Patsy wishes you a merry Christmas

I have no idea who to credit for creating this, but thanks to Dr Evans on DNUK for posting a link for me.

http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=ef6da7db05b5fd4e056385aG06122200

Wonderful!

Coincidence

Ok, I said I'd take a break, but nothing's happened yet, so here's another one for you.

NHS deficit: Approx £500 million

Amount spent on management consultants in the NHS last year: Approx £500 million

For fuck's sake Patsy, do the bloody sums.

In the Guardian...

Last post for a bit

Lord Warner is going. Will he be missed?

Lets hope he gets a good pension for his stirling work totally bollixing up the NHS finances.

The BMA is seeking a Judicial Review regarding the legality of the governments retrospective slash-and-burn of our pensions. How the hell they think they can get away with a gross breach of contract I don't know. Idiots...

As to why this is the last post for a bit:

Mrs B will imminently be having the baby, any time in the next 1-3 weeks. So I might be a bit busy...

(I will however post an announcement when I get chance!)

So, dear readers, take care and have a good Christmas or holiday-season-of-your-choice.

Pension Cap

I don't have full details yet, but it appears that bastard Lord Warner has written to the GPC to say that he will cap GP pensions.

Here is the text from a BMA press release:

Immediate release : Thursday, 7 December 2006

BMA to challenge the imposed cap on GPs’ pensions

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA’s GPs Committee, denounced Lord
Warner’s decision to cap GP pensions as reneging on a contract agreement and
denying doctors the pensions they have already paid for.

“Most GPs are self-employed. They pay both the employers’ and the employees’
contributions into the NHS Pension Scheme. The pensions they have accrued
are in fact delayed pay resulting from a contract agreed by the government
with the profession. For Lord Warner to say they cannot have the pension
they have earned and paid for is a denial of their contractual rights. We
will be challenging his decision” said Dr Meldrum.

While family doctors have seen a substantial rise in income under the new
contract, the BMA believes the earning figures announced last week by the
government are wrong. Dr Meldrum said: “Because of a significant error, the
quoted figures are pitched at too high a level. We understand the 14%
employers’ pension contribution has been mistakenly included in the income
figures. The error means the average GP pay for 2004-05 is well below
£100,000, not the six figure income as reported. It also means the
percentage rise in pay is substantially below the 32% claimed by the
government.” Clarification of the error is being sought by the BMA.

Dr Meldrum said: “Lord Warner’s offer of a 48% rise in the pension
dynamising factor* over five years may seem superficially generous but it is
not the deal we negotiated and will seriously disadvantage GPs nearing
retirement and those who have recently retired. Those doctors retired
believing in good faith that they would receive the pensions they had earned
and paid for. Moreover, we believe the timing of the announcement is
premature, is based on estimated figures of doubtful accuracy and,
therefore, we do not accept the assertions that honouring this deal would
take money away from patient services.

“The government’s decision is a betrayal of good faith and is depriving
doctors of a pension we believe they have a legal right to receive.”

The BMA’s GPs Committee will now seek further legal advice on mounting a
challenge to Lord Warner’s announcements on capping of pensions.

Ends

This has got to be a breach of contract, never mind comp[l;etely removing any chance of healing the rift between the politicos and medics.

I will await developments with interest...

Follow up to "Spinal Privacy"

There have been further developments in the matter of Spine vs Everyone else.

Clarification has been issued to those who sent in coupons expressing a desire not to be included, here. Apparently the Department of Health "does not believe that processing their information in this way is a genuine reason linked to substantial and unwarranted distress." But I thought that distress was in the eye of the sufferer? Obviously only if the DoH thinks so to.

As a GP I'm now damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

If I do "allow" (and it doesn't look like I'll have any choice in the matter) the uploading of people's information, I could be held accountable for the breach in the confidentiality. In other words, I (as data controller for my practice) will be in Breach of the Data Protection Act and I suppose could be legitimately complained about to the GMC.

If I don't, I'll have everyone from the Health Minister (so-called) down trying to bend me over my desk...

This is also picked up today in the Torygraph.

I suspect that Tony and cronies will continue to ride roughshod over everyone, until either someone hacks the system or the opposition get of their arse and cause a fuss.

Watch this space...

The BritMeds 2006 (1)

John Crippen has started up a weekly collection of the best of British medical blogs.

