To have been patronising to the Doctor?

I think that it is a tall order to expect a GP to read what may be extensive notes before a consultation. However, I think it was more th e GPs shitty attitude towards op and the inability to listen and not interrupt that’s the issue here. Surely it’s part of a GPs skill set to help a patient express what the issue is? Often people don’t get to the point immediately, although in OPs case she was trying to do that but kept being interrupted.

I’m nearly always on the side of the medical professional. I know they have an incredibly hard job to do in very little time. However I do think in this case the GP was at fault.

I have complained three times in 15 years of having two medically unwell children. I should have complained 6 times I think. 15 years of mostly fantastic treatment, but in that time have seen a few classic examples of why people should not have trained as doctors. Each time, I wasn't listened to and a dangerous situation occurred as a result of the first one in particular. If we don't give feedback, these people won't learn to improve their skills.

Er ... no. Re-read my post. Or just carry on telling yourselves that Google is the oracle, keep using antibiotics willy-nilly and see what happens. I'm just the poor sap running sequences on the most deadly diseases known to man. What the fuck would I know?

No, he should have read at least the form she filled in for the appointment if not all her notes.

He was there as a doctor, not some god to be appeased. His job as a professional is to look at the info the OP has provided for the session and listen to her as well as ask questions to form a diagnosis.

You will make better use of that ten minutes if you read the appt specific form which says eg the patient has had a transplant. It's a false time economy to not read even the basic appointment form or the most recent notes.

As per the dentist comments on the thread - most medical systems are designed to allow for red flags or alerts to be set up in patient notes.

If yours doesn’t do this then raise it with the practice as a failing in set up, which needs rectifying in the longer term and general awareness raising in the short term. It both saves you time and improves patient safety.

She DID get to that point at the beginning. She put it in her online form. The whole point of those forms is to save time during the consultation, because the doctor doesn't have to waste time asking the questions on the form. But they depend on the doctor actually spending a few seconds scanning them.

It is entirely the doctor's fault that time was wasted.

You had a transplanted kidney you should’ve got to the point at the beginning you wasted his time and your time

I haven't had a kidney transplant, but I only have one kidney due to a congenital defect to my reproductive and urinary organs. I mention it at the drs surgery or hospital, whenever I have health problems which I believe will be affected or relevant to this. I am always annoyed when the notes say things like 'according to the patient, she has only one kidney' as if I have made this up or have found out this fact on my own.
I asked about the information's prominence in my notes, as I had an infection which should have warranted antibiotics, but they were reluctant to prescribe. It seems the information is very clear on the first page, but never read. I have found that you have to really advocate for yourself quite aggressively to get the treatment you need. I am not a person to make a fuss, but I have been fobbed off so often, in similar ways to the OP that I have become a termagent!

Hope you're ok op. Well done for putting the mysoginistic twat in his place. Because that's what it was.
I'm with you on the triage thing. Ours is the same and the practice staff decide who you need to see depending on their specialities. It surely saves them time if they just look at that when they call you through.

100% with you OP. You did nothing wrong. You assessed the way the conversations was going on and use your better English to make the un bothered doctor understand the reason you were having a consultation.
Effective and correct.

Exactly this. I’m a professional in a different discipline, if my clients could walk in with a neat summary of the issues and possible solutions they wouldn’t need me.

I read the briefing notes before I see a client, I also listen to what they are saying and use that info to extend questions and capture more information.

its not just basic manners, its basic business sense. Its far and away the most efficient way to operate if you want to get to the best solutions in a short period of time.

All the PPs saying “doctors don’t have time to read notes”.

1. why are patients asked to fill in forms with all salient info to the specific appointment? Perhaps its just a handy way for the business to screen out the learning disabled, E2L patients and technically less savvy patients?

2. its a false assumption that not reading the notes, even the basic summary form for the appointment saves time. It doesn’t, it just delays an outcome and increases the risks of the wrong solution for the client.

Of course if you are paying the professional on the number of clients and appointments rather than outcomes then incentives are skewed against the client from the outset.

GP records are a nightmare and not even transferrable between hospitals. If you have a life-threatening condition or even just a severe issue, it's worth having a short written summary if you go into A and E a lot. One of my friends has a laminated A4 card with her child's information on it as otherwise you have to give an entire medical history to each doctor that comes on shift, my record is 6 recounting of histories in one day, absolutely crazy to run a system like this and to depend on the patient who is ill or may have issues to be the one to transmit important medical information, but this is not GP's fault.

If there is one take home point from this thread (and OP you should mention this in your complaint letter), is that it appears GP records aren’t entirely fit for purpose. This screams out Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement to me. How can the practice notes and triage be improved so that GPs have instant access to the most important information prior to a consultation-
better triaging, highlight the main concerns, alerts on computer records that a GP will see immediately, summary boxes, training and guidance to enhance communication skills and patient feedback.

Good for you. You are right 💐

You were incredibly eloquent OP and justified. I hope you’re better soon.

More broadly however, there does sometimes come a point in an appointment when as an HCP I need to steer the conversation to get key important information I need from the patient. Our notes are easy to access and I do read them.

With some patients it is really hard to get a word in edge ways, although it is good practice to let them speak for a bit first. It is hard to get the balance between letting the patient speak, asking for further useful information that they might not know I need, and then having time to sort out the problem. Some days if let everyone talk for as long as they wanted I would have an angry waiting room of people as I’d be running a couple of hours behind.

Why not? What is the point of having notes if the doctor can't read important information which will be prominently displayed? If can afford to waste time during the appointment talking over the patient, then he can afford time to read.

Don't worry. I have torn a strip off quite a few patronising doctors in my time, and haven't felt the least bit guilty about it. Many are misogynists with a god complex, especially at consultant level.

One of the biggest problems in the current system of online forms, short appointments, never seeing the same doctor twice is they do not know you. For people who are struggling to get their words out, perhaps they have a disability, or cognitive impairment, or have accessibility issues, or just aren't hugely articulate, this disadvantages them and puts them at risk medically. Those that do best in this system are the very articulate already advantaged people, often middle-class, who are used to speaking up.

Those who aren't able to advocate for themselves are left behind in this system, and that's millions of older, less articulate or cognitively impaired people, people with brain injuries, people who deserve great care just as much as anyone else but aren't able to represent their entire medical history in 5 words.

"Nitrofurantoin is often described as a broad-spectrum antibiotic because it is effective against a wide range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria that cause urinary tract infections (UTIs). However, it is effectively used as a narrow-spectrum agent in practice because its therapeutic use is restricted to the lower urinary tract due to its unique pharmacokinetic properties."

You're both half right.

Perfectly played. Well done you.

That may be the finest piece of victim-blaming I've ever encountered. Congratulations.

How dare the OP seek to use more than her allotted five words, honestly. I bet she said, "Hello" too; wasteful!

I am worried for your clients. I am client facing, data gathering - not a solicitor but professional equivalent. Your attitude is concerning.