I was always taught that at least 80% of the diagnosis is in the history, so to a certain degree tech solutions have their place. But I've seen a lot of inappropriate antibioitic precribing within these services and I suspect the clinical risk is higher due to the inability to gain the remaining 20% of the information that examination can provide.
I agree. Does it really matter? And are these "real" cases of Scarlet Fever, or just kids with sore throat and a viral rash?
I think most GPs can safely reduce their antibiotic prescribing. We have demonstrated this in our practice after audit and education programmes. We have not seen any increase in serious complications as a result.
I'm not sure the GMC had much choice but to challenge the ruling of its tribunal, however fair I think that ruling was. I think most people wouldn't understand how a doctor convicted of gross negligence manslaughter could remain on the register. The real issue here is the original conviction which, from everything I have read, seems like a massive miscarriage of justice which needs to be appealed if possible.