Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Our wonderful kind, empathetic and knowledgable family doctor for the last 25 years, Rebecca Scorer, is retiring on Thursday. I only found out today because I had an appointment. A great GP to my family, I am now realising what a wonderful service we are losing as the NHS struggles through lack of funding. We wish her every happiness in her retirement. Thank you, Dr Scorer.
GPs have relatively little to do with the NHS compared with, say, hospital services - they are private contractors into it, paid by the NHS for primary care services (mainly) on a capitation basis. Practices used to be made up of partners with perhaps a trainee or salaried doctor or two. Increasingly that business model is being eroded, but the NHS has little to do with that. There are certainly pressures placed on GP practices by NHS requirements and contract changes, but the presence or absence of 'regular' GPs isn't necessarily directly influenced by GP practice contracts. Dr Scorer, as I understand it, is retiring, which she is certainly entitled to do. And she will certainly be missed, as were other doctors who have retired from this practice. If she is to be replaced by another partner that will be good, as that will ensure a new stream of continuity of care. Does anyone know?
It's interesting to note that Dr Knoxley Greaves "retired" about 9 months ago without anybody seeming to know or comment about it. The receptionists say he's retired; he's left the practice although he's still apparently the named doctor for some patients. He's also been spotted doing locum work in SW London.

George Orwell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's interesting to note that Dr Knoxley Greaves

> "retired" about 9 months ago without anybody

> seeming to know or comment about it. The

> receptionists say he's retired; he's left the

> practice although he's still apparently the named

> doctor for some patients. He's also been spotted

> doing locum work in SW London.



More lucrative to work as a locum, sadly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...