As always: the organisation messes up - so GPs are automatically expected to bear the responsibility (and take the blame if they can't cope with the re-scheduled workload).
What would delight me enormously over this would be if the atmosphere changed hugely, so that there was always an 'inquest' when a foul-up like this occurs, and any individual manager or business held to have failed to deliver properly immediately received either a stiff fine, or, in the case of individuals, a P45.
Having said that, I don't believe that a single error should ever be the cause for draconian punishment on the first occasion, but I should be very happy indeed to know that managers and businesses supplying the NHS were well-known to be increasingly paranoid about failing to deliver. It is simply not right that only clinicians can be penalised but those organising behind the scenes can seemingly mess up with impunity and without losing a wink of sleep.
A clear case of 'shoot the messenger'. How can anyone take CQC seriously when they do or say things like this?
Time we downgraded CQC from 'requires improvement' to 'should be disbanded forthwith'.
Ambiguous headline, Pulse: please make it clear that this only applies to deaths that legally HAVE to be reported to the coroner, rather than the non-problematic ones.
"New rules for reporting deaths to coroners" would do the job nicely.
"All observations normal, patient dead." OK, apocryphal, but provides the real subtle answer in 5 words. A decent HCP can take one look at a patient and *know* that something's badly wrong (though the reverse isn't necessarily true, so a scoring system is probably more use in those not immediately obviously ill -- but even so, beware mantra no 2: "treat the patient, not the tests"
I'm a passionate Brexiter -- but I am equally highly upset by the treatment you have received at the hands of the Home Office. Indeed, I was going to offer to support you if you needed assistance by going through various contacts I have - but I'm delighted to see in the later part of your article that the matter is now resolved.
Rest assured, the problems you have regrettably had to face were never even remotely intended by those, like me, who voted to leave the EU organisation. I know quite a number of Leavers, and I'm know I speak for all of them in saying that I am *appalled* by the way you have been treated.
However, I also think that this isn't necessarily the fault of the politicians, but of the senior and middle-grade Home Office civil servants who simply haven't got their act together in working out how to validate the residency requirements. Simple reasoning suggests that if you pay tax as a GP for thirty years, then you are presumably in this country and fulfil the residency conditions many times over, and a simple cross-check with the GMC and HMRC should have been able to establish that in a matter of minutes. I do wonder about the quality of the civil servants who can't work out a decent, hassle-free way to go about validating this without causing bother and sheer offence to people such as yourself and your family.
Equally, I can't get my head round the fact that we are crying out for GPs, yet the civil service and the politicians seem to be incapable of smoothing the path to continuing residency for those who have chosen to live here. Joined-up government it is not.
Finally, *please* remember that the vast majority of leavers will be like me. We actively like Europe and our European cousins - we just want to leave the dreadful organisation which calls itself the EU.
ProjectFear on steroids. Literally.
Is there anything that we can leave to NHS managers which they don't actually manage to mess up? We need to be saying loud and clear that heads must roll over omissions like this - just as our heads would role if we were to 'forget' to include something pretty obvious in our differential diagnosis for a particular patient. We simply cannot afford the time to check through what managers do purely to find out what they've failed to complete
Truth finder isn't correct. All the national GP systems have or have had their own user groups - with many members who like working with clinical computers and - perhaps more importantly - have also had provided input (sometimes considerable)into how these systems have been design to work.
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'.