Jump to content

think about it

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by think about it

  1. Sali, GP's hours are generally measured in sessions. A session is one surgery, so a day may comprise of two sessions. As a surgery we have 19 sessions on a week split between two GP's one week they do 9, the next they do 10. That said, they're generally here from 08:20 until 18:30 each day with Wednesday being the exception which is a half day for us and we're covered by a neighbouring practice, we then return the favour on a Thursday. Our patients can almost always get an appointment on the same day, failing that, it's the following morning. There are no set hours as such, much like some peop
  2. Conniff, does the point I raised in the post above yours not address that?
  3. I think too that many people who read this are imagining some sort of nuclear bunker with Jodie Foster popping her head around the door. This isn't a room with five foot thick concrete walls, a ten tonne door with a bank safe style locking system and it's own filtered air supply. This room is very likely to be reinforced to simply slow someone down and whilst they can't take it with them there's every liklihood that the excuse for a bloke, depsite being violent, isn't stupid and is unlikely to attack them in broad daylight in the middle of the shops.
  4. What's frightening about this is indeed the cost. A bit of digging shows that the 14% in this case amounts to a little over £605 a year. A quick google shows that if a council spent £46,000 on a judicial review about planning permission http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/3381/judicial-review-costs-council-46000 then I dread to think what this is costing Westminster. In the unlikely event that this case only ends up costing £46,000 to argue then the 14% shortfall could have been paid for 76 years...
  5. Mcall, there's more at play here. Firstly, you can't indefinitely imprison someone because they pose a threat - I'd like to think we could, but no. Having been in a house with a strong room there's little to distinguish it from any other at first appearances. Only on closer inspection are the panic alarm switches, much heavier door / frames / locks and re-inforced walls visible. As such there's nothing preventing that room being used just like any other, it simply needs to be available as a refuge - so having a lodger in there isn't going to work very well. The one I was familiar with also had
  6. I'm utterly astonished... It's clear that you've never been in a home where one of these is fitted and that you've never been in a situation where one is necessary. Is it not blatantly obvious to you that even if this excuse for a man had broken in then having somewhere perhaps for at least the children to take refuge is valuable? However, it's clear that the Harry Potteresque 'cowering in a cupboard under the stairs' is far more appealing to you. Having somewhere safe to escape to is only part of the suite of facilities that the police and social services will have introduced,
  7. I've thought more about the claiming of 'costs to the Retailer' and something has come to mind. On my way home from my night school earlier this week I call into a supermarket. I went in looking for just one thing, which they didn't have. However, in trying to find it I spok to two members of staff, the security guard chipped in and undoubtedly I was captured and perhaps monitored on their cctv system as I wondered around. I left without buying anything but having spent perhaps 20 minutes of the staffs time did I not represent just as much of a cost to that retailer as an apprehended 'wrongdoe
  8. What I'd really like to see is some genuine basis for claims. What appears to be happening is charging those people who were prevented from causing a loss, for causing a loss. "You haven't done it but we're going to charge you as if you had." a little like evangelising the congregation... The whole business model seems, to the casual observer to be a little flawed. RLP proudly state that losses in 2012 amounted to a cost of £1.4billion to the retailer. In order for them to even begin to attempt that they'd need to successfully recover 93.3 million 'charges' at an average of £150
  9. Zippygbr has rasied some excellent points, there's an especially fine line between what constitutes an urgent GP visit and an emergency that requires a more acute response. Home visits are especially time consuming and as said earlier are totally sub-optimal when it comes to the quality of the examination possible in the absence of anything but a few basic diagnostic tools in a briefcase. There's also a bit of a more social issue here, solving transport difficulties isn't in the realm of the GP, it's good that some providers do use transport to bring people to clinics but with the e
  10. No, that would be a misunderstanding - of course, conspiracy theorists would tell you that it's all part of a master plan...
  11. Brian, there's good reason I'm asking the questions I have and whilst I don't really have the time to go through every possible situation there's a couple of key things worth bearing in mind. If your solicitor had requested the records from your GP, one or two other things may be at play. Firstly, ensuring that they've requested FULL copies of your notes including photocopies of all paper notes that are held. Quite often requests come in only for copies of patient's electronic notes and it may be that there's just a short note saying 'Letter received from hospital re: xxxxx' and not
  12. Brian, if you can answer the questions in my earlier post I may be able to help.
