To wonder why it takes a GP 7 years to train?

[Swedes2Turnips1]

When all they seem to do is say 'I will write you a letter of referral' or 'You will have to make an appointment with the practice nurse for that'. What do they actually do these days?

I don't see why it matters whether the abnormal result came as result of a test which you did not order. That is looney.

What was the test for? Were there symptoms beforehand?
If so, I cannot imagine a good GP refusing to test you

Why should the NHS pick up the peices. You want to go private then fine, but then continue the treatment with the private doctors.

You seem to want to have starters in the Ritz and main course at Harvey Nics - thats looney

Because being a Dr isn't just about ordering tests and handling the fallout; part of the skill and training is in what tests to order at all, and when. It's easy to sit in a surgery dishing out blood requests, but hardly worthy of (actually at least 8 years') training.

lol that you are complaining about parking charges then calling a £32 private consultation fee a bargain! how much does it cost to park at your GPs?

I have had very limited experience of GPs. The last time I saw one other than to ask for a pregnancy referral - another waste of time imho as all he did is refer me to a consultant at the hospital - I could have phoned the hosp myself - he did not examine me just wrote down last menstrual period date. The next time he was giving my DD her 6 weeks check up, I mentioned that I was completely deaf in both ears and had been using drops for the max no of rec days and could not drive because it felt unsafe and could not hear the baby crying - really horrible. He looked in my ears and told me they were full of wax. He told me to make an appt with the practice nurse. Unfortunately as it was between Christmas and New Year - so short of staff - an appt was not available for another 8 days.
I then needed his help being referred for a cervical stitch - whilst pregnant with my 5 month old son. He told me that I lived in a nice big house and should therefore go private. In the end the PCT found me an available surgeon after I had booked in at the Portland - they were very sorry but there was a shortage of beds. MY GP was useless.

Private medical care is significantly SUBstandard in this country. It is, actually, poorer care, that you can have whatever test you want privately without seeing a doctor, than through the NHS where you have to see a doctor. It may seem easier, quicker, better. It is poorly regulated and of inferior quality.

If your GP really is useless (and some really are, then change; it is easy to do so these days.
(Ear wax needs drops for at least 5-7 days before syringing, so a quicker appt with the nurse would have been useless; hey, who needs a GP anyway, when there's MN?)

A bargain to not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops which benefit noone.
I would either have had to take two tots with me for both appointments - nightmare or get a babysitter. It would take at least an hour each trip, more for the hosp as it is further away, our babysitter charges £10 per hour to look after both children
Doc's Appt - babysitting £10 (minimum)
Car Parking £4
Hospital Appt babysitting £15 (minimum)
Car Parking £4

You see a convenient evening appt with no need for a babysitter and free parking makes one £32 appt a bargain

Spockster - I had been using drops from the pharmacist for the full course before seeing the GP

actually in NZ they could take the blood sample at the same time (either the doctor or a nurse) send it off and then ring you up when you got the results. The way the NHS does it is not always perfect just because its the UK!

And ivykate, i can't see what is wrong with going to your GP with an abnormal test - at least the GP would then know what was wrong and both parties would have saved time, in fact the NHS would have saved the cost of the test. I can't get your point of view at all. Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to opt out into the private sector at all? There can only be positive cost implications for the NHS if those who can afford it do opt out when they want to.

I am not saying GPs are not well-trained, but that certain ways the NHS is organised are not the most efficient. and I think it forgets that its patients are also customers - given the percentage of the tax bill going on the NHS.

TABU - but i expect you know that already

They couldn't necessarily take it at the same time - we none of us know what blood test it is - it might need to be on ice, fasting, etc.

It is most effeicient for the 'least' trained person to do the job... and phlebotomist are less trained than doctors, though the OP clearly doesn't think so!

florenceuk - thank you.
I would be very pleased to go and see the GP and chat about it and have the blood test at the same time - that makes sense. But to send you on two separate appointments is a waste of the patient's time and a waste of NHS money.

