Of course LMC Conference policy is that GPs should no longer be involved
in certification, I remember because not only did much of this come from
my LMC.
That conference urges the GPC to protect GPs from the increasing burden
of certification and:
(I) believes the requirement to provide medical certification for
employed persons should be removed from the terms of service;
(ii) insists that parents, guardians or responsible young adults should
certify absenteeism from educational establishments;
(iii) believes the new extended forms for medical reports on prospective
childminders are a step backwards in the efforts to reduce GPs'
paperwork.
That, in the light of the proposals contained in the Queen's Speech to
parliament concerning the review of incapacity benefit this conference:
(i) instructs the GPC/BMA to negotiate the removal of doctors from
sickness certification or reporting requirements before the 28th day of
incapacity
(ii) instructs the GPC/BMA to negotiate a reduction in the use of the
DBD/DLA and similar forms together with an appropriate fee structure
when such forms are requested
(iii) instructs the GPC/BMA to negotiate proper terms and remuneration
for all doctors undertaking any form of medical work connected with the
payment and control of social security benefits
(iv) calls upon the General Medical Council to decline to initiate its
performance procedures upon doctors referred to it by claimants denied
benefit until DWP/Medical Services/Atos Origin have completed their
internal investigations.
That conference believes that sickness certification should not be part
of a GP's workload.
John Canning
Should this email be received in error please permanently delete and let
me know by clicking "reply".
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Midgley
Sent: 07 February 2007 11:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Med certs when seeing Nurse Practitioner?
TIM WALTER wrote:
> Adrian Midgley <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> TIM WALTER wrote:
>>
>>> We are having a bit of an issue with pts insisting a NP isn't good
>>> enough for their problem as they need a Med Cert issued.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Do I hear a motion for the LMCs conference (and/or ARM since it
>> applies to the hospital doctors currently required to issue Med 3
>> certs at discharge from hospital) on the changes required?
>>
>> I'd include a facsimile form (not overprinting a preprinted official
>> form) produced through a computer being recognised as good, and the
>> delegation to nurses under a doctor's direction and according to a
>> standard table of times - if they can diagnose the disease, prescribe
>> the treatment, and write the notes, they can do this tedious bit of
>> paperwork.
>>
>> I'd also suggest that a suitable control mark and system for checking
>> back is at least as good as a handwritten signature on such forms -
>> the ward stamp etc.
>>
>> I'd speak to it at LMCs conf if there is a desire in the assembled
>> group here.
>>
>
> I would agree and support all you have said above.
>
> Whether or not you/we agree with the spine and C*B cards etc, it would
> seem entirely appropriate to use this piece of identification to bar
> code printed certificate sheets.
>
>
I'd suggest a simple bit of trailing it - each cert gets an entirely
arbitrary number and the computer which printed it remembers that.
If someone asks "What should cert number 57DA90B say?" You tell them.
Add additional numbers to read back from the printed cert, requirement
to know the name of the user, only providing that information by ringing
the Dept of Work and Pensions head office and reading it to them,
whatever feels needed.
That is more the German approach of identifying the certificate - the
document - rather than the person about whom it is supposed to be, and
seems to me appropriate for the purpose.
If you've never heard of 57DA90B it becomes someone else's problem.
The NHS Number by the way should not appear on such a form for the DWP.
--
A
|
