 |
 |
On Wed, 13 May 2015 at 15:02 Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The reason for the changes appears to be a failure to > recruit leading to financial problems (or at any rate, that is how I would > interpret the statement by the Senior Partner > > > The support provided by the Chesterfield Royal Hospital will free up more > GP time to see patients which was previously spent on managing the > practice”. > > That sounds like an excuse, or putting a gloss on it at best. I would expect that the main effect of going from being responsible for providing the service to being responsible for turning up for 37.5 hours (or whatever is contracted) per week (including audit, admin, training, appraisal, revalidation, clinical meetings, etc etc) would be that the ex-partners would be able to see their families, and know that the problems have all been bought by someone else. Have the buildings been bought, or is there an income stream from the new provider renting the old buildings from the partners (assuming they owned the buildings)?