Top of the list MUST be to scrap Capita's involvement and make sure that everyone has an up to date real time information with regards to their pension pots.
I have tried about 100 times to get accurate information about my pension contributions but to date have been unsuccessful.
Mark Howson has it right.
This process is not a failure or error. It is exactly Modality's business plan. I imagine patients get a terrible GP service with 3000+ patients/ GP - but it must be impossible not to have a good partnership income. Do you really think that if they had a fistful of applicants they would double the number of GPs working for them and go back to 1600 patients/ full time GP?
So one article below there is a practice that is closer because there were not enough people around to keep the service safe during eid.
But the ooh provider can just say no thanks when recruitment is a little tougher than expected?
I like formula 1 with it's revving engines and carbon footprint.
Can I prescribe formula 1?
(prob cheaper than neocate)
I am not a major fan of the CQC - but what I do know is that this level of enforcement action is not taken lightly. It is slightly unfair to criticise them without the right of reply - until at least the report has been published. I suspect reading the report will result in much more information as to why this practice was failing. I suspect many of the reasons cannot be fully explained by the day the visit happened to fall on.
As above, nobody has confidence in the CQC as it is directly employed by the DofH so lacks independence.
Should be parallel investigations by government and trade union and both should hold equal weight in court; and equal access to the resources required to perform their investigation.
Throughout the health service, commissioners and providers have to balance the guidelines (including nice guidelines) against the resources available. For example fertility guidelines are routinely not followed. And even in mental health the journey to face to face cbt is not in line with guidance (in my area and I suspect every area).
So why should this provider be treated differently. Is it just because GPs are easy targets?
Way too little and way too late. Making this only eligible for people who meet certain criteria is ridiculous, for a system which actually does not cost the government anything.
As many have said it is not enough to stop the people retiring and not enough to encourage highly skilled individuals (with huge amounts of training costs) to work more hours.
There should be massive steps to encourage people working longer hours - they should be rewarded rather than punished by the pension system (if not the tax system).
I do not see why a GP working 10 sessions should pay a higher percentage of their income towards their pension scheme when compared to a GP working 3 sessions. If you want to encourage GPs to work longer hours it should be the other way around.
I suspect in a recent (or perhaps very urgent upcoming review) the medical practice in question might stop offering that service as it is not part of the core contract. (as per vadar above).
The notice of withdrawing that service should specifically thank this patient by name, for starting the process of reviewing ear wax treatment.
I need a bus to take all the staff to the summer party.
Do you think I can...
"ask - with the consent of our employees - for support from Stagecoach, to transport us all to and from the summer party. (for free obviously)"
They will probably say yes.
We have a mix of full time and ‘part time’ partners.
If counting accurately I think the part time GPs would be working about 37 hour weeks.
So it should be recorded as full time and double time.
As above - sounds like a public health intervention - should be managed by PHE.
If they do not have the manpower - they can commission the service.
But asking GPs to do it for free is not right. It is like asking my bank to do my tax return, just because i have a current account with them.
To be fair their 'area' is just the area of the practice, which is within one local boundary. The practice can register out of area patients, just like any other practice in the entire country can.
I am not a fan of Babylon - and I think the problem needs addressing.
It needs addressing properly, by making sure the funding is appropriately linked to illness or workload rather than patient numbers. Babylon are not the only culprits, there are many practices who are driving up profits through poor care by driving up the number of patients per GP - and then not offering enough appointments to meet the demand.
So in summary the network les is not the way to address the problem, just find a better way to do it.
Lets remember that the taxpayer alliance is a right wing pressure group.
This study is about as trustworthy as a pharmaceutical company's study which has not been peer reviewed. It is not worth the paper it is written on.
The problem is that Slack Matt wound look any further than the headline and the advice of the pressure group.
Can you imagine trying to implement 25 patient contact limits? There are some days where I see:
30 booked patients.
8 extra patients
8 phone calls
10 extra patient tasks based on contact with other professionals (receptionists/ paramedics/ DNs/ etc)
So that makes 60 - without considering bloods, letters etc.
I am with anon2016.
Somewhere there will be a patient declined a proven/ effective drug or treatment today because the cost is 30000 per QALY. Or perhaps it is proven effective but not 'proven' to be more cost effective than 30000/ QALY.
Cam the CQC really say it is more effective than 30000/QALY? Make sure they include ALL the practice costs (for our recent inspection we cancelled 500 appointments to prepare. That alone is 20k.
And remember once it feels it can say it is more effective than 30000/QALY it needs to provide proof to the same level as any other drug or NHS expense.
Otherwise they should individually be sent to explain to patients declined treatment that they cannot have their proven treatment just because the CQC would like to create 'jobs for the boys'.
There are so many policies that work against working full time. They should not just be cancelled, but instead reversed to give more advantages to working full time (as a GP).
I don't think it is realistic to change progressive tax rates. But how about the following:
1 - We all know the very complicated situations with regards to pension tax - that needs to be corrected asap.
2 - But why should a 10 session GP earning 120k pay a higher employees contribution percentage than a 7 session GP earning 84k?
3 - Why when a 10 session GP partner who is off sick (for 2 week) get paid 180 pounds per session to cover locums, but a 5 session GP partner get 360 per session to cover locums?
Don't worry - a significant cut in the global sum payments for Wales will definitely help the recruitment crisis.
Am I the only one who read the headline and got it the wrong way (or maybe the correct way).
GPs to receive training or tackling....
'unprofessionalism from the GMC'
i.e. how to tackle the GMC being unprofessional. I think we can all agree that would be useful.
Medicinal cannabis pressure group says doctors are not prescribing enough medicinal cannabis.
In next weeks edition:
Sugar lobby says sugar is a good source of energy. And oil lobby says fast cars are super-cool.