To Anonymous London: no, it's not a matter for any shame - it was a standard way of assessing potential partners in the medium to distant past. Seeing how someone works within the practice is, in my opinion, far, far better (and a great deal more subtle as as a method of assessment) than asking for a reference.
When are Capita's directors going to appear in court to answer for all the mayhem that Capita appears to have been causing? If I personally had made so many mistakes, one after the other, I would expect to have been struck off long ago. Why aren't healthcare firms held *strictly* to account over their actions? It really makes one wonder why doctors and nurses spend all that time trying to do things really well when those who are supposed to be supporting us let down the side time and time again. Or is it one rule for them, and a different rule for us?
Fully agree with Rogue1 - if a patient has swapped to a digital practice then the previous practice should be fully entitled to refuse to re-register them (and with no questions asked by management).
As someone who has practised holistic (i.e. joined-up) medicine for the whole of my life, I find it alarming how those who govern us have a totally silo mentality over just about everything. Can they really not see how ridiculous tax rules might affect the extent to which clinicians choose to work?
We have known this right from the start, and yet nothing has been done. The Carr-Hill formula is still secret - so much for transparency! It completely fails to deliver what it sets out to do -- i.e. to create a fair reward system which supports those GPs working in more difficult conditions, or with more demanding or more complex patients.
May I ask how many CQC inspections have been performed on Christmas Eve?
Why aren't heads rolling about this -- and, perhaps more importantly, being seen to roll? The message which needs sending out is simple -- you deal negligently with the NHS, you pay with your job. We simply cannot continue with the present situation where if a clinician makes a mistakes the book is thrown at him/her, but if a manager makes a mistake it's glossed over. Every single one of those mis-directed records potentially risks death or severe injury - it's no use hiding behind an assumption that no harm actually came of it. (Not that I necessarily believe this, anyway.)
I would only want to advocate this once I was aware that the GMC had put it in place for themselves as an organisation and as individuals.
Glad to see the sanity is at last starting to percolate into the GMC's handling of cases. It is important for everyone in healthcare constantly to recognise that we are all human, and, given enough time, will all make mistakes. Doctors' like everyone else, therefore need to be treated as fallible humans rather than perfect automatons. I sincerely welcome the GMC's new approach.
Kafka-esque. 'You are unfit to practice... because we chose to suspend you. You will therefore be penalised further.'
Good idea, provided it is properly resourced, funded and training is given. But who does the work for the GPs while this is being put in place and when it is in use?
Is there a word we could invent to describe 'GP mission creep', I wonder?
The bottom line is that the NHS is likely to look at the total cost of a claim, and whether it is cheaper to 'please guilty and pay the fine' or to fight the case. The difficulty from this is that if the NHS chooses not to fight a case, the accuser will be likely to say 'see, I told you Dr X was in the wrong', and now the NHS has agreed. This may then be reported in the local press (indeed, probably will).
The net result from this will be that we will probably be protected against big claims that clearly aren't our fault, but not necessarily against smaller claims -- and yet a profusion of successful small claims might then be used as evidence against us at the GMC.
If this is the case, then it will be important for the NHS to communicate with the GMC to ensure that the GMC cannot automatically use 'information' like this to investigate GPs any further, as otherwise we will all be highly vulnerable to a concerted attack from a small group of aggrieved patients who are 'trying to make a point'.
Let's re-re-re-re-re-organise... again.That should occupy whatever minutes of free time we still have left. And then we can re-re-re-re-re-re-reorganise a further time in 18 months (just when we've got into the hang of dealing with the current re-re-re-re-re-organisation).
Don't managers realise that the cost of reorganisation isn't just the time that it takes to move things around, but the time taken to get accustomed to working with it, to plug the gaps, to find the advantages, to remember where the weak points are? It's like changing to a different computer system: it takes 18 months before productivity is back to where it was before the change.
What an utter, shambolic, totally unnecessary waste of time.
Funnily enough, I hear about lots of complaints about CQC in general -- but I don't think CQC are actually listening to them. Funny that. A good example of 'do as I say, not as I do', don't you think?
The worst thing about Matt Hancock's vision is that it rather implies that he doesn't have much of a decent understanding of the medical IT system as it really is. As the article quite correctly states, the real problem isn't with the GP systems (though as always there are improvements which could be made), but with what they are connected to (or not connected to as the case may be).
Note to the sub-editors.... 'SNOMED' and 'SystmOne'
Great idea to spend lots of much-needed NHS money on lots of not-needed things.
SystmOne already HAS a hospital-based solution.
As usual, the NHS shows that it couldn't care less about its staff. Maybe it needs to remember that the truest guide to your real opinion is found by seeing what you do, rather than what you say.