What do politicians do when they are desperate for a quick boost in popularity? They repackage old tired ideas and pretend that they are actually revolutionary cutting edge ideas. This is certainly the case for gawping fat Gordon's latest jaw hanging warbling on health screening:
"Patients in England will be offered screening for early signs of heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has
You will not be surprised to learn that the Dr Rant team are characteristically unenthusiastic, and stoically unimpressed. In actual fact GPs have been screening for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and kidney disease for many years now through the Quality of Outcomes Framework (QOF) and the GMS2 contract. Unfortunately, the government won’t pay us to hit the more aggressive targets for blood pressure and cholesterol that medical evidence suggests we should hit. These are the targets which science suggests will get the best results for the population at large but the government prefers targets that are less arduous (and less expensive on the drug budget).
There is absolutely diddly-squat-fuck-all-bees-willy-gordon's-weener new about this. The only newish thing in the screening proposals is the idea to screen elderly males for abdominal aortic aneurysms (which they've actually refused to fund thus far when asked). Even if screening were brought in for these aneurysms, it would still be highly questionable as to whether the NHS would have the capacity to operate on them.
If you were wanting to introduce a genuine revolutionary shift in emphasis from disease treatment to disease prevention how would you do it? Dr Rant would discuss the concept with those that he was relying on to deliver it first, and curry favour with the 'providers' with the proven track record and the trust of the public (i.e. the GPs). The Clunk-jawed Fucktard thinks the best way to do it is keep the GPs in the dark, give his private sector mates the heads up to hand them the 'competitive' advantage, and announce/crow about it on Shit-Badger Cuntavison (aka GMTV) with the most vacuous waste of oxygen in Britain - Fiona Fucking Phillips. The fact that virtually every involvement of the private sector in Gordon's brave new NHS has thus far been a total disaster doesn't seem to have dampened his enthusiasm.
He's even gone to extraordinary lengths to alienate and anger the only people who could possibly deliver his 'grand vision'; the GPs. Presumably we're being lined up for the blame when this initiative goes the same way as all New Labour's other bright ideas - to hell in a very expensive handcart.
The biggest lies from the Clunking Fister come in the form of this new 'personalised' service that he promises us. One wonders how shutting down your local GP and forcing you to travel further to a giant portacabin polyclinic will do this. The lack of continuity of care provided by the pathetic Walk in Centres (WICs or WANKFESTs) and polyclinics will no doubt have a massive negative impact on the amount of time that is wasted in inappropriate patient attendances to Accident and Emergency departments. Not to mention the fact that WICs are often manned by non-doctor, 'Noctor' people who have had around 4 weeks of training in how to diagnose and manage medical problems, that makes them only just a little bit more expert in health that politicians.
It's another load of hot air from Gordon, and we go further down the road to generating an NHS that resembles the Soviet Union system of the 1960s, that simultaneously and paradoxically embraces the worst of pseudo free market idiocy and cronyism. Your local doctor and a good local hospital will soon be a thing of the past, as they are replaced by the unhappy medium of a distant polyclinic, which can neither provide the continuity and personalised care of your local GP, nor the high standard of care for the bread and butter medical and surgical emergencies. Gordon will give us the worst of both worlds, by cutting costs and privatising the NHS in the process.
Business as usual it would seem.











24 comments:
A comment from the linked article:
"Nurses are taught to monitor patients, perform basic operations and administer treatment, but most would fail a clinical exam designed to assess fourth-year medical students, Dr Reddy says. “So why are (nurses) suddenly being expected to have the diagnostic skills and experience needed to cope with the wide range of patients who attend these new walk-in centres?"
Although this debate is not directly about the competencies of nurses I am not pleased with the contemptuous arrogance that is sweeping through these discourses.
As I've stated earlier; nurses have always worked at the level just under doctor, it is not "sudden" and many doctors I work with are grateful for the fact I don't immediately call them out to deal with a fucking head cold or a Sats O2 below 90% or an attempted suicide without having first carried out the indicated care pathways. Usually I simply adcvise them out of courtesy of the event and my interventions. It has never been questioned and has never resulted in a negative outcome for anyone.
The level of nursing competence has risen over time and now doctors appear intimidated by the threat that exists to their unilateral control. I empathise with this, but I'd find it easier if you weren't such arrogant pricks about it all.
A nurse has always been able to determine when it is out of their clinical (and more often, legal) competence. It is a requirement of our profession. If it's in my competence, then I can do it. If not, I refer to a 'specialist' called a GP/doctor/consultant just like you do when you need an Endo opinion or a Surgical opinion.
Granted, GP's carry a wide and expert knowledge base and I respect that. It's not all that necessary to diagnose and treat a soft tissue injury - the clinical pathway does that.
