It defies belief that these Stalinist apparatchiks are stifling the voices of reason acting against the tyranny of the CQC an organisation as self serving as the GMC. The GMC and medical tribunals are all stacked against the profession having been stacked with politically motivated and directed oppressors.
At no time is their joint behaviour acceptable but it is even less so when the profession is at such a low point, a point which has been reached in part due to the continued ineptitude of the GMC and CQC.
Note that NHS England as usual in complete denial when faced with the facts.
Surely their days must be numbered. Does anyone have any examples of anytime they got anything right?
The thin end of the wedge. Beware the empire building of pharmacists.
'GP Practice Crisis Resilience Fund' and 'GP practices can claim up to £20,000 from the fund, although their bid has to be peer reviewed by another GP practice or the local medical committee before submission to ensure it is 'sensible'.' which really means that the crisis will be resolved (ie.e the practice will cease to function) due to the time and effort to make a bid followed by the usually speedy assessment of that bid by the CCG. So, another way of doing nothing while pretending to do something.
"Our patients are always our top priority" This is the mantra of every part of the failing NHS, mismanaged by administrators who assume the title manager, believing in their own accountancy led approach rather than allowing clinicians to design a service which is fit for service by putting the patient first. We have seen the results of the expensive and ineffective triage systems. The number of persons a patient has to see and talk to: NHS 111, Paramedics, Urgent care centres ets before hours later they get to see someone who actually knows any medicine. How did we get to this state of imminent collapse of the NHS? Comments on a post card
McKinsey are the firm who reckoned that GP consultations should be cut to 6 minutes about 4 years ago, if my memory serves me correctly. Clearly they are well known for their incisive and scholarly work on planet Zog which bears little or nor relationship to the real world. It is great that NHS England is supporting interplanetary exploration but as usual demonstrate a lack of capability when working in reality.
NHS England covering itself in glory once again. Who actually appoints and employs these people? What other organisations have they worked and failed in? Is the NHSE a home for those who could not be employed elsewhere? When will it dawn on those in power that cost saving initiatives are rarely thought through and usually seem to end up incurring costs far in excess of any potential savings (although those costs are not necessarily borne by NHSE to enable them to declare "SUCCESS".)
Some of these targets are reasonable but the package as a whole stinks of an accountants solutions to improving health care. Investment needs to be made in stabilising practices to improve continuity of care concurrently investing in education, knowledge and skills training to improve diagnosis and management: The evidence for this approach is there from many countries, notably Finland. The evidence for what will turn out to be more cuts in services for patients and resources in practices will be a further erosion in the quality of primary care with little incentive for doctors to join or be retained in primary care.
I am not too sure that Dr Vautrey does not realise that CCGs have expertise in anything other than blocking innovation.
What a waste of space to state the obvious, something which was obvious for years and he believes that he has saved general practice. It is apparatchiks like him that caused me to leave. Who does the master of spin think he is fooling.
Was there a breach of confidentiality or misuse of confidentially held information in performing this review? Was the study subject to ethics committee review? Is the data freely available for external review and validation?
I suspect not.
Is it not time that NICE were held to account concerning their inaccurate and misleading recommendations across a range of conditions? Their reviews cost a fortune to perform, not infrequently causing confusion rather than lending clarity. Of course their remit is cost effectiveness and not clinical excellence so maybe they should just change their name.
Pharmacists show their true colours. How can we maximise profits and pretend we are taking the moral high ground at the same time. Certainly in respiratory disease it is highly irresponsible not to prescribe generically as formulations differ substantially as do devices.I would not trust a pharmacist to perform a generic substitution nor would I want to be held responsible for the lack of control which ensues when the device is changed and the patient loses control. In fact high street pharmacists should be phased out.
I pity the poor buggers he presides over next.
We all wished Hunt would go. Beware what you wish for! This guy is a cock alright!
This model is about making all GPs salaried, the end of the indepenant, free thinking, free spirited individual who acts as the patient's advocate. Don't go there!!
Agree with DrDr. It is often misleading. One patient in whom I did CRP (slightly above normal range) was off the scale when admitted to hospital some 12 hours later. Happily I had given that person appropriate antibiotics anyway. They have been doing this for years in Sweden in primary care: the evidence from there is not convincing with their antibiotic prescribing higher than in the UK. We should perhaps see what they are doing in the Netherlands where antibiotic prescribing and resistance is the lowest in the world. This is just another Public health England stunt which will have everyone following guidelines by using a tests which is not fit for purpose, not allowing doctors to use their professional discretion.
This is surely an opportunity for the new health minister to make a positive impact by cutting through all the bullshit
Would anyone believe a word from NHS England?