I have said all along that this was a stupid idea from the outset. We've just had to ring round the appointment book to try & shift people to Saturday so we aren't paying someone to sit & snooze. Not even thinking of trying Sunday. Why can't the politicians stop buggering it all up?
I find myself offended by the implicit acceptance in this that GPs can't deal with PEs. Having working in aGP unit attached to ED, we have DVTs / PEs routinely triaged to us, and took them through to final disposition, usually without admission unless necessary, and including CTPA. It's a very elusive condition and can be missed by ED just as easily. What's important is to have someone used to dealing with it, not who that person is.
3 stars; 2 each for the first two answers, but -1 for the wefty answer. We wouldn't treat a patient's cat, even if it was convenient for them; I know more about cats than teeth.
Could this be the same council that refuses to pay GPs for a medical report which they requested, although they apparently have no problem paying eg a plumber to do a job for them?
Yes, it could. And is.
I could add more examples for some time here...
I have moved elsewhere, council & PCT not without blame in this decision.
I don't think I would accept referendum findings as "evidence" - referendums haven't had a good track record lately.
I have seen them working - they make stupid demands & assessments, the guys on the ground know it's stupid but someone who hasn't been there tells them the party line - it's pathetic & a total waste of time, I have no faith in the process whatsoever. Having to pay for it - well, glad I don't... but I'd be up for 'Just say No' if I did!
PS we got a good report, so it's not sour grapes..
As someone else has said already, I could have told them that for free... Although, interestingly, I now work in a walk-in centre next to A&E & statistics show that our peak time (OOH & Walk-in combined) is actually late Sunday morning.... so the patients will contact us ad-hoc, just not book appointments, on Sunday?
Been doing this for >5 years here, it works well. Not as a bolt-on but properly integrated. There is a process at the door to stream arrivals to the right service, which worked well until the CQC came & damaged it.
Cases 1 & 2 are fair enough, but Case 3 we're not told she's "a known arteriopath" (just a background of IHD), nor is the discolouration mentioned until we get to 'clues' - I feel I'd have maybe noticed a cold discoloured foot? Obviously, yes, these are things to watch for, & as it's a vascular article ther's a major clue! Thank you.
To Dr 5:33 - OK, get on with the naming & shaming then!!
I work in a walk-in centre; without referral rights, except for suspected cancers. Everytime someone comes to me because they couldn't wait 'til 3pm for their GP, & I refer it, that's a point off the GP. Should I just do it? Should I arrange the relevant test & send them back to the GP for The Point? These are the same sort of balancing acts, from a different seat - in fact, it depends on the individual presentation, just like everybody else - but this is clearly a way that these figures can be unjustly skewed, in amongst many similar. I don't get points (other than Brownie ones) either way, The patients may benefit more if I send the form off - but only by 24 hours, probably, and won't get a letter by someone who knows them. Measure that!
Bwahahaha... This really makes the gov't anti-terror plans look worthy & sensible, oh yes... Are they really relying on GP's, who've already been told to trunk out on religion, to spot up potential converts? Perhaps we should all employ an archbishop (with a CBT, obviously) on reception? Or maybe a sniffer dog - we could nomimate him as the Prevent Pooch? Does it have to be a human we nominate?
I'm not convinced of the validity of 'harm reduction' anyway - Does QRisk ask how many they smoke? Do we write "light smoker so lung cancer unlikely" on chest X-Ray forms? No we don't. Giving smokers the idea that actually, just the odd 10 a day is OK, seems like a daft message - I'm with Copperfield on this one!
I have yet to see anyone support hospital trust gagging clauses. We never had one in our practice agreement, when we had one. Why would we all rally round and support these new ones? What a daft idea, could only have come from somewhere like the NHS Commissioning Board or similar bureaucrats.
A bit of a one-way street, of course - as usual... I've had patients give me items eg audio cassettes from the Jehovah's Witnesses - which I find quite offensive, actually. As a professional, I can quietly bin it, but it is important to remember the patient may not be in this position. The question is asked reasonably often - some of my work is in prison, an it's particularly common there, plus the small bored community means it becomes common knowledge in no time - especially if of interest! Those of us in small communities generally may not expect to keepp our beliefs or lack thereof secret, as such - but I don't see any reason to push ones views out, nor relevance to doing so. That doesn't preclude being aware how their religion affects the patient though - asking is not telling!
Nice to see the GMC being right about something.