The college needs to realistically assess why so many GPs are angry and losing faith.
The college is hopelessly outdated and simply doesn't try and connect to the grassroots movements.
Until I see the college doing more to engage on basic terms with their members (and more importantly, non members), I and many others will think of it as an ivory tower.
"What tangible benefits have there been since the new GP inspection process was introduced?"
there'll be a fundamental change to supply and demand when this legilsation comes in. I doubt it will stay for long.
Fraud is fraud.
And worse, its directly involving you, your signature and your GMC number.
This for me is an instant removal from list due to crime being perpetrated, fraudulent behaviour and breakdown in relationship.
Any other response is not acceptable.
Anonymous | Pharmacist27 Oct 2016 11:18am
GPs privately funded, true.
However they cannot charge renumeration at market rates nor set the terms and conditions of their own work. I'd call these two pretty essential for true private work.
not sure how "non judgemental" you can be in this situation.
For whatever reason, a patient is requesting a different doctor due to the basis of skin colour.
There is no good explanation that isn't fundamentally racist.
My patients get an immediate off if that happens.
partnerships are learn on the job kind of things - it is very difficult to teach. There are so many aspects of it which represent not only knowledge but aptitude and attitude as well. You can dedicate an entire VTS training on it but it still wouldnt be enough
good for the NHS, bad for GPs.
sounds like most of our workload.
I completely understand the CCG's position.
If there's an all you can eat buffet provided by someone else, why would you be willing to feed people yourself?
Whether the GPs in the area will do something about it, that's a different question altogether.
As Napoleon once said
"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him"
So I'm delighted to hear that Jeremy Hunt is proving his worth yet again with another excellent suggestion. A gong... I'm sure that'll more than compensate for another 12,000 GPs.
Anonymous | NHS Manager04 Aug 2016 2:02pm
a one sided view of notional rent.
dont forget that for many years in the 80s the interest rates on mortgages went as high as 15%. A notional rent these days only seems economically viable due to the ridiculously low interest rates. Property was not always destined to rise in value and no one could have forseen the house price boom of the 90s and 00s.
It makes perfect sense that if you want GPs to work along the contractual basis that they do now (capitation per person), you should make provisions for the premise that they operate from. Given the above, the notional rent is a reasonable option and allows thrifty GPs to make some profit by being sensible with their buildings management. Otherwise NHS England should just nationalise all GP premises and look after them fully. NHSE cannot have it both ways.
sad to hear but good luck.
many of us may yet join you....
I completely disagree.
none of the issues you've mentioned, Zishan, have anything to do with the EU!
the issues with the NHS, introduction of CQC, budget austerity, cuts to social care, poorly thought through workforce planning and increasing workload dump on primary care are the responsibility of the reigning government and no one else.
Leaving the EU will make any difference to the above, and may in fact, make things worse due to the impending economic shock.
An argument that Hunt and Wollaston as people that we dislike are for remain, therefore we should brexit - is simply not an effective one. Don't forget that Boris Johnson made a very scathing attack on Junior doctors in the spectator during the peak of the JD strikes, and Gove is the original architect of the tough inspector regime, demoralise and then privatise.
Finally immigration works both ways. As an immigrant myself, as well my EU wife (also a GP) with 36% of the NHS medical workforce immigrants too, I cannot help but feel the "abuse" of our welfare state is simply incomparable to the advantages from immigration.
Dont forget that the MAJORITY of the UK's immigration comes from OUTSIDE of the EU, and that at within the EU we have mechanisms to recuperate costs from the countries.
Peter - with a username system there is nothing stopping you from sharing your real name either as part of the username or in your biography or part of your signature
definitely should have a system where anonymity can be guaranteed, but a continuity of debate could be had - eg a username system, like that in the Guardian BTL comments or something like Disqus
I would also like to see an overhaul of the comments system so that we could make specific replies to people or have discussion threads.
It would help to have some kind of internal reputation system too.
Just having "anonymous" seems to be a bit too easy for pointless flame wars, eg in the latest "partners vs locums" discussion
Ismat - I dont remember voting for David Cameron or Jeremy Hunt. I dont remember voting for Simon Stevens, or any of the thousands of civil servants in the country looking after some of the most important assets - bank of england, the army, the transport network etc.
These people are hired usually on some kind of merit based scheme. If we had a civil service based on popularity then we're all screwed!
this partner vs locum debate always seems to degenerate into insults. Its kind of petty.
The average partner earns around 100k, and these figures are taken from NHSE database.
After superannuation and so one, the amount is significantly less. Of course there are many part timed partners. I would still think locums do not so bad.
However the ability to come home and help my baby go to bed outweighs any potential monetary advantage partnership may offer me, coupled with the incredible amount of stress and personal financial risk involved.
Anonymous | GP Partner17 Jun 2016 2:41pm
I agree it is hard to predict, but your last spiel sounds dangerously like an advert for UKIP.
the EU is responsible for about 50% of our trade.
you are either in the single market or you're not.
If you want to retain the single market, you have to accept EU laws and pay to be part of it - Norway is out of the EU and in the single market, still has to adopt vast majority of EU laws AND pays more per capita than we do towards EU contributions. And interestingly, Norway has to abide to free movement to worker rules too.
Furthermore you talk about the right of our elected govt to spend money on whatever. Im sorry, but have you seen the elected govt and their attitude towards healthcare? The EU at least provides protection for worker's rights, for junior doctors hours and so on.
Soverignty is one thing, but shooting yourself in the foot is another.
I think the NHS managers are doing a fabulous job reducing the carbon footprint.
After all, there's nothing more effective in reducing the footprint in the UK than driving all the docs and nurses abroad.
Instant access? It just seems what we're offering is instant gratification.
Has all sorts of ramifications for healthseeking behaviour not to mention stoking unreasonable demands and creating problems for ourselves down the line.