Yours truly is mentioned!

Check it out...

Over-performance

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

Hospitals in the South East are being told to delay routine patient appointments for eight weeks, otherwise they will not be paid for them.

Here's the link.

So, fail to achieve government targets and be damned.

Exceed them and be financially crippled (albeit temporarily).

On the other hand, I can see the Strategic Health Authority's point of view: the PCTs have to contract for an amount of "activity" and then pay for anything which exceeds that anyway (under Payment By Results, the national tariff). There's a big deficit heading Patsy's way, and of course she said that she'd take personal responsibility for achieving financial balance. Lets hope she isn't allowed to dodge it.

Although I personally thought that a bit of an oxymoron, a cabinet minister taking personal responsibility for their area of responsibility...

What about the patients? The only people who are talking about them are the consultants. But what do doctors know about health care, hmmm?

And there was me thinking the political silly season had passed already.

Redundant advertising

I read this story a couple of weeks ago. It was also posted in various other places, including the BBC, most of the national press and other media. I didn't comment on it at the time because I thought it pathognomic of the difficulties the NHS is facing, and that further comment was not necessary.

But now we have this.

So lets compare these two stories, shall we?

On the one hand, the NHS workforce has reduced in the last year by about 20,000. There are an indeterminant number of compulsory redundancies, which the Government says are just under a thousand. Yeah, right...

On the other hand, hospitals will now be able to advertise their services. who to? Not to patients, oh no. To doctors. Yes to GPs like me.

But hold on a moment. Don't I already refer to hospitals? Am I not already obliged to refer to someone I at least know of and trust to do the right thing by my patients? To quote paragraph 55 of Good Medical Practice:

Referral involves transferring some or all of the responsibility for the patient's care, usually temporarily and for a particular purpose, such as additional investigation, care or treatment that is outside your competence. You must be satisfied that any healthcare professional to whom you refer a patient is accountable to a statutory regulatory body or employed within a managed environment. If they are not, the transfer of care will be regarded as delegation, not referral. This means you remain responsible for the overall management of the patient, and accountable for your decision to delegate.

My highlighting, by the way.

But the Government is already trying to force me to abrogate my responsibility for ensuring that I know what service my patients can expect with Choose and Book: I can't refer to a named consultant, if I can refer at all!

But back to the point at hand...

So, lots of people out of work (however you want to define it), so cutting costs.

The money saved can now be invested in advertising a hospital's services to the GPs who are already referring to it, likely involving the recruitment of advertising and marketing managers. Of course that means less money for patient care. I suppose the idea is that advertising will increase the number of "service users", thus increasing income under the "Payment by Results" tariff.

What kind of buggered up system is this? That money should go towards patient care.


I'm 36. I can't wait to retire.

Five weeks to go...

There will soon be the patter of tiny feet in Chez Brown.

Mrs B is expanding on a daily basis, I'm sure she will explode soon. The baby likes Strictly Come Dancing, we can tell because she has a dance when its on. My other 2 kids are excited, we have arranged for them to be the first to meet their sibling (after us of course).

I can't wait...

Mind you, we're only just getting organised with baby-grows, nappies, clothes, etc. We were much better organised with our wedding last year at Newick Park.

And I've still got loads of painting to do :-(

I still can't wait to meet the thing that's been booting me in the ear while I'm reading or singing to it.

Of course, we still have to decide on a name...

Spinal Privacy

There is an interesting article in the Guardian today. I suggest you read it. It refers to the security (or otherwise) of the NHS spine, the computer system which is being built to house the medical records of all UK residents.
And therein lies the problem.

Given the Governments track-record on IT projects, given the fact that you can either have a functional or secure system (but for a project this size probably not both) the question you have to ask is:

"Do I really want my personal and confidential details available to any of the 250,000 staff in the NHS who have currently been given smart cards? Oh, and the police, security services, and anyone else who might have the technical skills to hack in or money to buy information from the spine?"

Speaking as a medical professional, I don't.

The Governments constant mantra of reassurance and complacent murmurings that security will be adequate completely fail to make me feel better about the scheme.

For a start, you won't have a choice about whether to be involved or not unless you opt out right at the beginning. Once your info is on the spine, its there in perpetuity (and lets not even start talking about civil liberties and the Data Protection Act).

