This is Santa Claus voting against Christmas. Respectfully, one of the stupidest decisions ever taken by an LMC conference.
Those are some interesting examples of acupuncture in practice, with very advanced skills. I've used acupuncture in my day to day practice for 20 years, but almost exclusively for musculoskeletal problems and migraine/headaches. There is very good introductory training from British Medical Acupuncture Society (BMAS) and potentially any GP could usefully integrate some of these quick treatments into day to day surgeries.
Jaimie, these campaigns budget for printing, mailing, advertising and social media costs, amongst others. However, they'll always assume a zero cost for GP time as this is 'free'. In future, all such campaigns should cost for the additional appointments that will be generated, and there must be funding for practices to reflect that additional workload.
So there will be a cost saving of approximately £9k per year per GP. Hard to see how anyone could view this as anything other than very, very good news. I would certainly want to keep my MPS membership active in any case.
NHS England could be forced to find a replacement for me if they try to force me to change my clinical system
Surely this money should be spent on a couple of new APMS centres for every CCG, whether needed or not
We have had an active Facebook page for over a year. We've found it a great way to engage with patients and to circulate relevant information. More importantly, it's enabled us to help shape the perception of the practice among our population. We were subject to some vicious trolling on other sites - that has now ceased, as the perpetrators can see that we have a presence. The occasional negative comments do get posted, but these are easily dealt with either by hiding them (the person posting does not even realise that nobody else can see their post), or in the worst cases the user can be permanently blocked.
A criteria for local NHS England performance investigations is that practices will be judged on being ‘NICE Compliant’. From the evidence I’ve seen, assessors will latch onto any perceived deviation from guidance and highlight that in their reports. GPs deviate from NICE guidance at their peril - all 20k pages of it - because that could see them being referred to NCAS or worse.
Sad, but there are plenty of practices in inner-cities and other deprived areas offering excellent services without the benefits of exceedingly generous PMS funding. Clearly, there should ideally be a process of balancing up, where every practice benefits from such enhanced funding. Unfortunately, this downwards redistribution must be very painful for the affected partners.
NHS England investigations require GP practices to be ‘NICE compliant’. Disclosing that you view this guidance as utter tosh would merely confirm that there is a lack of insight on the part of the practitioner and accelerate referral to a NCAS ‘forced re-education through labour’ camp.
Very disappointing that the CQC's press release chose to focus on the negative (Guardian, Sept 21st 2017):
"About 7 million people are being treated at GP surgeries in England that have severe safety problems, according to the first performance review of its kind by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
One in seven GP practices are failing on safety, even after CQC inspectors have told them to improve, the report found, with smaller practices more likely to be rated “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”.
Thank goodness the cavalry are coming. General Custer just can't get here to the Little Bighorn fast enough!
Dr Muirhead told Pulse that Shropdoc... had NOW allowed its service quality to be affected.
Presumably this should be NOT?
Why are patients not surcharged to cover the risk of them taking private legal action to obtain a private payment from the courts (paid for by the private indemnity insurance that GPs have to fund from their own pockets) that, as Peter Swinyard says, is calculated to fund future private treatment? Less than £10 per patient per annum would currently cover this cost.
Oh dear, just killed a fairy with that post.
Now someone has to say 10 positive things about general practice just to make it right again.
Change the record? Can I suggest the Sex Pistols' 'No fun'?
Patients sue GPs privately, engaging their own lawyers at their own expense. Compensation awards to successful claimants are also paid privately. If Government will not meet the escalating costs of medicolegal cover it would therefore seem reasonable for practices to be able to cover these costs by charging an excess, the cost of which would currently be less than £10 per individual annually.
Given the responsibility and workload of MPs, their salary is relatively meagre for London-based professionals.
We should genuinely support an increase in pay for MPs, to make the role even more attractive and to attract the brightest and best from all sectors of society - not just the Eton-educated trustafarians and ex investment bankers - to ensure MPs better represent the needs of the whole population.
Patients should be required to pay an annual supplement - not for their medical care - but to cover the cost of indemnity insurance. Indemnity claims are pursued privately and payments are awarded directly to patients. The total cost per patient would be modest - in the order of £10 per year - but would offset the disproportionate loss of income to practitioners which is £10,000 per year and rising.
A better approach to refusing to do insurance forms would be for all practices to charge insurance companies a commercial rate for them. All practices, not just Northern Irish practices, are free to charge what they judge to be an appropriate rate for the provision of private reports.