 |
 |
Jel Thanks for highlighting this problem, and it's one which many of our colleagues will find it difficult to relate to. I have no doubt that you did the right thing (except maybe the coffee - so easy to spill on the HT Hughes, overalls, you know!). In the circumstances, taking the lad to the DGH would have merely transferred the difficult decision making to someone less familiar with difficult decision making. Partners in General Practice seems to be either strongly supportive of, or strongly opposed to, Immediate Care. Your Partner's willingness to cover your duties should be taken as fundamental to your partnership agreement - how else do either of you have holidays? This is what GP Partners do for one another. Your going on this call, and ensuring the child's best care, is at least forestalling your subsequent attendance at pre Inquest meetings with the MDU, with the MDU's barristers (usually London/Edinburgh/Cardiff), the inquest itself, and many other necessary meetings to explain why the child died. The fact that your partner is unhappy raises questions in my mind about how he/she expects you to cover his/her absences - the child with epiglottitis, the sudden illness of a member of their family, compassionate leave, and so on. Your story reminds me of my previous partner, who had to cover suddenly when my wife went into labour. He phoned the hospital twice during first stage, and once during second stage, to find out when I was coming back to relieve him. I'll bet all the evidence in the world won't convince your partner - it's not evidence you lack, it's professional support. But your story makes me very grateful to my current partners, and my staff, who enable me to provide Immediate Care. Andrew Jel Coward wrote: > > I had a lad brought in (cottage hospital) ..... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%