Sadly, this scheme is just another manifestation of the current Government's inclinations to control us all. There is no safeguard with this. If it is "in the public interest" your records will be viewable by whomsoever the authorities deem. Right now, if the police want me to show them your records, they need to either provide me with your consent (in writing, and even then I usually check with people to make sure they understand what it is they've consented to) or ask a Judge to issue a Court Order (and although it has never happened, I would probably then wish to speak to the Judge myself anyway to clarify what exactly they want to see: it would be most unusual for someone's appendectomy in 1954 to be of any relevance to anything at all, really).

The Guardian also provide a page (here) with a draft letter to the Secretary of State for Health instructing that you don't want your data added to the spine. I will be writing.

The decision whether you should as well is not one I can make for you. But consider carefully before imagining that New Labour will treat your most intimate personal details with the dignity they deserve.

Disclosure statement

After the nonsense about PayPerPost, which although I am not signed up to is still in my view a bloody good idea, I thought a disclosure might be a reasonable idea. This is available for viewing here.

It is also replicated below.

This policy is valid from 02 November 2006


This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. For questions about this blog, please contact drbrown at gmail dot com.


This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. We write for our own purposes. However, we may be influenced by our background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.

The owner(s) of this blog will never receive compensation in any way from this blog.

The owner(s) of this blog is not compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the blog owners. If we claim or appear to be experts on a certain topic or product or service area, we will only endorse products or services that we believe, based on our expertise, are worthy of such endorsement. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.

This blog does contain content which might present a conflict of interest. This content will always be identified.


To get your own policy, go to http://www.disclosurepolicy.org

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

Well, it seems people do.

In that case, why don't the politicians listen to us?

Because they want their reforms to go down as an historical achievement.

Great. Dismantling the NHS will be such an achievement, won't it?

I'm a bit busy today, but for invective about politicians generally and the health service in particular, try clicking on some of the links listed over there ->

Enjoy!

The cost of litigiation in the NHS

Whilst indulging in some forum posting on DNUK (no you can't have a link, unless you're a registered doctor in the UK) I came across a link to a question posed in the Lords yesterday (Hansard).

NHS: Compensation and Legal Costs

Lord Steinberg asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the cost to the National Health Service of £175 million for compensation and legal costs as stated by the National Health Service Litigation Authority includes all outstanding cases to the end of the past financial year. [HL7454]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): The NHS Litigation Authority 2005-06 accounts report expenditure of £591,586,000 on clinical and non-clinical negligence claims in the past financial year. The accounts include a provision, as at 31 March 2006, of £8,344,980,000 for all outstanding cases including an estimate for incidents that have occurred but not been reported.

Yes, you read that right.

The government have put aside £8.344 billion pounds to cover negligence claims against the NHS, both clinical and non-clinical. Doesn't say how much is put aside for non-clinical negligence though. Nor does it define what non-clinical negligence is. (Anyone fancy a Freedom of Information request there?)

Eight. Billion. Quid.

One thing that does surprise me is that no further questions were asked. Even in the current climate of rather defensive medicine (though not as bad as the USA) this figure is staggering. To put it in perspective, that would be a year's income for over 330,000 new police officers.

Yet so far, the Government (Lawd bless 'em!) have spent over £20 billion on a computer system which isn't fit for purpose and probably won't be.

God help us all...

Listening habits: the drive to work

Decisions, decisions...

Options:

1. CD. Good music (IMHO), I can sing along without discomforting anyone else (believe me, with my voice that's important) BUT I tend to play it too loud and end up with tinnitus byt the time I get to work, I don't hear the news before work.
2. Radio 1. I'm sorry, but Chris Moyles is just a big fat git who lots of teenagers finds funny. The music is at best variable, and most of what I get is actually inane drivle interspersed with occasional jingles, with the odd track of music thrown in.
3. Radio 2. Wogan. Music from elevators, humour from the 1970's but without the slapstick.
4. Radio 4. The Today show. I get the news and weather. The 0810 interview is sometimes ok, but generally just gets me angry with the vagaries and downright bastard lies from politicians (of all colours).
5. Southern FM. Really irritating adverts, not much music (and the same stuff over and over and over...), chirpy presenters (far too bright, eff off you bastards, its first thing in the morning), traffic reports every 20 minutes (but they make you listen to the bloody adverts first).
6. Southern Counties Radio. Decent traffic reports which have the advantage of being RDS, but OH MY GOD the shows are soooooooo boring I'm in danger of falling asleep at the wheel...

