Bewildered.

[catherinecherub]

First of all we had the report in Pulse that PCT's were blacklisting drugs used by many members and now we have this in today's Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... forms.html

Looking at the heading you would think that under performing Drs, (thought this would mean lousy Drs) will be getting the chop but it is far from simple. "Dr's who prescribe too many drugs or needlessly send patients to Hospital could be pushed out of the new organisations by their peers, in an attempt to keep their costs down and receive huge bonuses".

Seems to me, the calibre of the Dr. is not the issue here but the cost. Cost first, patients last is my interpretation of this as we all know Drs. who do not want to prescribe well and hesitate to send people to Hospital even if they know nothing about that patient's condition. They will be classed as the "Performing Drs".

Good Drs. who go out of their way to treat the patient to the best of their ability will be on the scrap heap as they are too expensive to maintain and will effect their peer's bonus.

I hope I am interpreting this right and would welcome comments.

 

[Unbeliever]

Of course your interpreation is correct. This is nothing new- it has been coming for a while .

hose GP's who want to treat patients as individuals are in the minority and out of step with many of heir colleagues..

It is very offensive to abel doctors as poor and underperforming because they have principles and integrity,

I would like someone to explain to me how patients will benefit under any of the proposed changes? I am not averse to change - I am not thrilled by the status quo. Those who think it wonderful are those who are fortunate enough to have good. caring GP's .
I suppose these people will gradually leave the profession and the others will be frozen out. as i said this is already happening.

I would really like to hear someone explain how the patient will benefit from any of his.

Some years ago there was a push to reduce the number of prescriptions issued. It may have been effecive in some places but in the really poor underperforming places[from a patient viewpoint} this only meant that serious matters went undiagnosed and patients were only referred o hospital when their complaints became impossible o ignore.

It was around this time that I aked 3 times to be tested for diabetes and was refused, despite showing symptoms and having a family history of diabetes. I was slim you see. After that he symtoms subsided. So did I and was only diagnosed accidentally ten years later.......