  13. Shirli, They way that records are stored currently, and how they're likely to be stored for some considerable time yet makes numbering each page totally impractical. In fact, based on the way they are held it'd actually be easier to remove a numbered page from a stack than it is currently to do so. I've asked the questions I have to help Brian locate the entry in question. As soon as I hear back from him I'll elaborate.
  14. Brian, where are the notes held? Can you tell us how you first came to see your notes, whether it was held in paper form or electronic. Equally was the note a record of a GP consultation or from a clinic/hospital? Did your solicitor request a copy of all records or just those held electronically? Lastly, have you changed surgeries since last year?
  15. King, perhaps it's just me but based on what I've read it's clear that the Dr didn't say that the x-Ray would be painful, rather that the infection would be as painful as a fracture. There's been plenty said already about the merits and dangers of the exposure to radiation especially if the view is likely to be occluded by what else was going on. Moll, I'm sorry you're having to go through everything that you are and you're clearly a very strong person to be able to do what you're doing. It might be worthwhile speaking to your GP or even a medico legal solicitor to see what the usua
  16. There's no push into work here. A work focused interview is exactly what it says on the tin. On the basis of the fact that you've yet to have your WCA it might go a bit like this: "My GP has assessed me as being unfit for work at the moment and for the time being at least I agree with her/him whilst I'm still undergoing surgery on my injuries. We'll talk again following the outcome of my WCA when that comes around and as my treatment continues. Thanks for your time, bye."
  17. There's a good point here that was raised a while back over something similar in another thread. If the person dealing with your claim (insert coach / adviser / clerk etc here), makes a reasonable request such as slightly more detail as to your activity there's a choice to be made. Responding to the question regarding who you've asked is easy. "I spoke to my friend 'John' he's a (insert job role here however ficticious) to see if he knew of any jobs coming up, unfortuately there's nothing at the moment but he's going to let me know if and when something does." No need to give their address, NI
  18. You're not responsible for anything like that, they've done a perfectly good job of that for themselves.
  19. I think it's important to urge a bit of perspective here, the JCP are groaning under the strain of so many claimants that no-one is likely to sit trawling thorugh key logs looking for login information when they can routinely request the information from you with no additional work from themselves. I'd imagine that on the grand scale of people for the government to monitor their online activities that the already locked down JCP pc's are likely to be pretty low down the list.
  20. Chuks, despite someone being on the WP the job centre will still want to engage with you and ensure that you're doing everything expected of you. I know you may not have agreed with what I wr the other day but even in light of this post it's not unreasonable for Ingeus/ JCP to periodically review the job seekers agreement. If they feel amendments are required then there's no sense doing it on a form or in a manner that will render it unsuitable when UC is introduced in your area.
  21. https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-the-welfare-system-and-making-sure-work-pays/supporting-pages/introducing-the-jobseekers-allowance-claimant-commitment There's a little about it here in terms of being used as just interested says above. I'd imagine they'll be keen to use the CC for returners from the WP so that the transition from JSA to UC is less of a job if they can migrate over an existing CC rather than start from scratch.
  22. I think there's an interesting point here when you mention a 'pathetic response'. I've done a lot of work before coming to the NHS in various different charities and, before that, as a customer services manager for a few big companies. Whenever I'm dealing with a complaint I always try to find out what an acceptable response would be for the person complaining. I mentioned in the thread a little lower down about referrals what I, as a PM, can offer in terms of a response to a complaint. I can provide explanations, I can look into and where possible change procedures to prevent things from
  23. That page / notice doesn't come across as being written by someone for whom English is a second language, it stinks of 'let's make this sound official by using big words and over complicating matters'. Clearly they've more time than me at work - signed written permission, in advance - please... I'm all for respecting other patients privacy on this, especially in reception if they're getting / giving info to and from the receptionist but there's equal responsibility on the reception to discuss things sensitively if there's any likelihood of an audience.
  24. I think there you've hit the nail on the head, by independant do we need a non-govermental approach? The challenge in this seems to be that as the PHSO are government funded, they become a government agency and so could be seen as not independant. So, the alternative is perhaps a set up similar to Citizens Advice, a charity who recieves govt. funding but is independant. The issue you then face is that the accountability to the public is degraded as the 'independant charity / body' isn't subject to the same controls from Westminster, particularly in the realms of output / productivit
  25. Just wondering if you had more details about the job than just the UJM ID, if so perhaps you could contact the company yourself and take a copy of the letter / email along with you to your next signing.
×
×
  • Create New...