What to do, what to do...

Forms of nursing

It seems a week can't go by without yet another form appearing that I am supposed to use to refer patients to a particular service. I totted up how many different referal forms I have in my box file the other day: 22 . Yes, twenty-two different forms to refer patients to different NHS departments. Alot of these forms have similar information requirements: they all need demographical details of course, as well as a few details of the presenting complaint leading to the referal. Some of these forms we have managed to get in electronic form from the originator, which we can then adapt so our clinical software can automatically fill out at least some of it. Of course, we need to ensure that the forms' authors are happy with it before we can start using them. Others, we can't, for one reason or another.

A particular bug-bear I have is the fact that we now have to communicate with the District Nursing team by writing them a note on a specific form and faxing it to their offices. They have been expecting this for the last 2 years or so, ever since they were reorganised so that they were no longer attached to a specific surgery, but in a "locality". Before this, if Mabel developed a leg ulcer, we would speak to the District Nursing Sister when she came to the surgery (usually a daily occurence to collect supplies). She would check to make sure there were no matters to be discussed before she left. In addition we had a weekly Primary Health Care Team meeting in the surgery.

Not any more. Oh no.

Now face-to-face communication is non-existant. I don't know most of the nurses who visit our surgery to run clinics. You can phone, but its just an answer phone. And if you do leave a message, you get a message back saying that they need a referal form. So you send the form, they see the patient (one assumes).

Of course, we don't get one back when they discharge patients from their case load. Neither do they keep their records anywhere near ours: they have their own folders, kept at the patient's house, which are later archived somewhere mysterious, never to be seen again.

And I haven't even mentioned the referal/discharge criteria which are being introduced by the management teams.

I'll give you 3 guesses how much consultation there has been with other professionals stakeholders as to whether this is necessary, never mind a good idea. And the first 2 guesses don't count...

Where the driving force behind these changes comes from is a matter of further irritation. Yep, the good old Department of Health. Bless 'em. Except of course that the decisions where made locally, not centrally. Except of course that the decisions were basically forced upon the local health economy by financial decisions further up the food chain. Decisions made in London. See how that links up? Clever, innit?

I could go into why these changes are apparently "good for patients". All I know is that the patients complain to me that they don't see the same nurse more than two or three times. The nurses are getting more and more officious (a sure sign to my mind of the stresses they are under and their levels of dissatisfaction with the way they are working). Inevitably, there are the usual recruitment freezes periodically (though, to be fair, recently there seems to have been an influx of community nurses, less well qualified than District Nurses, though forced to do the same job).

Gets right on my wick.

Bring on Practice Based Commissioning. Care to hazard a guess at one thing we're contemplating taking over from the PCT?

Dr Rant

Oh my goodness.

Please please read this blog. (Click on thread title, it links to the Dr Rant blog.)

It is so right.

If I had more time, I would tell you more, but I haven't.

Go read it.

And then laugh.

And then wonder if you should actually be crying instead...

Entrepreneurs

My mate Pete has himself a new job as Director of Software Development for PayPerPost.com.

I worry about Pete: he's living several thousand miles away and can't buy me beer anymore.

So I checked out the PayPerPost website at http://payperpost.com/ and they seem to be a very interesting company, just the sort of thing that will help Pete keep his mojo going.

It seems a very sensible way for people to do business, you sign up and get paid by companies who want to advertise on blogs by writing posts about the subject they ask of you.

As Pete says in his blog:
"...despite what some would have you think, blogs are not journalism. Blogs are personal, and PayPerPost's model is a very real financial enabler for a huge portion of the Blogosphere; the single-mom trying to raise a small family, the student trying to make ends meet, the video game junkie looking for a means to fund his ever growing game collection. In fact, if you're human and have a blog, PayPerPost probably has something you can write about for cold, hard cash."

So good luck Pete, and good luck PayPerPost. More power to you...

Waste in the NHS

I've come across two posts on blogs which I enjoy. I commend both to you if you are curious as to why people like me think New Labour are full of shit when it comes to public services, being more concerned with their historical legacy than actually providing good services.

The first is an example of how pointless some of the exercises which take place in the NHS really are, from the estimable Dr John Crippen at NHS Blog Doctor, and is basically "How to have a crap, a user manual".

