In this country most GPs accept a payment from the government for each
consultation. The size of that payment depends on both the length and
complexity of the consultation. That sounds very fair, but the real result
is that GPs who see lots of simple problems for a short time each can make
twice the income of those who make each cons deep and meaningful. So it is
endlessly debated and no clear solution ever emerges.
Having listened to the arguments and worked within the system, I am left
thinking that the actual time spent in patient contact is the best measure
available. Such a system offers no incentive to see one's quota of patients.
But as seen from outside the British NHS doesn't offer much incentive for a
GP
to see lots of patients.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Crawshaw MB BS MSc
Townsville, Australia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosills <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, 10 May 1998 3:46
Subject: Balancing workload
>I am sure that this has been discussed before.............but if anyone
feels
>like giving me their ideas I would be most grateful!!!
>
>What is the best way of measuring workload in GP and balancing it between
>partners...
>
>I don't feel that numbers of patients seen takes into account the number
and
>complexity of problems dealt with; it also may encourage (perish the
>thought.....) quick easy consultations.
>
>has anyone any good ideas please?
>
>I look forward to THE answer!
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|