Various countries actually have different levels of autonomy for nurses/doctors. Don't be so naiive to think the NHS way is the only way. In Australia, I can recommend for Mental Health Emergency Examination Order and that person then attends A&E to be assessed by an Intake & Assessment nurse who determines admission/referral/discharge home. This practice is supported by the medical team because there is no need for them to attend most referrals, thus freeing them up to attend to the more medically-intervention indicated cases.
The problem doctors seem to face is accepting that nurses are not doctors handmaiden's any more. They have their own recognised sphere of professional specialsm which, in part, includes knowledge and skills of the medical professions historical monopoly.
And in regard the bollox spouted:
"Noctor' people who have had around 4 weeks of training in how to diagnose and manage medical problems, that makes them only just a little bit more expert in health that politicians"
Nurse practitioners:
3 years basic training
2 years clinical experience
2 years post-grad specialist training & masters degree..
..as minimum.
I'd like to see the medical profession try to take this debate to the midwives. They piss all over junior medical care in O&G.
Health Visitors have been conducting infant and youth assessment, provisional diagnosis, referral where necessary and providing health education to parents for decades.
Stop reducing the veracity of otherwise good arguments by spouting sanctimonious and misleading shite that is of no more value or truth than the shite you have condemned the govt of issuing.
I stand by my comments that some stuff requires a medical review and opinion.
Doctors should not be replaced by nurses but stop moaning about having limited time when you refuse to accept (for no good reason other than selfish procreation of the monopoly) the simple jobs that require little 'medical' knowledge or skill and can be completed by competent others that do not happen to be doctors.
It's not your ball - and you can't run home crying if we won't play the game your way.
Actually the midwives don't.
Ask a midwife to explain the treatment options for leaking urine or how to go about treating the various grades of gynae cancers.
I like the fact you try to rebuff a generalisation with another one.
Tainted halo i suspect you have almost no idea of your limitations i wonder i'm going to do experiments today and ask nurses what they think of all the x-rays and my treatment plans...some of them are my friends and i will tell them i am doing it to prove that nurses can't just take over from medics. I bet most of them will tell me they think that already.
Firstly. SOME nurses can do these tasks safely, but certainly not all can. What's more, there's no guarantee of standards like medical school provides.
Secondly, if midwives 'piss all over' junior doctors in obstetric care (which isn't true in my experience) it's because most juniors are only in it for 6 months anyway - and the madwives don't let them near anyone who's actually pregnant because they let the student midwives do everything (even though only 10% of them will get a job when they qualify at present).
The bottom line is that there are around 10,000 young people out there who are underemployed who've actually bothered to spend 5 or 6 years at medical school. They are ideal people to do this work, or is that too obvious?
Oh and all those "specialists " you ask for help when you can't do it...they learnt thier trade by doing all the stuff you can do and the moving on...without them doing the "minor" things they won't move on and would be stuck at the same level you are for the rest of their career. Then who do you call?
Excellent. So lets denounce radiologists and physiotherapists as well - who all now perform assessment and diagnosis and treatment prescription that was once the realm of the doctor.
Next they'll be trying to train mere ambulance attendants to diagnose and give intravenous medications at the scene of an accident....and call the something ridicualous like.. paramedics? Heaven forbid.
GPs are just jack of all 'ailments'; master of none.
"they learnt thier trade by doing all the stuff you can do and the moving on"
All the stuff? Fuck off.
So you can sit with a suicidal person for 6-12 hours - in a meaningful way? You can de-escalate an aggressive client just by your therapeutic alliance? You know how to get a therapeutic alliance? You know the legal parameters of the provisions of the Mental Health Act; you know how to conduct a HCR20 risk assessment? Most ward doctors I work with don't even know how to write a legal prescription. Or complete an objective Behaviour Management Plan?
Don't give me bollox that you've done everything in health care.
Next time I deal with a homicidal deluded and unco-operative psychotic patient.... I'll be happy to send you're fucking experienced self in first to give that Midazolam.
Like I said: Arrogant prick
Tainted Halo you need to seriously chill out!
Just a couple of quick points:
"3 years basic training
2 years clinical experience
2 years post-grad specialist training & masters degree..
..as minimum."
Is, as I am sure you know, utter rubbish. The fact is that there is no minimal level someone has to reach to call themselves a nurse "practitioner" so its a bit misleading of you to write this.
In addition, the three years at uni is is NURSING not medicine. The clinical experience is in NURSING not medicine - i.e pretty much irrelevant since, as im sure you agree, they are very different (though valuable) jobs.
I'll tell you what, why dont you spend a few years actually learning how the human body works and then be trained to an acceptable standard in examining and treating it - you can if you like enrol for a medical degree. If at the end of that time you still think someone with a few weeks training in spotting a frcature on an X-ray is at the same standard as you I will gladly listen to your opinion.
Whilst you continue to spout off about things you have not studied to any appreciable level or have any qualifications to comment on however i would contend that it is you who is the arrogant one.
Conflict of interest: would never let any of my family be medically treated by "Mocktor".
Oh to have the time to sit for 6-12 hours with a suicidal psychotic patient and set up a strong psychotherapeutic relationship, but after I have made my Mental Health Assessment (yes I know how to do them and have to do it within half an hour at the most rather than 6-12) as I then have tio see someone with crushing chest pain or someone with and urgert cold virus.
Despite being an arrogant cunt who is a Jill of all trades and Mistress of none they still made me section (12) approved doctor. Maybe becasue I used to be a psychiatrist before I was a GP and got hacked off with dealing with the midazolam zonked psychopath - and after I had finished trying to get any sense out of the mental health nurse I'd then deal with the patient.
My point is that most GPs didn't just go straigh into it after med school. Most of us have done other specialties and , in some cases, in some depth. My colleague here has the qualifications to be a consultant gynaecologist but is obviously fed up with midwives trying to urinate on her so decides to be a GP instead.
tainted_halo,
I'll happily give you midazolam - you clearly need it. Then, I'll try and get the chip off your shoulder though I fear it's embedded.
Dear Tainted Halo,
Whilst you would be happy filling in your HCR20 forms, I doubt if you if know how to fill in a Maryland ankle score or treat Gartland 2 fracture. Whilst I may not know how to complete your Behavior Management Plan, your GP can certainly refer you to a psychologist or a (gasp! doctor) psychiatrist for your delusions.
Anyway, on a different note. If Gordon wants to NHS to be one of preventative medicine then he should look at Cuba where money for expensive treatment is short. There is still some degree of rationing so everyone eats proper food. Perhaps, that is the ULTIMATE aim of the current NHS, with dumbing down of medical training, hospital diagnosis and treatment meted out by Mocktors and Noctitioners, GPs having to work with one hand tied by DoH bureaucracy, hospital doctors having to sing to DoH target hymnsheets at the expense of real care and medical priority - there is nothing else that NHS can do but tell potential patients to look after themselves as there will be no one else qualified to do so.
Hasn't Gordon (or tainted halo) heard of Wilson Criteria for Screening? There should be the means to treat the diseases detected by the process.
Wow everyone here has shot him down so much more wonderfully than i could.
Tainted halo...actually i know the theory... i chose to aviod psych as much as possible.
Howevere my mate(the junior in A&E) was the one putting the needle into the uncontrollable psych patient last weekend...should he have sent for you?
Adult psych nurses have even less general medical knowledge than ward nurses so it's a bad example.
Give me 5 causes of decreased sat probe readings and the one cause of increased reading in a breathless patient (without looking at the protocol so you can actually be useful looking for those causes) and maybe i will listen to you.
Oh and i'm just graduating now but i bet i would do alright in an exam with a midwife.
Radiologists by the way are doctors...ignorant puppy.
Calling people 'arrogant' who cleverly point out the gaping flaws in your argument does not make you appear clever or correct.
As other have pointed out, Radiologists are doctors, physiotherapists are a different kettle of fish- however they are actually much better placed to diagnose in their fields of expertise as they have a detailed knowledge of anatomy and musculoskeletal pathology etc.
As several people have pointed out:
"3 years basic training
2 years clinical experience
2 years post-grad specialist training & masters degree"
This is utter rubbish. Virtually all this is nursing training and not much use when it comes to diagnosing and managing medical problems in an unsupervised manner.
NPs have openly admitted to me that their training (in terms of length and quality) is shoddy.
It is not arrogant to point this out.
Your argument is in fact so limp that you have to resort to personal insults!
Would it be arrogant of a fully trained policeman to claim that a PCSO cannot do the job of policeman as well as a policeman?
No, it's common sense.
shame this has dropped to a docs versus nurses match
was better as everyone versus gordon
the best part of gordons big anouncement day was the health secretary being asked exactly how many hospitals had been deep cleaned like the last gordon pronouncement said they would, centralised dictats never work, ask the soviets, ask china
no one
no one,
it's not doctors versus nurses,
doctors are supportative of nurses who nurse,
it's just that there is an increasing unease about certain people being way out of their depth with what they are taking on
yea how are the three large nurse "led" walk in centres in portsmouth doing? how do the local A & E docs feel? how many patients get sent home with the wrong diagnosis?
anyone academically reviewing the success of walk in centres?
no one
As a nurse working in an extended role capacity and possessing the dubious independant prescribing qualification i have some sympathy with Dr Rant et al. Like all professions there are good doctors good nurses and bad doctors bad nurses....an appropriatly experienced nurse is able to treat effectively simple medical conditions effectively and possibly as well as our medical colleagues, after this, more complex issues should be left to our more experienced colleagues or dealt with under extensive supervision and support of supportive and experienced GP /Doctor. Opening up the whole BNF is from a nurse who has this option a worrying development and am not sure if it is a skill that we as a group should be allowed to have in such a unrestricted fashion.
I do feel tho it is time for our medical colleagues to realise that we are able to work effectively in treating, diagnosis and prescribing independantly but only within relativley simple and un complex issues - other than that it should at least be under some degree of supervision..... rant over!!!
Nurse Rachet?
Is that you? Are you the one that had a go at blogging a year or so ago?
You are very right in what you said though. Nurses doing this work under close supervision of doctors, in order to help doctors is not what is being pushed through unfortunately.
Cheapo cheapy doctor replacement protocol driven fuckwittery is what is happening.
Is Gordo slipping something into the hospital/GP practice water supplies? Why are we at each others' throats when it's the twat in No. 10 who deserves our bile? It seems that New Labour's inability to trust trained professionals to do their job is becoming contagious...
Here's a rather unfashionable thought: Let's stick to our own areas of expertise, cooperate between disciplines, and concentrate on preventing the bastards from making things any worse, instead of trying to poach bits of each other's jobs, when the real motivation behind the encouragement to do this coming from government/hospital adminstration/blueskythinktankmindwank is to get services on-the-cheap, not improve them.
nurse ratchet,
you sound like the voice of reason to me,
most doctors have no problem at all with nurses in certain extended roles working in specialised areas,
the problem is that the slope has become rather too slippery and the government puts money ahead of safety these days,
Thx nurse ratchet for putting the argument over respectfully. I was simply inflamed by the misrepresentation of Nurse Practitioners as having 4 weeks training.
As for knowing anything about medical care myself - I know about as much as Fiona Phillips. But my lack of ego can survive that.
You're a pretty precious bunch. :)
BBL with more inflammatory comments.
Nurse Ratchet is an entirely new concept....simply impressed with the voice of reason live from The Rant Group Practice....., employed by an organisation that should be shut down. Any resembalence to previuos postings is entirely coincidental
Ferret - you are right to fear people who are out of their depth.
Presumably that's what happened when bupivicaine was administered intavenously into the arm of a nurse who though she was receiving an epidural ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7174877.stm
According to reports her bereaved husband was lied to, and now he's being booted out of the UK.
Nurses were not responsible for the EWTD, or MTAS for that matter, neither are they only ones who screw up.
In fact, the OVERWHELMING majority of fuck ups have nothing to do with how clever you are, they far more likely to arise from carelessness.
Quack loathing seems disproportionate to the relatively small number of nurses who provide extended role [or the supposed risk they pose to patients, although I daresay all of them will have made errors at some point] - no, quack loathing increasingly seems a form of displaced anger related to abysmal medical leadership ?
Pschiatry is a special case, where the role of the doctor is under intense scrutiny and 'soft skills' seem to have a very important role in the management of these chronic, mentally sick people.
I know this is a highly imperfect analogy but here goes. Rather like a family, a child will grow and develop and test their boundaries, developing new skills and knowledge. They will need firm guidance and encouragement, but boundaries are extremeley important. They do not need aggression and spite. If we are to maintain / regain respect from our colleagues and patients, we must lead.
I find it depressing that us doctors feel we have to rip the throat out of any poor soul that tries to engage in this important debate.
An abused child grows up to be a right little violent sod, hence some of the awful attitudes displayed by some of our nursing colleagues. Doctors have to break this cycle because of all the reasons why we are so swell. We are more educated, more highly trained and take most of the responsibility for the care of the sick. We hold an important role in society and must set an example.
Who do people respect more? The aggressive hawks of the recent US administration, or Kofi Annan? We need to think Kofi, not Bush, when interacting with the rest of the world, like nurses for example.
Sorry, anonymous - the parent/child analogy will find little sympathy amongst adults.
Now take a look at this;
" No matter how gifted she (sic} may be, she will never become a reliable nurse until she can obey without question. The first and most helpful criticism I ever received from a doctor was when he told me I was to be simply an intelligent machine for the purpose of carrying out his orders".
No, it wasn't the Ferret, or even Dr Rant, who espoused such progressive views, it was Sarah Dock............ in 1917.
Even Florence Nightingale moaned;
"No man, not even a doctor ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than these - devoted and obedient !
This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse".
Cited by Fagen and Garlick [2004] The doctor-nurse relationship.
http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/10/4/277.pdf
Post a Comment