In article <[log in to unmask]>, Mary Hawking
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>In fact, shifting the emphasis from medical to management/political
>standards.
Agreed. I would describe this as a flanking action, too obvious to be
called a cynical manipulation. Nevertheless the criteria do apply to GP
as much as Hospital Medicine now (or rather the ability to quantify them
does) and do put a strain upon the credibility of merit awards for HM
only.
>on the face of it - no records available...
An anachronism which I think should be addressed, otherwise how does
anybody else know this is not an 'old boys' network?
>Doubt if it would reverse *my* morale .. I'm female.
This too could be addressed, by making the selection committee, and
their decisions, representative of the workforce in terms of age and
sex.
>Who would determine what managerial targets a GP deemed worthy to
>receive extra remuneration would need to attain?
As above but with wider sampling. This would be set up without Victorian
legacies. (As med. grads are now >50 percent female...) The seniority
award is based on years of service and probably represents a C award. I
would like to see A and B awards in GP as well - GP is no longer what
you do if you can't hack it in HM but a discipline in its own right.
>I can see a situation where government advisors (to any Party..
>including those in 1990..) , Fellows of the RCGP and LMC and other
>politically minded GPs would benefit..
This could easily be circumvented by creating sections ie political,
academic, local, coal-face, individual merit etc.
>Genuine question; which pool do consultant merit awards come out of?
I believe it comes out of the hospital pool from the HA budget for same.
It was originally set up as the NHS was thought to be unworkable without
consultants exchanging private work for NHS work. As GP are now
essential for the NEW NHS, perhaps the same flawed logic could be used
here.
Regards
George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|