Whilst it might be good medicine to go by clinical judgement you need to know that to ignore news at your peril...the lawyers will come after you hard.
Also the ambulances speak news2 and it makes them ask less questions for a truly sick patient in front of you.
The sad fact is modern medicine is defensive. Nothing will change that unless we go to New Zealand style litigation system in healthcare...we don't have the luxury of ignoring clinical scores.
yes but the BMA is very ineffectual so im glad the college is saying something - i suspect this is the first time they have tried to actually represent the views of the grassroots - certainly since ive been paying them (and not)
where are our elected representatives now?
where is the RCGP?
where is the BMA?
All of you wankers are busy doing the bidding of HMG to get your gongs, whilst selling us all down the river.
i hope you are proud of yourselves.
You BOOMERS have clearly got a lot to answer for.
haha! what a jeremy cunt
You made this mess. You as the DoH have responsibility to make sure supplies are adequate.
You are failing. You will fix it.
brilliant! hope theres more of these coming!
id recommend the nbmedical womens health update also if, like me, you are not confident on these matters.
when are we going to get together and actually strike about our conditions?
things have gone from bad to worse, we have had the PCN debacle thrust upon us and suddenly a lot of us are wondering how we are going to find the time to both see patients, offered extended access, and jump through the multitude of hoops that are put in our way.
Those like me at the beginning of our careers are reducing sessions (6/wk now for me), and looking to leave the country as we dont have a royal college that represents us, nor do we have effective negotiation skills at our biggest trade union who is more interested in getting gongs for its london-based 'experts'.
if we dont fight for this, no-one will.
and thats the problem - there are too many 'senior' colleagues who are on brilliant terms they just dont care about the profession or the rest of us.
if I had my time again I would never have gone into medicine as I see friends who are in the financial services having better working lives then me with a quarter of the stress.
what complete and utter wankers at the CCG.
whereabouts are you, mr curious? whats life like down there?
Why oh why are we forgetting the patients in all this?
Those who demand everything yet take no responsibility for their own health?
Those who have multiple avenues of complaint if they are not happy, yet the medical profession has none?
Those who insist on being seen immediately and make everyone's life difficult?
Those who insist they know better then you, because 'its my body..'?
Those who feel so entitled?
This is a significant reason as to why you cant do 8 sessions nowadays - I did 8 for the first 5 years of my life as a GP partner from training - and i have since dropped to 6 and am so much happier.
theres a gmc conference? why wasnt i invited?
i could shout at them directly then
I emailed the GMC about this and this was the reply I got a few days ago. I am glad I saw this article as it affirms my belief and those on resilentGP fb group that this is not for us to do. I am not prescribing at all.
Thank you for writing to the GMC. I understand that you are looking to clarify whether you have a duty to prescribe treatment for transgender patients, which you feel lies outside of your professional competence and whether failure to do so will be regarded as discriminatory.
First, you are not expected to prescribe particular medications or treatment to any patient if you are not satisfied that they meet the patient’s needs. In Good Medical Practice we say doctors must prescribe drugs or treatment, including repeat prescriptions, only when they have adequate knowledge of the patient’s health and are satisfied that the drugs or treatment serve the patient’s needs (see paragraph 16a).
We ask all doctors to balance duties to act within the limits of their competence with making the care of their patient their first concern (as well as providing effective treatments based on the best available evidence).
The advice that we have provided on our ethical hub regarding the treatment of transgender patients (which can be accessed here) aims to clarify how our guidance applies in these circumstances. It is intended to support doctors to provide effective care in the best interests of their transgender patients, signposting sources of information and setting out the ethical framework for decision making. When a transgender patient approaches their GP to discuss the options available to them, we don’t want that GP to feel that they can’t help because they’re not a specialist.
Our advice is not intended to force doctors down a specific route that they don’t feel is in the best interests of their patients, or to suggest they provide treatment on demand. However, we have questioned the assumption that prescribing treatment for a transgender patient is automatically outside the limits of a GP’s competence. For example, the hormones prescribed to transgender patients are routinely prescribed and monitored in primary care (albeit to patients assigned the opposite sex at birth). We are clear that prescribing off-licence is acceptable where there is no suitably licensed medicine available that would meet the patient’s needs (see paragraphs 67-69 of Good Practice in Prescribing).
On our hub page we are also clear that GPs must co-operate with GICs and experienced gender specialists, as they would with other specialists, collaborating to provide effective and timely treatment for transgender people. This may well include prescribing medicines on the recommendation of an experienced gender specialist for and following recommendations for safety and treatment monitoring (for more information see the hub page here).
Our ethical hub doesn’t have the same status as our formal ethical guidance. Rather, it is intended to show how the guidance might apply in practice, in specific situations doctors commonly face. We recognise that this is a source of some confusion and are currently considering how we might make this clearer.
It is also worth remembering that even the formal guidance is guidance, not a rule book. There may be some circumstances that justify a departure from it. As long as a doctor makes the care of their patient their first concern, acts in good faith, and records their reasoning, they will be able to justify their decisions and actions if their fitness to practise is called into question.
I hope this response is useful to you.
General Medical Council
well its this simple - no money= no service. he does this we all need to cut back on the service we provide.
and before the cardies come out 'what about the patient in all this' - this is the attitude that has led us to where we are - a weak, spineless profession that this government knows can do what it wants to at will - the patients voted for these idiots, they need to feel the full force of this 'democratic' decision.
the reason there is no impetus from those in the BMA or RCGP is because most of them are on the older scheme and have nothing to lose - there is no will amongst our leaders (who dont represent coal-face young GPs at the beginning of their careers) who are also too london-centric.
Now we work til we are 68 (probably 70) and get taxed double on what we pay in, and get a fraction of it back. i am only 34 and thinking of pulling out already.
The bigger thing is that we are not represented properly - it is a shame that most of those doing the talking are closer to retirement then not - and are often screwing the rest of us into submission.
when are we going to stand up and grow a pair and actually do something that hmg will listen to?
what a load of tosh.
rotten to the core. run by white middle aged men to the detriment of all but themselves.
headcount? how about WTE?
well of course closing practices reduces cancer incidence because you dont detect it if the patients are not seen...didnt we all know that?
complete eejits. the lot of them.
what a Hunt
well if the BMA had any shame things might be better now - our representatives (who dont represent by the way) scurry around trying to make a difference with their heads so far up their rectums that they just dont see it.