Paul Caldwell wrote:
>
> This is absurdly impractical. Are are implying that all telephone advice is
> legally dodgy? The upshot would eventually be that ALL OOH contacts would have
> to be seen ASAP.
You're missing the point. You can have a nurse give OOH phone advice and
still be protected from liabiliy for any adverse events in the absence
even of Government setting up a proper protection system (something they
have conveniently ignored) by ensuring the patient understands the true
limits to the reliability of that advice and is required to accept the
risk of error as the price for the convenience of the advice. However,
this raises controversial issues.
>From my point of view I would not like to see any limit to liability
just because medical advice is given over the telephone, else that
would adversely effect, not only my work load :-), but accountabiliy and
ultimately standards (the problem with no fault compensation systems).
Moreover the attractiveness to the medical profession of a protected
telephone service, much as I understand the reasons, would itself drive
down standards through its own momentum by discouraging personal
attendances. What this raises is the dangers of trying to impose
administration designed answers to the fundamental problem of a service
in which demand far exceeds supply. The next big idea will no doubt be
medical advice by mail ("another 'pain in the anus' questionnaire to
go").
Graham Ross
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|