we've got advanced access and it has been a singular failure. initially it
was ok, but pts soon learnt to play the system and now we r back to square
one. possibly the only saving grace is that wednesday to friday is less
busy. pts hate it though and are fociferously demanding the old system of
majority appts bookable in advance (TB would love that one).
we cannot win. politicians, newspapers and pts moanthat they cannot get
sufficient rouitne appts in advance yet also moan they cannot get seen
within 48 hrs. where do they think we'll get the capacity, would that make
any real difference anyway, and who makes the appts? most gps i know spend
time telling pts they do not need to be seen again.

>From: kupton <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: GP-UK <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Question Time - 48 hour access
>Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:45:22 +0100
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk ([130.246.192.55]) by
>mc1-f23.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 2 May 2005
>15:02:55 -0700
>Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
>smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 2 May 2005 23:02:52 +0100
>Received: from JISCMAIL.AC.UK by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
>1.8e)          with spool id 54840671 for [log in to unmask]; Mon, 2 May
>2005          23:02:51 +0100
>Received: from 130.246.192.53 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0i) with
>TCP;          Mon, 2 May 2005 23:02:51 +0100
>Received: from smtp-e.bsve.net (smtp-e.bsve.net [62.69.65.168]) by
>fili.jiscmail.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id j42M2nQl006090 for
>  <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 2 May 2005 23:02:50 +0100
>Received: (qmail 8629 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 20:45:39 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO advent) (159.101.45.37) by 0 with SMTP; 2 May
>2005          20:45:39 -0000
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGl2wPoAbecDniTHRMg9s8X2tKw+gn+jTQ=
>X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-RAL-Connect: <smtp-e.bsve.net [62.69.65.168]>
>References: <003101c54da6$9767cf80$0302a8c0@Poo>
><[log in to unmask]>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
>X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 0 :
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38
>Precedence: list
>Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2005 22:02:56.0376 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[B2200780:01C54F62]
>
>I may be am not seeing the intended irony, but surely if it is dishonest of
>the TOP service to get GPs to phone back tomorrow to fulfill targets, it is
>also dishonest of GPs to tell patients to phone back tomorrow?
>I have a particular axe to grind in this, because in our practice we
>decided
>to go for "Access" instead of the "48 hour" target a year or so back and
>nearly did not get our "Access" money because the PCT misinterpreted the
>system and we were judged not to fulfil the "48 hour" target as we allowed
>patients to book more than 48 hours in advance as well as less than 48
>hours
>in advance. The only measure they were looking at was how many booked
>within
>48 hours of "attending" an appointment rather than within 48 hours of when
>the "wanted" and appointment.
>We did appeal and eventually won the day.
>I must say that we spent our access money on carrying out patient surveys
>etc and getting our appointment system right for our patients.
>It has held up well until we were trying to sort out our chronic disease
>management for our GPC "points", and the loss of our Saturday morning
>surgeries, we are reassessing it now. I think that it is inevitable that a
>system like this needs to be reassessed periodically when other things
>change.
>It can work to your benefit as well, we are all a lot less stressed now
>than
>with our old system.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Julian Bradley" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 11:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Question Time - 48 hour access
>
>
>>There's a very old saying that soldiers are sent abroad to die for their
>>country, diplomats are sent abroad to lie for their country.
>>
>>Plato apparently said that the rulers of countries are the only ones who
>>should have the privilege of lying!
>>
>>This debate is not new (last, last but one, or any other government) but
>>as
>>old as the hills.
>>
>>If we want more honest government, and I suspect most people only say they
>>do, at least two changes would have to occur.
>>
>>We, the whole population, would have to learn to live with the truth.  On
>>the whole there's no sign of that.
>>
>>Secondly political journalists, who are the people who really hold
>>politicians to account, would have to be honest themselves.  In general
>>unbiased honesty has never been known to sell stories.
>>
>>Some may also feel that there's a significant difference between lying to
>>the country for your own benefit and lying in the belief that it is the
>>right or necessary thing to do for the benefit of the country (Wilson
>>government saying we have no plans to devalue the pound after the decision
>>had effectively been made and only hours before it happened).
>>
>>Julian
>>
>>________________________________________________________________________
>>Doctors.net.uk e-mail protects you from viruses and unsolicited messages
>>
>>Free education for all doctors.
>>The simple, fast way to prove you are keeping up to date.
>>http://www.doctors.net.uk/education
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>