Professional and practice development plans for primary care teams

BMJ 1998;317:1454 ( 21 November )

Letters

Professional and practice development plans for primary care teams

Academic GPs should not be ones to decide whether service GPs are fit to continue

Network of GP tutors is well placed to facilitate change

Scheme with little funding and no protected time will be forced on GPs

Didactic teaching by specialists can be stimulating and effective

PGEA system has resulted in great achievements in general practice education

Academic GPs should not be ones to decide whether service GPs are fit to continue

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Elwyn's editorial about professional and practice development plans for primary care is at best confused and at worstdangerous.¹ He comments that there are good and bad practicesand points to the difference between the (apparently) good andthe (obviously) bad. The good are paperless, with nurse practitioners,physiotherapists, and on site phlebotomists; the bad are thosewhere consultations are perfunctory, prescribing suspect, andthe sole aids are prescription pads, sick notes, and uncheckedsphygmomanometers.

What evidence does he have that being paperless or having a nurse practitioner leads to better patient care? My practice hasan on site physiotherapist, but this doesn't make us a betterpractice, just slightly more convenient for patients. Neitherdoes our computer make us a better practice. This false logicis part of an insidious trend: if you don't have all the abovetrappings plus a nurse facilitator doing your audit and . . . [Full text of this article]