More social diversity would be good.
But sadly huge Student Loan and commodification of students by universities has pushed this completely the other way.
Only families with significant parental finances to fall back on (which doesn't necessarily equate to posh) can afford the risk of their kids going to Med School and long uncertain career paths.
Not once you've nominated a CQC registered manager, practice manager, equalities lead, safeguarding lead, contructed a respect anti-terrorism policy, provided 8-8 care, joined a PCN -no time to see patients.
CQC should be there to help, not shut down practices. CQC has a large funding and manpower resource- let have some of this on the frontline.
Their resource needs to be put into practices in areas such as Plymouth to prevent GP services collapsing. GPs don't need to be taken "out of class" for long periods of time to be "told to do better".
We need an input of additional hands on the pumps. CQC staff could actually be useful - rather than filling in reports and tying up frontline staff in meetings.
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!