Avoid medical interventions on a Friday.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Interesting article here explaining why 10,000 new GP's will be required to run a 7 day service. Of note is the fact that existing GP's are working 11/12 hours a day.

Just love these sorts of advocated 'facts'.

Trouble is I know and have known a lot of GPs and I don't find this 'fact' very credible.
 
PS Two interesting points.

1). I read the other day that Romania and Estonia have more employed doctors per head than the UK

No idea about point 1

2). The US spends more per capita on Public Health Medicine than we do in the UK
But I have come across this before. And it's a searing indictment of the US setup where they spend more per capita on public health care to cover *only part* of the population.

The US health sector will eventually consume the entire economy given the chance. It's the modern 21st century 'military industrial complex'. Just as politicised.
 
GP's and train drivers vastly different education qualifications and skill sets. However dressed up it was --- the statement made by the The Chair of RCGP appears remarkably like a negotiating tactic typical of most industrial relations where a group of workers sees its working terms and conditions under threat. As a spokesperson for her colleagues she expresses concern for any changes to their working conditions and how that might impinge on patient care. However if the RCGP had been conducting a vociferous campaign on the lack of medical cover for patients over the weekend and how it has resulted in higher death rates for their patients prior to this government announcement I might give that a bit more credence. Patient interest or self interest? Its difficult to know really. :dk:
 
Just love these sorts of advocated 'facts'.

Trouble is I know and have known a lot of GPs and I don't find this 'fact' very credible.

And I know plenty who are working more than 11/12 hours per day. What are you trying to say?
 
GP's and train drivers vastly different education qualifications and skill sets. However dressed up it was --- the statement made by the The Chair of RCGP appears remarkably like a negotiating tactic typical of most industrial relations where a group of workers sees its working terms and conditions under threat. As a spokesperson for her colleagues she expresses concern for any changes to their working conditions and how that might impinge on patient care. However if the RCGP had been conducting a vociferous campaign on the lack of medical cover for patients over the weekend and how it has resulted in higher death rates for their patients prior to this government announcement I might give that a bit more credence. Patient interest or self interest? Its difficult to know really. :dk:

Hm...RCGP is the professional body. The trade union is the BMA. No doubt they will make be making their position clear in due course.

Very few people in medicine will say anything critical about the service they are in. It is career suicide. Whistleblowers are treated with contempt, they are ritually humiliated and sacked. Francis asked: "Where were the doctors?" They were hiding in the shadows terrified to come out.
 
Hm...RCGP is the professional body. The trade union is the BMA. No doubt they will make be making their position clear in due course.

Very few people in medicine will say anything critical about the service they are in. It is career suicide. Whistleblowers are treated with contempt, they are ritually humiliated and sacked. Francis asked: "Where were the doctors?" They were hiding in the shadows terrified to come out.

Not sure exactly how a professional body such as the RCGP can be victimised like an individual doctor for raising concerns over patient care? It's quite possible that as a civilised society we should be spending more money as a percentage of GDP on patient care. However the danger lies in just throwing money at it without reform and it appears to me that one of the chief obstacles to that reform comes from among the medical professionals themselves. :dk: Often their resistance to change may indeed come from a concern for their patients but as fallible human beings like the rest of us is it not possible that it may sometimes also stem from more selfish motives ? :dk:
 
Not sure exactly how a professional body such as the RCGP can be victimised like an individual doctor for raising concerns over patient care? It's quite possible that as a civilised society we should be spending more money as a percentage of GDP on patient care. However the danger lies in just throwing money at it without reform and it appears to me that one of the chief obstacles to that reform comes from among the medical professionals themselves. :dk: Often their resistance to change may indeed come from a concern for their patients but as fallible human beings like the rest of us is it not possible that it may sometimes also stem from more selfish motives ? :dk:

I was not suggesting that the RCGP would be victimised, although you can be sure that is one lady off the Dame list. Victimisation is reserved for those individuals with the courage and integrity to speak out. Unsurprisingly, because of the vindictive and vicious reprisals enacted against those do, few speak out.

I agree that it's not just about throwing money at the service and I also agree that reforms are necessary. That said, how do you turn a 5 day service to a 7 day service when those working in it are already understaffed and overworked?

Perhaps if we were spending more the mortality rates would reduce. I seem to remember that US v UK figures show a 40% difference in mortality outcomes in UK surgical interventions. And that's in public medicine.
 
That I think your 'statistic' isn't credible.

Firstly, it is not my statistic. I quote the chair of the RCGP:

"She added: ‘We know our colleagues are working 11 to 12-hour days, and that is really difficult to do day after day when it is a job you need to be on top form for. ‘They are feeling pressurised and besieged and looking for a bit of respite.'"

Secondly, if you do not believe her, if you think she is lying, then report her to the GMC. Good Medical Practice sets out the standards expected of registered doctors, see here:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/GMP_2013.pdf_51447599.pdf

I for one believe her and I imagine most folks would, she is trying to protect our health service.
 
I agree that it's not just about throwing money at the service and I also agree that reforms are necessary. That said, how do you turn a 5 day service to a 7 day service when those working in it are already understaffed and overworked?

To start with just change the working and shift patterns.

Perhaps if we were spending more the mortality rates would reduce. I seem to remember that US v UK figures show a 40% difference in mortality outcomes in UK surgical interventions. And that's in public medicine.
We have been spending a lot more. Both in terms of real money and % of GDP.

The problem is that spending more on the NHS doesn't seem deliver a proportionate increase in benefits to patients.

(Not that this applies only to the NHS - UK gov is basically inept at getting VFM
for our ££).
 
