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

    • Noticed yesterday a reprocessing order on shop front door.
    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
    • At least the situation with rail travel  is being addressed.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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