Do not exceed your level of competence, which may be usefully estimated
by adding together training + experience. Trefor's advice is worth taking.
BW
Fay
Dr Harry Brown wrote:
> Okay that puts it into perspective!
>
> Does anyone else have views on this?
>
> Harry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Tom Sargent <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2007 11:15 AM
> *Subject:* Re: An interesting point
>
> Harry,
>
> Assume the worst. Are you happy with the idea of defending your
> opinion in court against a stroppy barrister? Unlikely perhaps but
> far from impossible.
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf Of *Dr
> Harry Brown
> *Sent:* 12 November 2007 11:01
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: An interesting point
>
> Thanks Russell-very valid point and can you define what you
> mean by risk? Because that is what I am trying to assess
>
> Harry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Russell Brown <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2007 9:37 AM
> *Subject:* Re: An interesting point
>
> Don't get involved unless you want to, ensure you charge
> what you consider to be a reasonable fee for the level of
> work and level of risk involved.
>
> Personally, I tend to include advice to seek an assessment
> by an Occupational Health service after making it clear
> that I am the patient's GP and have no Occ. health
> experience or qualifications. IANAL, not sure if that
> would be deemed sufficient by our learner friends if it
> cam down to it...
>
> Russell
>
> On Nov 10, 2007 11:18 AM, Adrian Midgley
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dr Harry Brown wrote:
> > Often I am written to by people's employers, asking
> for medical
> > details, specifically asking opinions on fitness to
> work-often a
> > job description is provided. I now adopt the view
> that I either
> > don't get involved and reply to that effect or
> provide medical
> > facts (assuming consent is provided of course). I
> understand (is
> > this correct) that GPs should not get involved in
> providing such
> > Occupational Health work (apart from sick notes
> which is a
> > statutory duty) and really should state employers
> should obtain
> > occupational health advice.
> There is no prohibition.
> It is neither part of GMS, nor funded by the NHS, nor
> does the NHS
> _intend_ to fund it and therefore one might expect the
> secretary of
> state and other commentators to object to GPs using
> their NHS "pay" to
> perform such extra jobs.
>
> (Actually, one finds the SoS regarding occ health
> and insurance
> medical income as being something the NHS has paid GPs
> for performing
> their NHS contracted activities, and quite likely if
> we diversify
> more, so as to have 50% of our income from other and
> arguably more
> honest contracts and contractors, the SOS will tell
> the Daily Mail
> that we have now doubled our pay for the NHS. But I
> digress)
>
>
> No doctor should take on work which they are not
> capable of doing
> adequately well, or if there are limitations on our
> opinions, we
> should ensure anyone buying them is aware of those
> limitations.
> However many GPs have always done occupational health
> work for local
> employers, and these arrangements are sensible and
> appreciated by all
> three sides.
>
>
> > I remember the BMA saying that we should not do Hep
> B vaccinations
> > for high risk groups on behalf of employers and it
> should be an
> > occupational health issue and employer's
> responsibility not the
> > GPs.
> I don't think the BMA has said one should not do it.
> I am completely sure that the BMA's view is that
> whoever does Hep B
> immunisations for occupational reasons, allowing the
> employer to
> discharge their responsibility satisfactorily by
> providing them,
> should charge and be paid for them, since it remains
> the NHS/DoH's
> view that this is not part of GMS, is not funded under
> the NHS, and is
> part of a cost of business to employers who send their
> workers into
> such hazards.
>
> And I don't disagree with that.
>
> We do immunisations for various employers, on regular
> and ad hoc
> bases, enjoy it and are happy to continue doing so.
> The profit is
> modest and welcome.
>
> One might employ an occupational health nurse if there
> was a lot of
> it, or even an occupational health physician, and
> depending on the pay
> and conditions they might be very happy about that...
> One might even
> make a partnership arrangement.
>
> - --
> Midgley
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFHNZOiRtcsVjUuankRAlz1AKCYjDX6jUvlTGUkJl8saPidOKGsnQCg1HgT
> mP9Oegli6zgrMFr6rELSoJ0=
> =SyAv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1126 - Release Date: 12/11/2007 12:56
>
|