Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]> writes
>One question though: who do you think should pay for this service?
I realise it is unlikely, but the funding should be central, although I
would be willing to pay a contribution.
> The use this service rather than risking all the
>fallout of one of their people flipping or having to call the shrinks
>in. A kind of a highly personalised safety valve. It costs *a lot*
But the companies recognise good investment in personnel, and also
recognise the risks of a high pressure job on any human being.
Where reducing the pressure of the job is not an answer (for many
companies the best work is achieved when there is pressure and
deadlines) then providing safety valves becomes important.
I would have thought general practice has come to this stage - reducing
the pressures are less achievable given public demand and expectation,
therefore providing a safety net is increasingly essential.
>Do you think that doctors, given the added forthcomign stresses of
>clin.gov, etc. and the aftermath of the Bristol cases, would benefit
>from such a service?
One of the difficulties is providing mentors who have good understanding
of the mentee situation. In other words maybe only GPs can really help
GPs?
Certainly only doctors can really help doctors - hence some of the
difficulties with the stress and counselling services so far set up.
--
Katie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|