Eastbourne may be different, but in a busy inner city practice it would be a nightmare for us to try to disentangle the short term visitor from the migrant worker from the asylum seeker, and in trying to do so we would almost certainly be guilty of discrimination. We are overstretched, but surely the answer is to get the government to resource us properly.
I take the point of the previous contributer, and I am happy to post in my own name.
The BMA is a membership organisation, and as such is only as good (or bad) as its active members. So what are you lot doing to make a difference?
Dr Glasspool: will you approach the RCGP Hon Sec to examine whether he has breached the code of conduct?
Please add my name to your letter.
Anonymous: you need to sign up to NHSnetworks and you will get Julian's blog every week. I am a scientist and not so clever with words. It brings me joy to read how well he expresses my thoughts!
Professor Field can point to one practice which is improving. Pulse has reported the cost of these inspection as £13.3 million pounds. This is the direct cost, on top of which is the cost to practices of preparing for inspection. This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Undoubtedly at any given time there are some practices who are struggling more than others. They need support. This would be a much better way of spending the £13.3 million than funding the CQC to further regulate an already much regulate profession. GPs are not stupid. We have made our views known through our representative organisations: the RCGP and the BMA, as quoted in the article.