Paul Bromley wrote:
> It looks as though I amy be out of a job then following an
> investigation by the GMC aas it is my present policy to issue a Med3
> with the endorsement ' Telephone consultation by Nurse Practitioner'.

> I am annoyed that this department has not moved with the times and
> understands that good work is done by Nurse Practioners - and by
> telephone triage. A bit like the SHOs/Registrars who will not take
> admissions from them - without speaking to the GP!
>
> Are we able to issue a Med3 on the basis of a telephone consultation
> by us - again something that I do. Sorry but I have not perused the
> site.  It has been my practice to openly do both of the above and I
> have yet to be challenged. It is crazy to have to see patients merely
> to give a piece of paper - especially as I DO NOT believe policing
> time off work is one of my jobs.
>>

IANAL, and this is not legal advice, but in general one can do anything
one an get away with.

Doing it anything other than openly exposes one to severe risk, however
modifying something, whether it is the form or the process, and doing so
for the benefit of the patient and the State seems to me not to deserve
the attention of the GMC.

Whether the State might claim that the notional 17% of BPA it used to
pay, and the current equivalent of this, had not resulted in it
receiving the service it had contracted for, and seek to recover this by
deductions from other payments to be made to you is another matter, but
in any case a civil one.

One might argue about the degree of delegation one can make, I do think
that the expectation is very clearly documented that examined means the
person being in the presence of the practitioner.  "seen" does not
appear on the form, but examining a patient solely by touch and sound
seems unlikely, and viva voce does not seem to convince those who one
might need to convince.


The Med 5 offers more scope...

>> >> Do I hear a motion for the LMCs conference