I kid you not.

The second is from Shiny Happy Person at Trick-cycling for Beginners. SHP describes the waste that is rampant in the NHS using a specific example.

Well, I say specific. This sort of thing goes on all the time.

I shall refrain from mentioning what others think of the way the Government spends billions on while hospitals and PCTs struggle to make ends meet.

Up the Revolution (and here's looking forward to the next election)!

Its all back to front...

A busy Monday morning today, as you might expect.

One of my nurses gave a print out of an email a friend sent her which she thought might tickle me. I assume its one of those things that goes round the internet every so often like a cold, which everyone in the wolrd gets, only to see it again a few years later. This one was new to me.

She was right about it tickling me (actually I snorted a half-chewed plum all over my keyboard), so here it is for your delight and delectation:

_______________________________________________________________

"You should start out dead and get it out of the way.

That way, you wake up in a retirement home feeling gradually better every day.

You get kicked out eventually for being too healthy. You go and collect your pension, then when you start work after a decade or two you get given a gold watch on your first day.

You work for 40 years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement.

You drink alcohol, smoke, party and are generally promiscuous and you get ready for school.

You eventually become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a baby and then...

You spend the last 9 months of your life floating peacefully in luxurious, spa-like conditions: central heating, room service, larger living space every day.

And then, you finish off as an orgasm."

_______________________________________________________________

Wonderful!

I like my job

Well, I've had a week off but today I'm back at work and running late already...

It seems the more things change the more things stay the same: same old faces, same old problems. A bit like a favorite old jumper.

My most recent patient (whom I shall call Daphne, as that is of course not her name) has been suffering from anxiety. Doesn't sound too major, does it?

Except that Daphne has had symptoms for years. It stops her going out, predominantly because she gets diarrhoea whenever she gets anxious. It makes her go home early for the same reason. She avoids doing things she used to enjoy just in case she gets diarrhoea while she's out. She suffers palpitations on a regular basis, which make her feel even more anxious in case there is something wrong with her heart. Her appetite could best be described as "variable", which becomes a problem when you realise that she hovers at a BMI of 19-20 (so any weight loss makes her underweight, although there are of course arguments about the validity of Body Mass Index as an appropriate measure of health in isolation). She smoked to help herself cope. She used to argue frequently with her husband and felt abandoned by her friends. She couldn't sleep because she kept mulling things over in her mind.

Three months ago, Daphne came to see me about her tummy problems. It had taken her a long time to summon up the courage to do that. After all, she said, I'm a very busy man. I don't need frauds like her taking up my time when there are people who are actually poorly who need me, rather than just people like her, "being stupid". She was sure that it was "just nerves". She asked why she couldn't just pull herself together. She asked me if there was anything I could give her and then followed that question immediately with a statement that there was nothing that could be done for her as she was just a pathetic waste of space. She didn't want a sedative or an antidepressant or anything like that, apparently.

I felt very sorry for her. Given she had said she didn't want anything which would actually help, I explained that she might like to reconsider, but that in the mean time we could try an antispasmodic.

She came back to see me about a month ago. The antispasmodic hadn't worked. She was now prepared to try something else.

Anxious people often have poor self-esteem. They sometimes don't come to see me when they should because of this. Which is a shame. Sometimes (as with Daphne) they come with something else, an excuse if you like.

Anxiety is usually very treatable. There are a variety of non-pharmacological therapies available, some with an evidence base, some without. However, in todays NHS, certainly where I work (at the moment, but there may be a post on this at a later date), the only readily available therapy involves pills on prescription from me.

Mind you, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Daphne, for example, left me after about 25 minutes with a prescription for a few diazepam and a month's supply of citalopram. I asked her to come back after a fortnight to see how she was getting on. When she came back, things weren't quite so bad, but she still couldn't go out for fear of an episode of diarrhoea. She was sleeping better though. Oh, and she'd stopped smoking.

She came back to see me this morning, after a further two weeks.

She tells me she hasn't felt so good in years. The diarrhoea has gone. She went into the local shopping centre early in the morning with her husband over the weekend for the first time in several years and apparently burst into tears because she was so relaxed. She feels normal again. Her husband says she is the calmest he's seen her in years, much more like the woman he married 40-odd years ago. She had a new hair-do. She is also wearing a new smile.

She's not there yet. But she is getting there.

I like my job.