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.
Well done Dr Dunstan! This letter explains well the falling
productivity of medical staff. Ten years ago, for example, a colleague had
ten operating lists a week spread around the city. His recorded
productivity was astronomical, as the juniors beavered away in his name.
Complications might have been different.
Dr Dunstan might have added regulation as another health care
delivery activity which decreases measured output and productivity and
is therefore without obvious measured benefit. In a mixed economy, as the
health care delivery market now is, the burden of regulation falls on the
nationalised segment of the market. (The NHS in this discussion). Indeed,
we see that the private sector just requests a copy of the NHS appraisal
from a consultant. The cost of appraisal is not even that of
photocopying, and could be held up as an admirable example of the do-once-
and-share project.
The cost of regulation is of course borne by the tax payer, is done
in his name but has not been shown to be in his obvious benefit.
Well done Dr Dunstan !
Well done Dr Dunstan! This letter explains well the falling
productivity of medical staff. Ten years ago, for example, a colleague had
ten operating lists a week spread around the city. His recorded
productivity was astronomical, as the juniors beavered away in his name.
Complications might have been different.
Dr Dunstan might have added regulation as another health care
delivery activity which decreases measured output and productivity and
is therefore without obvious measured benefit. In a mixed economy, as the
health care delivery market now is, the burden of regulation falls on the
nationalised segment of the market. (The NHS in this discussion). Indeed,
we see that the private sector just requests a copy of the NHS appraisal
from a consultant. The cost of appraisal is not even that of
photocopying, and could be held up as an admirable example of the do-once-
and-share project.
The cost of regulation is of course borne by the tax payer, is done
in his name but has not been shown to be in his obvious benefit.
Oliver Dearlove FRCA
Competing interests:
Nil of note
Competing interests: No competing interests