Systematic clinical accountability is required
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1109 (Published 06 November 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1109
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
It seems to me that the addition of yet another layer of bureacracy for
the control of doctors would not be without hazard.
We learn that this year there are 3425 vacancies in General Practice
- 900 more than last year. Furthermore, some 45% of GPs are within 5 years
of retirement. The public, we understand, is finding access to Primary
Care quite difficult in some places. Some people are even beginning to
notice this phenomenon, and wonder.
It is difficult to see how Dr Pickering's suggestions could lead to a
"rapid increase in standards", since access to a GP would,like general
access to Low Earth Orbit, become a very difficult task indeed. The
latter, at least, is showing potential for change - but that is another
story!
If there was a guaranteed withering away of the pernicious "Blame and
Compensation Culture" ,with a corresponding culling of ambulance
chasing/advertising lawyers, the idea might might have some merit, and
even give us some wry amusement - but I fear that,like the proposed new
tier of regional bureaucracy ,the costs and hazards could only be
increased, as upon a one-way ratchet.
What shall it profit the public to possess a service of "perfect"
doctors, who by reason of their numbers become effectively inaccessible?
Many of us are finding it difficult to rationalise staying in post up
to the age of 60 as it is. This proposal is less than encouraging...
For my part, I never expected, in my youth, to see advancing years
as a blessing, with Retirement as a kind of latterday Promised Land - but
so it has become for thousands of hard-working professionals in Medicine
and Education. Nice one,Cyril?
What an unique achievement of modern times!
Competing interests:
I am an active General Practitioner
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Risks of overvetting doctors
Surely this response misses the point? The argument was for less
beaurocracy and greater accountability. Improving standards of healthcare
would be in everyone's interests. Perhaps doctors and nurses don't want to
work in the NHS for the same reasons that patients increasingly don't want
to be treated by the NHS? It is not delivering consistently reasonable
standards of healthcare. This is disastrous for patients and demoralising
for staff.
The NHS needs a radical overhaul which would have to include a proper
system of independent accountability. This would improve patient care and
help crack down on fraud within the NHS. (A bigger problem than 'ambulance
chasing'.) No Government has yet dared tackle the fundamental issues.
Until they do both doctors and patients will continue to flee 'the sinking
ship.'
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests