At 22:22 08/08/2007, you wrote:
>Michael Leuty wrote:
> > On 08/08/07, Julian Bradley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure but how many regular contributors are left who are
> >> genuinely full time UK GPs?
> >>
> >
> > This might be a good time for a headcount, if the region immediately
> > above the parapet doesn't look too dangerous.
> >
> > I'm a full time GP in Nottingham which is generally reckoned to be
> > within the UK.
> >
>
>I'm a full time GP - this is like a declaration of belief. What I *am*.
>What I *do* depends on what is going on today. Mostly not face to face
>consultations with patients.
>BW
>Fay
As an antedeluvian and rather proud of it these days I've no doubt
that Michael is a full time GP and not much doubt that you're not Fay.
Of course it's a declaration of belief - but that's meaningless
politico-speak. If I declare that I'm a full-time counsellor /
lawyer / parent it could be a real reflection of my beliefs, but it
would have so little relation to how other people use language as to
muddy rather than clarify communication.
I know that's what politicians, including some medical politicians try to do.
Anyhow while general practice may be the foundation on which our
other jobs rest, that does not make either of us full time GPs.
BW
Julian
PS 50 F2F consultations per day either suggests great energy which I
entirely accept is possible, or very few of the kind of complex
consultations that now seem a significant proportion of my workload,
or both. Agree though that 50 is pretty typical in many areas. I
peaked at about 350 consultations a week 20 odd years ago, and in
retrospect it was not safe (at least for me) even then. Respect to
any Australian GP who can do 80 serious consultations a day on a
regular basis (10 an hour for 8 hours regularly ... that's not
general practice in the 21st century with an ageing population and
high expectations, that's 19th century sweatshop medicine!)
|