Last edited:
Firstly, it is not my statistic. I quote the chair of the RCGP:

"She added: ‘We know our colleagues are working 11 to 12-hour days, and that is really difficult to do day after day when it is a job you need to be on top form for. ‘They are feeling pressurised and besieged and looking for a bit of respite.'"

OK. Not even a statistic then. Just hearsay.

Secondly, if you do not believe her, if you think she is lying, then report her to the GMC. Good Medical Practice sets out the standards expected of registered doctors, see here:
http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/GMP_2013.pdf_51447599.pdf

Nice document which doesn't backup the hearsay.

If you want to tell me that GPs are all lazy useless idiots then I'll be first to stick up for them and point out they're not. If you are trying to tell me they all work 57.5 hour weeks then I'll be first to rasie my eyebrows and query the assertion.
 
To start with just change the working and shift patterns.

I imagine a lot of seniors would love the idea of shifts. Clock on and clock off, to some extent this is happening in in some A&E's. The reality is that very very few seniors work shifts. They are contracted for a 40 hour week, which frequently exceeds 60 hours plus, and that is not including on call. If shifts were to be introduced across the board the government would suddenly be faced with an enormous shortfall of hours.


We have been spending a lot more. Both in terms of real money and % of GDP.

The problem is that spending more on the NHS doesn't seem deliver a proportionate increase in benefits to patients.

(Not that this applies to the NHS - UK gov is basically inept at getting VFM
for our ££).

I do agree that the management of UK PLC seem unable to obtain VFM, also that more money is being spent on health. Part of the inability to effect change in the health sector is that it is in the main managed by ambitious inadequates who bully there way to the top and victimise anyone who suggests that things are not quite right.

That said we are still way down the advanced western league table of % of GDP spent on health. Most of Europe now spends more than we do.

Perhaps we should stop giving the likes of China, India and Argentina huge sums in "foreign aid"
 
Nice document which doesn't backup the hearsay.

I really cannot understand that remark. The document sets out standard with which doctors must comply. If you think she is lying report her, or do you think doctors normally lie?
 
I really cannot understand that remark. The document sets out standard with which doctors must comply. If you think she is lying report her, or do you think doctors normally lie?

It doesn't set out minium working hours.

Nor does it imply any sort of loading.

It doesn't correspond tangibly to your 11/12 hours 'fact' in any way.

It sets out a series of statements about what is expected in terms of service. Some of it is just common sense. I've seen company handbooks that do the same thing and are considerably longer.
 
It doesn't set out minium working hours.

Nor does it imply any sort of loading.

It doesn't correspond tangibly to your 11/12 hours 'fact' in any way.

It sets out a series of statements about what is expected in terms of service. Some of it is just common sense. I've seen company handbooks that do the same thing and are considerably longer.

The document sets out he standards expected of doctors, it has nothing to do with ToS, why would it, it is a GMC publication.

It does say that doctors should be honest. That is why I posted it, it sets out the standards the public should expect from doctors, and not lying is one of them.

So, if you think she is lying report her.
 
I do agree that the management of UK PLC seem unable to obtain VFM, also that more money is being spent on health. Part of the inability to effect change in the health sector is that it is in the main managed by ambitious inadequates who bully there way to the top and victimise anyone who suggests that things are not quite right.

That's life. Look at any big company the people who climb the ladder. Some maybe shouldn't be there. Then again some of the people unhappy with management aren't performing either.

Where things get really really difficult is where an organisation has a core of professionals that need to be managed - particularly if you're not one of them. Trying to tell doctors, teachers, airline pilots, or lawyers, how to do their job better is very hard - even if you're actually right.

And things get worse where safety or mortality is involved in the argument.

That said we are still way down the advanced western league table of % of GDP spent on health. Most of Europe now spends more than we do.

That's not necessarily a good or bad thing.

It depends on what you don't pay for in order to pay for health.

My feeling is that the NHS has been and is a good deal for the UK.
 
If you really feel that: "..the NHS has been and is a good deal for the UK", then I recommend the Francis report to you. A riveting read.
 
If you really feel that: "..the NHS has been and is a good deal for the UK", then I recommend the Francis report to you. A riveting read.

Again not relevant. Yup, I'm sounding like a stuck record.

The NHS is far from perfect. It's a compromise. But the question comes down to value for money. As a UK resident you get a reasonable deal vs the amount the NHS actually costs.

The problem is that chucking a lot more money at it doesn't necessarily make it much better per capita for the amount it costs per capita.

Mid-Staffs is a different issue. That's down to management, discipline, and people. Bad hospital's don't go bust and make their staff redundant - and the lack of competition and choice let bad practices fester. This doesn't just affect larger organisational units like hospitals but also GP practices in areas where patients have no alternative practice to move to.
 
Interesting post to say the least. I also find the statistics interesting as well. The problem I have with this is the fact that there are a number of variables that make weekends have a higher mortality rate. For example, people are more likely to drink and party during the weekend than during the week. With an increase in alcohol use it isn't surprised that the rates of hospital visits jump during the weekend. Consider also that there significantly more drunk drivers on the road during the weekend, as well. This means that there are more horrible accidents related to drunk driving, at least I would assume, during the weekend.
 
The problem I have with this is the fact that there are a number of variables that make weekends have a higher mortality rate.

The reason this is being argued is that it can be clearly shown that there are issues despite these obvious variables.

Basically the problem is that if you are admitted to hospital for treatment then the outcome can be shown to be in dependent on what day of the week you were treated.

This isn't a problem that affects just the health sector. You can often see similar issues in business that offer 24/7 service where the support levels drop overnight and over weekends - and also across shift changes. It has nothing to do with the underlying problems that occur - but the availability of staff and in particular the best staff outwith 9-5 on weekdays to deal with them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom