I appreciate that you may feel that getting an Occ Physician to write to GPs
rather than OH nurses, may elicit a better response. But isnt it a sad state
when the initials after a persons name is all that is required to get an
appropriate and professional report on a patient.
By doing this are we acknowledging the OPs superior letter writing skills,
interpreting of report skills, or a general superciliousness on the part of
some GPs when responding to nurses ?
Amanda
> ----------
> From: Kate
> Venables[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: Kate Venables
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: GP and OH Professionals
>
> Dear list - the, admittedly rather narrower issue, of request for
> pre-payment of fees for doctor-to-doctor communications, has been on the
> agenda of the BMA Occupational Health Committee, was raised at the BMA's
> Annual Representative Meeting last year, and has been discussed by the OH
> committee's chair with the Chair of the GPs committee. Susan Robson (OHP,
> Manchester University) is the OH committee chair. Can I suggest that the
> authors of all of the excellent, creative and practrical comments posted
> to this list should copy them to Sue [log in to unmask] ?
>
> There are some very important issues here around the responsibility within
> a GPs NHS terms and conditions of service to provide information relevant
> to the patient's health and welfare in the workplace.
>
> Lindsey - maybe you need an occupational physician for the information
> required?
>
> Best wishes to all - Kate
>
>
> >>> <[log in to unmask]> 11/10/02 09:56:14 >>>
> Having not logged on for a few days, I have had the chance to read the
> original email and all the replies (twice) and thought I would add my own
> thoughts. Sorry Bashyr, good try at calling a truce, but this one drives
> me nuts - (my professional opinion!).
>
> 1) There are some brilliant and caring GPs out there, but there are also
> far too many who really let the side down. All too often our OH service is
> hampered by poor quality, slow, costly reports that are of no benefit to
> anyone - particularly the employee/patient. And that's when they arrive.
>
> 2) I've always regarded services as things you pay for once you have
> received them. I don't ask a plumber to mend my taps and pay him an hours
> wages before he turns up. And if GPs don't like being compared to
> plumbers, I would treat lawyers in the same way.
>
> 3) Although I am aware of the pressures on GPs and the NHS in general, I
> find it unacceptable that this sort advice, which is not sought free of
> charge, is often not available to support Occupational Health Departments
> in their role as a small but important part of the primary healthcare
> team. There has been much research recently to show the benefits of the
> workplace on health and recovery. Should we not receive the support we
> seek, employees may well deteriorate and place an even more onerous burden
> on other services, particularly if they lose their job.
>
> 4) Mark, I'm sure your information about Government contracts and
> expectations is true but it staggers me. Not only do we now have a
> Government that expects its own departments and NDPBs (Quangos) to be
> leaders in OH, while threatening to tax any OH initiative that has the
> slightest bit of imagination attached to it, they are now telling us to
> manage absence with the best of British industry, yet don't even
> officially provide the avenue for a major, and arguably, the most
> important source of health information.
>
> Beyond the rant, please take this as another request for the Hallam Street
> information and address. I'll also lay down a challenge to the GPs on the
> list. How about getting this issue on the Royal College of GPs agenda.
> I'm sure you will have plenty of volunteers on the list willing to address
> their next conference. Count me in.
>
> Lindsey Hall
> National OH Manager
> Environment Agency
>
> PS Great Debate - These sort of issues really need one.
>
|