Dylan's analysis - above - is exactly the same as mine.
The NHS is in a 'least catastrophic option' situation.
I hope that services for the central core of 'life saving work' - e.g. trauma and treatment of the acute abdomen can be preserved as best as possible.
Thank you - and good luck old son.
Well done Nigel.
By far the best account of the current, grim, situation for doctors in Italy that I have read is available on Univadis.co.uk (medical professionals only)
"Covid-19 : what can the world learn from Italy?"
On the plus side the Italians seem to have got themselves on to the required 'military footing' and in particular have specialist teams to admit patients to hospital after phone triage. The hospital docs are looking at novel ways of assisting breathing in 'fitter' patients under 65 to avoid blocking ventilator facilities.
On the negative side - the article quotes a figure of 50 doctors afflicted with the virus so far (although one imagines that this is a ludicrous underestimate of actual infection rates) and 3 deaths (presumably by 12 March).
Excellent article - gives a real insight into the pragmatic skills and resilience of the typical GP team.
As always, no one at any level will say 'well done' at any point.
Another incentive for the ambitious young doc to either choose a hospital career or a portfolio career with significant non-NHS earnings.
Just how much consideration went into this move?
(I write as one who never got anywhere near £150K in my career as a GP partner - but subsequently achieved this type of income with far less effort as a 'bits and pieces doctor'.)
Jo Churchill's previous clinical experience - "finance director of a scaffolding company and served on Lincolnshire County Council".
Just to say 'good luck with it all' to Dr Louise Davies.
Many of us will identify very closely with her situation and feelings about practice as a GP at the moment.
This could be a winner lads. Just hint that the surgery and you (especially you) are riddled with the virus - and look forward to a very quiet month or so.
Perhaps a trickle may become a torrent?
Laughed and laughed and laughed!!!
'Non medical Mrs' read the article to find out whey I was so unnaturally cheerful. She couldn't see the funny side at all - "isn't it serious when they get dizzy"?
Interesting article - fascinating comments.
Being a GP is now completely impossible. Social class / sex / ethnicity - all irrelevant. We need individuals who are bright enough to complete the training - yet daft enough to sign up for the job!
Link to report is -
Interesting document - one could easily spend all the long gaps in a GP day glancing through it. Many docs will only get as far as the opening definition of a full time GP's workload!!
is a standardised measure of the workload of an employed person and allows for the total workforce workload to be expressed in an equivalent number of full-time staff. 1.0 FTE equates to full-time work of 37.5 hours per week, an FTE of 0.5 would equate to 18.75 hours per week."
"General practices are developing new roles and working in primary care teams to better support GPs, they’re designing services – with patients and communities – to ensure preventive healthcare, using technologies to manage demand, and developing healthier and more supportive environments for GPs and their staff."
The usual twaddle hinting that it's really all GPs' fault - if only they didn't just sit on their idle asses and just got on with it and "instituted best practice".
That's what we need - more meetings about best practice.
Do you remember those pod things in the movie 'Alien' which burst open and produced - well - aliens?
This Ashworth chappie has been incubating in the pod next to the one that hatched Matt Hancock
Well done the Springburn Health Centre. I hope that they stick to their guns.
David Banner - rather bravely - 'describes it exactly as it is'. He is also probably right about 'how its going to be'.
In small to medium partnerships, one doc's flexible approach is another doc's MI.
I suspect the situation is exactly the same in most DGH consultant teams - especially if they are involved in acute admissions.
Useful update of current therapy and thoughts on a very common problem.
The medical defence organisations' (MDOs') subscriptions have historically been set towards large pooled funds to cover likely future claims against members.
Attempts to use members premiums to 'buy policies' in the larger insurance market have failed.
It was always the case that the 'smaller the subscription the less secure the funding for future claims'. An MDO could only really affect this fundamental truth through four methods - weeding out 'higher risk doctors', being ruthless at defending claims, attempting to 'educate their members in risk reduction' or keeping overheads down through sheer size. I suspect all three major players in the market were trying to use all four techniques as best they could.
It has always been the case that reducing premiums (perhaps better described as members' subscriptions) increased future risk - NOT just to the MDO but to all the members of that MDO.
I was always struck by the naivety of GPs who though that they were 'buying car insurance' and could just 'go for the lowest premium'. The size of an individual doctor's indemnity costs are always trivial compared with the effects of even a single significant claim for damages.
I was not a member of MPS - my practice had 'always been MDU'. I felt though that MPS's higher subscriptions (higher than the final year of MDU fees and much higher than longer term MDDUS charges) suggested a possibly more sensible approach to ensuring that future risks were covered.