Why not see a different GP within the practice?

A lot of the stuff you mention is to do with NHS business process. Why can't you refer yourself to the obstetrician? Because the referral from the GP triggers the payments process so that the Trust is compensated by the PCT for caring for you. Ditto the blood test, although I agree it's annoying they want to see you first, not sure if that is standard practice, or standard for their area, or just a local policy decision but it's unlikely the GP came up with it on his own.

Like most well people, your exposure to your GP is extremely limited, I can assure you many GPs are worth their weight in gold. A large element of their work is to assess presenting conditions and make the appropriate referrals, that's how it works.

Funnily enough, dh's haemotologist has just requested that dh's dad be tested for high iron levels, wonder if his GP will push back on that.

The problem, also, with saying that the cost implications are good if people opt out of the NHS and then back in are:

• where do you think private doctors COME from? They are trained by the NHS!!! In fact, they are usually NHS doctors using their evenings and weekends to make extra money.

• private healthcare often does tests that don't need doing, and follows up patients that don't need following up, to make money

-it does not allow for budgeting by NHS management

• if you're going to jump the queue - you can't expect to fit back in right at the front (for want of a better way of explaining it)

"It is most effeicient for the 'least' trained person to do the job... and phlebotomist are less trained than doctors, though the OP clearly doesn't think so!"
Exactly. Which is why I am questioning the need to see the GP at all!

Well, they are qualified to decide if you need it.

Of course in my OP, I should not have been facetious about the value of GPs when they do their jobs - which I's sure they do a lot of the time. It is just annoying to only really ever come across them in their capacity as bureaucratic conduits for the NHS. No wonder a lot of them feel so fed up and stressed.

Haven;t read all the posts but you don;t need to go to a hospital to have blood test for your thyroid levels. You go to your GP and tell him about this family history and will either take the bloods him/herself or ask you to book in with the nurse / phlebotomist depending on your surgery's procedures, then see you again when the results come back to discuss them.

Yes it would be easier if the GP took the bloods but I think things have changed to maximise consulting time rather than blood taking, and also blood samples have to be taken in the mornings usually so the surgery can get them off to the path lab that day, and not risk them being left hanging about overnight.

Don;t quite understand where the hospital fits in?

I still can't see the problem. The doctors come from the NHS - fine. As long as NHS regulations allow them to work two jobs, and they are not compromising the day job, then both parties benefit. If patients are not informed and the private service rips them off, that's a matter for regulation. we should be arguing for better regulation of private services, not berating Swedes for using them. Unnecessary tests however have no cost implications for the NHS, only for the patient. NHS budgeting - well, if they do fewer tests because patients are outsourcing, that could be a problem, but one which any business has to deal with. Again, it would mean less tests = fewer resources used up though. I could see a problem if in the future more stringent regulation sent a stampede back to the NHS, but I don't think that's what mylittlepudding meant. And queuing is part of a free health system - if swedes has to join the queue, the fact that she took the test privately doesn't put her further up the queue for treatment, it just gets her on the treatment queue quicker than otherwise. There is nothing saying you have to join the queue right from beginning (test) to end is there?

I accept the point that the test may not be able to be done right away. but the cost saved by a separate system is simply reflected in a higher cost to the patient in queuing and inconvenience. Clearly Swedes is willing to bear that cost in monetary terms rather than use up her time - in economics her time has value and the value is the amount she's willing to pay to save her time, if you see what I mean. The trouble with the NHS is that it doesn't take account of our time as patients at all - it just takes it for granted. A proper cost benefit analysis would take Swede's time into account, not just the monetary cost to the NHS.

mylittlepudding - So you think I might go and see him and he will say no, no blood tests. LOL

""It is just annoying to only really ever come across them in their capacity as bureaucratic conduits for the NHS""
You good luck then as I said in my very first post I truly hope you never have the need of them if you are really ill as you clearly think so little of them

swedes do you ever walk anywhere or take public transport?

Frayedknot - My GP practise doesn't do blood tests.