers superann.
The Scape rate increase that this methodology is based is a fiddle. If DOH were genuinely concerned about the NHS scheme not having a fund -they would be investing the additional money in such a fund.
The scheme is in surplus- no need for a hike.
Taxing the scheme like this causes members to leave, and then the scheme implodes.
We will deliver 2% pay award to GP (then have 6% back in superann).
They really do want GP practices to fold.
England may have negotiated this for one year, but negotiations need to get going fast on this one.
Its up to the courts to award financial penalties IF a criminal is found guilty- not the whim of the Health Secretary.
DOH are very unwise to get involved starting these witch hunts.
Stopping a pension only punishes the innocent dependants.
I'm with you Stelvio.
Take the gong back.
He doesn't need the money mind.
Great- what a stitch-up.
So she can't practice because she has been forced to not practice for 3 years while being investigated.
So innocent or guilty, right or wrong -your career is over, just because "s**t happens" on or near your watch.
The problem is knowing which prescriptions were unnecessary.
Easy in retrospect, much harder at the time.
We will be the ones in the coroners courts, not the policymakers.
This is welcome news for one year- but the whole uplift thing seems to be to be as scam.
The SCAPE discount rate -a complex fudge mechanism set by the treasury, was set up to compare the value of a state backed scheme (without a fund) like the NHS, with a private invested pension fund. This is just a notional comparison that was supposed to be reviewed 5 yrly. If interest rates drop, a private pension fund returns might drop, and so the amount needed to obtain the same pension goes up.
The NHS scheme was said to be in surplus when employers contributions were set at 7%. This should be even more so (so long as members haven't all left). So there is no need to keep reducing or applying the SCAPE discount rate, which was reduced 2 years ago.
It would appear to be being used as a clever way of seeming to invest more in the NHS, but extracting it back our of trust in the form of NHS employers contributions. Usual smoke and mirrors stuff.
If this is extracted in 2021, it could wipe out most of the gains of the new contract review.
The balancing agreement needs to take this into account- i.e. should be two way.
We are all agreeing! Who writes these guidelines?
3 day course of UTI don't work - generate multiple appointments. I've never met a GP yet who agrees.
Only OOH services and Pharmacists give 3 day courses- but they never have to see patients again -they come to us.
Perhaps we need to be able to register people with NO address -without dishonestly filling in address fields. One for NHS Digital to sort.
Then secondary care (or others) will realise that the patient is homeless and will have the same difficulty contacting them that Practices do.
Maybe another reason for national ID cards -we just need to know who the person is and that they are entitled to be registered.
Apology or resignation needed. Complete conflict of interest as representative of one of largest GP groups which has been absorbing small practices. That model may work in wealthy London -but in cash and resource strapped rest of UK, we depend on many small organisations goodwill.
Really sorry -Dr Madan uses all the meaningless admin-speak that is the hallmark of the out-of- touch.
You can count them up -grassroots...direction of travel..vision...scale.
Completely misses the point about GP at hand. This service is not just about choice of GP. It doesn't offer the same services as a GP - so should not be able to hoover up patients.
How do you see a patient requiring examination, blood tests, cervical smears, immunisations, dress a wound, blood pressure with a mobile app? -you can't. Allowing services such as this to hoover up patients just removes the funding from functioning practices.
Dr Richard Greenway
Ah the good old days -yes pre-CQC doctors spent more time seeing patients, less time covering their backs and doing meaningless risk assessments.
Consultations were quicker, demand was less, work intensity much less. Doctors told patients what to do, and patients did it or got told off!
Doctors work very long hours now and then. Yes we have more female workforce - so none of this is a suprise.
Whats the solution- I agree crown indemnity /or better no-fault compensation such as New Zealand http://www.acc.co.nz/
Far too much of NHS budget spent on litigation maybe 25%- much of this going to solicitors, not patients. If we could recoup £1Bn or 2 for GP -who knows what we could do with it.
Since when has Fentanyl been bad? Or Doxazosin, or Lidocaine.
Mind you agree with Gluten Free foods which are now widely available, and T3 is questionable.
Brilliant -spot on!
It all boils down to funding, and how much of a gut you're prepared to bust.
Our practice income is low per capita -has been for ages, we shout and no-one listens. We're small rural and responsive, open long hours and see patients quickly and respond to surges in patient demand. Our income has been cut massively -our GPs need more pay than 5-6 sessions a week would generate unlike in Mr Devil's practice.
With more income to attract staff, decrease our list sizes from over 2000 per GP we could flourish.
Ballpark estimate around 3 hours per week extra- ongoing plus the backlog.
=£1500 plus superann plus NIC per annum.
A drop in the ocean -I agree just sort it out.
The GPC has done us a disservice in seemingly negotiating this extra bit of work and responsibility for no fee.
Please join me in writing to your local firearms service and insisting that GPs are paid a fee by the firearms authority (not the patient).
The argument runs like this:
1) Providing reports to the police is not part of our contractual responsibility.
2) The police charge members of the public for administering their shotgun application -around £120 currently.
3) The police feel that they need to tighten their policy and want us to search through medical records and generate a report to them.
4) This request for a report comes from the police (not the patient) and is sent to the police therefore they have to incorporate the costs for this service in the fees they already charge for administering the scheme.
5) Incidentally I have also made it clear that the practice has not agreed a timescale with them, that they cannot assume that if we have not replied within a certain timescale that we have made a check and that we have no concerns, and to stop making requests for reports until a framework has been agreed.
6) I also point out that the read codes that we use on patient records are nothing to do with the police, and form part of the medical records. Likewise we would have no jurisdiction requesting that the police enter data on patients criminal or police records.
7) I point out that as good citizens we will continue to report concerns to them as we always have.
If local groups can negotiate we have a chance with not being totally stitched up on this one.
Clearly GPs will get drawn into the next Dunblane event medicolegally, and we need to be compensated for taking this additional risk on.