One can only wish Dr Bawa-Garba good fortune and offer one's admiration for the way she has conducted herself.
I'm a man and I'm with Motdoc above. It's very simple - the average female GP (in my view) is more technically and socially competent than the average male GP.
Amongst 'poor performers' - female GPs are far more likely to have some insight into their limitations and will often retire or restrict their practice.
Both the main 'ill health' benefits - ESA and PIP - are payed on a "points mean prizes" basis. Other benefits - DLA for kids and carer's allowance are indirectly linked to judgements about health issues.
A minority of applicants for these benefits feel that the "more doctors they have seen and the more diagnostic labels and tests they have had the more points they should get".
This phenomenon is only going to get worse if the GP record moves 'centre stage' in the assessment process.
I read this article twice and I was still left confused.
Exactly which activities in a normal GP's day will not be covered by the NHS scheme (and indeed looking at the statements made by the defence orgs - what is not covered by their membership now)?
I wonder if pulse would consider commissioning an 'experts view' article about the limits of indemnity schemes?
Agree with everything other commentators have said. Constant rejigging of appraisal has worn everybody down. It is too frequent and too complex. Many docs - including me - time their retirement to avoid 'another cycle'
My anxiety about replacing it is:
a. No one that I know, has ever met anyone who 'failed' re-validation. Joe public / the Daily Wail have not noticed this!
b. The obvious alternative to re-validation by appraisal is an exam (as I think some licencing boards require in the US.) I suspect this would be considerable more stressful and would definitely produce 'failures'. There would be inevitable pressure to make scores available to patients.
Just as well that the average doc has so much free time available to plonk around with all this.
Does anyone actually understand this?
The (presumed) trade off between this very small increase in global sum and the 'gain' from not having to pay so much in indemnity subs is totally unclear to me.
The underlying problem here is that optimal use (or non-use!) of opiates (for chronic non-fatal pathologies) involves the doc making a subjective judgement about a patient's pain and personality. These decisions can rarely be completely right or completely wrong.
This balancing process is made more difficult by a "points mean prizes" benefits system that is seen as the only viable income option by some patients.
Many GPs have been surprised over the years by the decisions made by many pain clinic consultants.
I agree with most of the other commentators here. There are two main points being made:
1) Starting a patient on potent opiates - or gabapentinoids - is infinitely easier than stopping them. (A point repeatedly denied by some proponents of some pain management strategies.)
2) It seems rather unfair for one group of docs to undertaking the easy bit (starting!) and for another group of docs to have to cope with the task of trying to stop the stuff.
Like the above two commentators I'm rather surprised that this (eminently sensible) sentence has been passed. "Surely it was somehow the doctor's fault".
In all fairness to the National Committee their actual recommendations are pretty clear on most matters (a firm thumbs down to the majority of suggested national programs for adults)
Their recent and historic recommendations are available at:
I agree with Tony that we just don't hear enough about the Committee's opinions. Again as Tony implies this is probably because their views are "evidence based" rather than "read it in the Mail" based.
Late in the day - in every sense - just before the Christmas break and in the middle of the Brexit silly season.
I hear the sound of earth clods falling heavily as dangerous news is buried.
Christmas send up?
Suspension a totally unjustified sanction - whatever one feels about the rights or wrongs of this doctor's actions.
Breaking a butterfly upon a wheel?
For heavens sake - when will we learn.
It is impossible to justify to patients (or the Daily Mail) the use of financial incentives to restrict access to care.
I'm old enough to have done quite a bit of intra-partum obstetrics as a GP.
Many young doctors will imagine that delivering babies in a remote GP unit was a really bad idea, that the GPs involved were often frightened witless and that the survival of all concerned had more to do with good fortune that medical skill. Those young GPs would be quite correct.
Never never would have guessed.
"Babylon has had to limit the number of appointments to three daily." -- Worth while reading this article just for this little gem.
Confirms my view that Babylon is in a "enough rope and they'l hang themselves" situation.
Having said that I don't blame young docs for giving this a spin as part of a portfolio - while the opportunity is there.
I'm with Cobblers - Brilliant article - tells the truth but as in Medieval Spain we live in a society where truth tellers are liable to public burning.
Deborah White above is quite correct - practices should be check registrations on line.
I think pragmatically that managers take the existence of an NI number as evidence of the right to work in the UK but I'm not sure how watertight this is.
RatherBeAGardener - a very positive comment - made me think!