On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 23:04:16 +0100
"PETER FELLOWS" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have, however, been a bit alarmed by a more extreme view which seems to
> be gaining rapidly in popularity, and was first pointed out to me by two
> Welsh GPC members :- that we should not deal with any acute/emergency care
> either "out of hours" or "in hours". That work should be dealt with entirely
> by the ambulance service and A&E departments directly, leaving GPs to get on
> with daytime routine surgery-based primary care only. This is apparently the
> norm for primary care physicians in many other countries. I don't personally
> like that idea, but feedback would be very welcome. I mentioned it at an LMC
> / Ambulance liaison meeting in Gloucester today. I thought the chief
> ambulance officer would be horrified at the potential workload. Instead he
> said he thought it might make a lot of sense! ( Could be an ulterior motive,
> but I think it was a considered response) If there is significant support
> for this, I will pursue it further. ( It is easier to reach one's
> destination when sailing with the tide!)
An interesting line of thought..would it stick with the T&C of Service
though?
Given the profession's unwillingness to get militant about withdrawal of
non-core stuff like warfarin monitoring,(and cynicism aside, I genuinely
feel that it is an example of our dedication and professionalism, if not
business sense) how are we going to get people to refuse *genuine*
urgent calls, especially in rural areas? Should we?
It is true though that in many other (developed) countries, the matter
is quite straightforward; you go to see your doctor, if you can't you
have to get yourself to hospital.
I'd be v. interested to know what others think
Cheerio,
Graham
'Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at
which one can die.'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|