Iain,
Can we take it then that any ideas for 'content' which start as threads on
GP-UK but end up on the "Rear" of your organ will result in a ex gratia
payment all round ? :-)
James,
Adrian Midgley wrote...
> no doubt a specialist could give you/us a brief run down on what
>changes in management result from the various possible results of each
test
>on each category of addict....
>I think if they don't produce a satisfying and less jaundiced view than
>mine, you should provide tests on a scale like one test per person per
>year, cheapest and cheeriest.
I would agree (though he's not getting a penny from me!!). Would go so far
as to say before introducing another test (presumably available on the NHS)
it would be nice to see some evidence that it was of any benefit to the
patient (as opposed to good ammo for the lawyers or reassuring for the
doctor).
Not my specialist field (also provide GMS only for addicts so we don't
spend the whole time negotiating over lost/ flushed/ forgotten/ stolen
temazepam or whatever) ..but is there any evidence that having the test
results improves outcome ??
If not...suggest you decline to provide the service until they conduct a
proper trial proving there is....and then spend the money on something
useful (like giving GP's leucostix to reduce your MSU costs).
That will be 5.75 please....
all major credit cards accepted ;-)
----------
> From: Iain L M Hotchkies <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Urine Drug Screens
> Date: Saturday 14 September 1996 06:30
>
> In message <[log in to unmask]> James Osborne
wrote:
>
> [snip stuff about urine drug screening]
>
> > I find it
> > useful to bounce ideas around gp-uk before doing something 'properly'.
>
> OK, let's 'bounce around' the concept of paying people for
> their time and opinions about commercial services.
>
> Hey, my bed has two 'wrong' sides.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|