What is beyond comprehension is that NHS England choose to completely and utterly ignore the stress and difficulties in Primary Care. They have totally failed to find the 5000 GPs promised, and by their own admission needed, but still think they can pile on extra pressure.
What are they thinking?
Who is this Mr Nelligan?
GPs taking on the burden of uncertainty is predicated on the provision of backup from secondary care services.
This is a pact and should not be broken. Where in fact did this whole I am not accepting your referral nonsense start?
As d in vadar says - so what? Stating the bleedin obvious. Nobody has bothered about it over the last few years so I don't see any reason (or evidence) why they might start now.
And the GMC who struck him off........?? Although they were under an obligation to do this they are now equally under an obligation to help him back to work and to actively restore his professional functioning.
Don't hold your breath.
Can we clearly identify the actual people behind this? How do we do that?
The war against small practices has been an act of unparalleled barbarity in the history of primary care. Led by Ideologues promoted beyond their capacity.
GPs will go the way of Bespoke Tailors. The public will get a lesser product from Primark.
The Added Value and Altruism is too intangible to the calculating.
General Practice could be made more attractive overnight. Make the CQC's inspections formative, contextualised and with a totally clear set of basic standards that are professionally agreed.
Overhaul the whole approach to complaints. They destroy doctors rather than improve services.
Bring back a District Nurse that you see on a daily basis.
Strip out the powers of CCGs to micromanage and interfere. Return the contractual relationship to the one of mutual respect as existed between GPs and the old FPC.
Keep a watching eye on the GMC to make sure it doesn't get ideas above its station again.
And as a guiding light resist being skilled workforce and fight for your sense of professionalism.
Don't see why NICE shouldn't say something - time to intervention has a major influence on outcome and must be evidence based......
The problem is that earnings relate to list size rather than workload and to a list size that was manageable in the 1970s-80s. It's fine for Babylon to scoop up all the easy not really ill youth but they should be paid a lot less per capita and with us, the poor bloody infantry, being paid three times the rate for the elderly and the complex.
Get rid of the CQC.
Private Health Insurance must be the next to go. I fundamentally object to paying for this. They sit in judgement on people who work within the NHS yet refuse to use it themselves. Utter hypocrisy.
Anti-semitism and economic illiteracy of truly olympian proportions and Corbyn's silly little Lenin cap.
An silly case where both sides display intolerance and lack of common pragmatic sense.
The problem i simple. To earn the same income as a GP did in the 80s AND 90s she/he needs to have exactly the same list size per FTE as then- circa 2000. However in the intervening years life expectancy, patient expectancy, multiple morbidity and polypharmacy have mushroomed.That is why we are all working so much harder. For a reasonable income say 100k for ft WORK list size needs to be about 1300 to regain sanity and to enable f/t working to return.
Attenuated seniority finally vanishes end of March.
The utterly useless BMA would be much employed in engaging with realpolitik. No government is ever going to allow this- it would be political suicide.
Taming the CQC would be a much better avenue to explore by these childlike dreamers.
The CQC element they could do overnight if they really wanted to increase morale in GP. Would also result in a financial saving!
I don't think that government really "gets it" though on how how deep the trouble is.
"We respect you"- well it wasn't that long ago that Labour were calling us "bourgeois icons".
Pass the sick bag.
Deliberate refusal to face the real causes of GP problems.
If these were sorted then there would be no need to "convince"
CON-vince more like.