This should have been done ages ago. Why would you treat CDs any differently?
"Pharmacy chain Well confirmed today that it is supporting a number of GP practices by allowing them to refer patients to its pharmacies to get vaccinated."
Supporting practices? In what way exactly? By taking their business, that's how. What a joke.
Totally agree with Unscepted. What was the basis for the letter of no confidence? Are there concerns over mismanagement of conflict of interest? If so, a formal investigation should take place.
Great pitch. The current contract is only worth 19.5 million pounds.
Can you guess who recommended her for an MBE? This just gets better and better.
Conflict of interest? Make that conflictS. What about econsult and Dr Maden's interest in it? Dr Madden published an article in pulse extolling the virtues of the econsult product.
He was a director of the company at the time. The article was written like a good news story and the sharing of knowledge with colleagues. It gave no clear indication that he stood to gain from the product financially. The timing was great too. Clearly he knew he was appointed to the role of Director of Primary Care, so managed to have his article published just before he officially took up his post only days later. Do his omissions meet the Nolan principles for standards in public office? Certainly not on transparency methinks. And once in post, why is it that it took so long for him to reveal the NHS is definition of online consultations? And why was that definition so much like a description of econsult? By keeping his cards so close to his chest, the rest of the software market could not respond in the time allowed for the funds to be spent. He may now have resigned his directorship of eConsult but does he still hold shares? Even if he does not, he is so closely linked with those that do, that he is indirectly conflicted.
Whilst conflict of interest may be unavoidable sometimes, it must be managed appropriately. Who is managing this man's conflicts?
Great! Publicise a problem rather than solve it - unless of course GPs will be shamed into improving. More likely they will be driven closer to retirement/career change. How about some creating some simple clinical system protocols which alert GPs when there is a potential prescribing error? Nah - that would be far too constructive. It is so much more fun to demonise GPs.
I work in a hospital as a GP and have encountered a number of patients with GI bleeds who have taken OTC aspirin with no clinical indication and without PPI cover. Will their pharmacists be named and shamed too?
28 day prescribing has never made any sense to me for all the reasons identified in this study. The difficulty is that Medicines Management Teams in CCGs focus only on their own budgets and not the cost to general practice or the wider health economy.
This is a diabetes prevention program and not a weight loss program. How many cases of diabetes were avoided? I agree with copernicus. In the absence of a control group these figures are fairly meaningless.
Sally you are right. These are Community Services and not GP services. The headline is misleading.
I wonder if these consultancy firms would be so interested if the NHS offered this type of work on a no save, no fee basis.
In my experience, it doesn't matter how bad things are in the NHS as long as you have a plan, preferably drawn up by a management consultant to give it some sort of credibility. When it fails you just draw up another plan at great expense the following year.
I agree with Neo. Either NHSE has failed to include a significant workload in the service specification, or Capita is in breach of contract. If it is in breach, has a breach notice been served?
People wonder why companies with poor reputations are awarded new contracts. When procuring services, commissioners have to disregard any negative knowledge of a provider and objectively evaluate their bids. However, if a breach notice has been served in the past then this must be declared and can be considered. Unless commissioners are more willing to serve breach notices, we can expect more of the same.
Why is everyone so worried about privatisation of the NHS? We already have it and it is called General Practice. It has been that way since the start of the NHS and GPs complaining about it is hypocritical . Stop worrying about who provides the care and focus on the resources. Mr Hunt has been happy to be the hatchet man for the government rather than the advocate for the NHS. It is not that the conservatives want to privatise the NHS (there is too little money for their mates to turn a decent profit) but rather they simply do not really believe in the concept of free care for all. Why would they want to help the great unwashed receive healthcare when they have nothing but contempt for them?
I used to avoid using my local refuse centre as the queues could be massive. Then the local authority put a webcam online which showed the car queue in real time. Now I use it more frequently as I can go when I can see it is less busy. I cannot imagine why this app will not have a similar effect - smoothing the peaks in attendance (ticks the 4 hour target box) but increasing overall demand.
Alan, like you I would love it if there were some sort of recourse against unreasonable patients, but as you point out it ain't never gonna happen and I suspect that Dr Gerada knows this. Still, her comments might endear her to a few GPs.
By the way, I think she is a qualified GP and also has psychiatric qualifications.
Many younger GP's are choosing not to become partners and are quite happy to become employees. What is wrong with that? Partners are quite happy to profit from their salaried doctors' efforts. It always seems so contradictory to hear people support the independent contractor status whilst condemning privatisation.
Why not publish a properly presented scientific paper, subject to peer review? Are we expected to simply swallow these headline figures?
Furthermore, what were the health outcomes for patients?
All sounds very empathic but we need the detail. What does "patient accountability" actually mean? Accountable to whom? How would it work? Are we going to sue them for upsetting us?
Pharmacists will be rubbing their hands together. This represents a massive opportunity to sell patients expensive "remedies" which are of no or limited effectiveness. Patients do not just turn up and collect a prescription. We diagnose, exclude more serious conditions, advise on self care and sometimes issue a script. What qualifies pharmacists to do the first two of these activities? Sooner or later, people will die when the diagnosis that the sharp eyed GP would have made is missed by the fiscally focused pharmacist. Then it will be like 111 and Grenfell - hand wringing an lessons learned blah, blah, blah.
Utterly useless analysis. Commissioners will be expected to choose which software to use locally but the figures have been amalgamated making this impossible. Saying that the pilots cannot be individually analysed is complete rubbish. Please don't treat us like idiots Dr Shah. We know how to evaluate papers and studies, we learn it at medical school.
We have only been told about the 40% signposted to primary care by the online services vs 59% using the telephone service. Where are the other 60% going? I suspect it is the Emergency Department. If so, then the pilots have demonstrated the complete opposite of what is desired. It seems the government is determined to push its digital agenda regardless of the consequences.