In message <005c01c4e4ef$f8c51a00$0402a8c0@Belkin>, Fay Wilson
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>IIRC some research done in Canada in the 1990s suggested that at any time
>about 10% of doctors would be performing below standard for one reason or
>another. I remember this only because I was at that time involved in
>devising a screening tool for finding poorly performing GPs. 15% seems a bit
>high.
How do you set the standards?
I would have expected 50% to perform below average, and 50% above.
>I hope the NHS is just waking up to the results of the shocking way it makes
>doctors work which cripples their skills and burns them out. I expect as
>usual in line with the CMO's "no blame" culture what they will do is throw
>the book at the doctors, wash their hands and forget about it.
I've been trying to work out whether I'll have any time left to actually
see and look after patients at this rate!
Appraisal is time consuming: QOF and Significant Events are causing
problems (*and* we're supposed to hold *chaired* meetings - we're not
that formal! - and document them): I suppose we'll have to go in for
practice commissioning to avoid being marginalised by other practices:
and the College idea of having "knowledge tests" and videoed
consultations would take up a lot more. Hm. Would they detect "poorly
performing" doctors? Is it the same thing?
Passing a driving test shows you know how to control a car: it doesn't
make you a safe driver.
>
>So what are we going to do?
Emigrate, retire or change career paths: what other choices are there?
MaryH
--
Mary Hawking
|