Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors

[nolegion]

The case of GP Dr Nita Saitia Varman. The MPTS gave its decision on this last month, and the case report was made available online yesterday.

 

Dr Varman has been in medicine for over 40 years, and NHS Choices shows that she has worked as senior partner in a Birmingham-based practice with more than one branch for quite some while. (The reviews there are highly unfavourable.)

 

Timeline:-

 

20 June 2007: she was consulted by a patient with persistent hoarseness of voice. The patient continued to attend the practice over the years.

 

2011: the patient was diagnosed (by another doctor) with advanced cancer of the larynx. (Dr V is informed of this diagnosis.)

 

26 March 2012; the patient's sister telephones to ask for copies of the last 5 years of the patient's medical records. This relative was told that she would have to put that request in writing in order to comply with the Data Protection Act.

 

Dr V is made aware of the call and on the same day (26 03 2012) she alters the entry in the patient's medical notes for 20 June 2007 to include an otherwise wholly absent 'record' of a physical examination and a finding of no problems with cervical glands or any other 'lumps'.

 

10 April 2012: the copy records, as altered, are provided to the patient. There is no mention in the records that anything had been added 'retrospectively'.

 

02 January 2013: by this time the patient has consulted solicitors, and in response to their enquiries, on this date, Dr V sends them a report containing, once again, the record of June 2007 as altered, but without any comment as to the alteration.

 

20. March 2013: it is not clear what evidence the solicitors had as to the dishonest fabrication of the relevant record, but this is the date when they write to the GMC to complain about it. It works and a GMC investigation is started.

 

20 May 2013: Dr V speaks with a GMC Investigation Officer. She lies. She says she didn't amend the record but thinks a former colleague of hers, whom she names, did.

 

30 June 2014: the MPTS hearing commences, and Dr V's case has already come completely unstuck. She admits the original alteration and all the subsequent deceit.

She expresses 'regret'. It now remains for the GMC to deliberate the appropriate disciplinary action.

 

03 Jul 2014. Decision made. The panel notes the number of principles of proper medical practice involved, their seriousness and their breach.

 

It finds that Dr V's actions were "dishonest, misleading, serious and persistent and represented serious misconduct" and that action was required so as not to undermine "public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards"

 

It also noted Dr V's 'regret' but said it believed that " this regret was limited to the impact on you as an individual, and that this regret did not stretch to genuine remorse for others ..."

 

It further found that "the panel cannot be convinced there is no risk of the recurrence of your behaviour."

 

………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

So. A clear case for striking off, then? (or 'erasure' as the GMC parlance has it.)

 

Nah. A mere 6 months suspension from practice.

 

Beggars belief – and that truly undermines confidence in the profession. Unless and until doctors are convinced they are at very, very serious risk of being, immediately and humiliatingly, booted off the gravy train for ever, if they fraudulently amend patient records to cover their backs, they will go on doing exactly that, as they have for decades.

 

Full case report here:-

http://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/Varman_3_July.pdf

[nolegion]

I have been following the forum threads at BMA\BMJ which appear to owe their origin to the prompt of the 'patientgate' article.

 

Last month, a contributor suggested that perhaps, subject to patient consent, clinicians should add their own recordings of consultations to each patient's medical records.

 

There was no response at all to this idea – until earlier today. I think it was worth waiting for:-

 

"That sounds like a reasonable project, subject entirely to a patient's consent, as suggested; and, very specifically, a patient's ability to take a recording home for personal purposes should never be considered as in any way dependent on such consent being given.

 

However, given that the NHS has written off more costs in its failure to achieve a uniform and centralised IT system over the last 10 years (£10bn) than CERN spent in the decade it took to build the Large Hadron Collider ($9bn), I would estimate that the chances of its being put into practice successfully throughout the NHS this millennium are sub-atomically small."

 

(https://communities.bma.org.uk/bmaspace/f/21/t/314.aspx

Posts: 24 July 2014 & 10 August 2014)

[Sali]

So Dr Varman gets off with a 6 month suspension, but Dr Macdonald got erased (unless he appeals)? Incomprehensible and, as you say, undermines confidence in the profession - although mine went AWOL a while back.

 

Returning to a previous topic. I was shown an article which gave an example of defensive medicine which resulted in GPs over prescribing anti-biotics to save them 'being caught out' by complications if the condition got worse, and in order for them, (the GPs), to cut down their workload by hopefully preventing the patient returning to the surgery.

 

I wonder how much more it would cost (or save?) both in money, time and future lives if anti-biotic resistance becomes a reality, if the GP took a swab and only prescribed anti-biotics when they could really be effective.

 

Perhaps I am being unfair and GPs are really run ragged, or perhaps it is that they prefer to focus on the tasks that swell their coffers.

[nolegion]

The case reporting system at GMC\MPTS usually manages to produce a caveat to (or to remove) a report of a decision which has been appealed to the High Court, and the statutory time limits in which an appellant may so proceed are strictly enforced. Accordingly, it looks like Dr MacDonald is out of time, alas. (On the plus side, though, so is Mao-Aweys!)

 

That example of knee-jerk antibiotic prescription is a fine instance of the calamity that primary care has become. There is, or should be, nothing wrong with saying 'noted with care', and then waiting a few days after first presentation to see if anything further is required. But to say to a patient, 'If the condition doesn't improve in a few days, pop back and see me,' is no longer within the vocabulary of consultation. It may well have taken the patient the better part of a week 'camping' on his\her phone at 8:30am every day to secure an appointment at all. A patient will not be content with being further deferred and thereafter 'left to fight for it', all over again, and GPs know that.

 

Are GPs run ragged? Perhaps I could put it this way. As some know, I have recently joined a 'PPG' which is jointly run by two practices (which shall remain nameless). Between the two of them, there are 13 partners. Each of those earn well north of £100,000 p.a. None of them works more than 3 days a week.

[honeybee13]

nolegion, that's shocking. Are they three very long days, or three fifths of a working week? That would make the salary even larger on a pro-rata basis.

 

HB

[nolegion]

That's three 8hr working days, HB. And this was solemnly described at the meeting as somehow 'equating' to a 36hr working week - which, in turn, meant it would be too 'stressful' for a GP to work more hours. Indeed, they would be 'very interested in recruiting' someone who was prepared to work as many as 4 days a week, if they could find such a person. I kid you not!

[honeybee13]

Wow.

 

HB

[nolegion]

This week's prize for truly breathtaking ignorance and arrogance must go the St Lawrence Medical Centre, Braintree, Essex. It has told patients that they will get 'banned' if they are critical about their treatment on social media such as Twitter and Facebook:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-28742048?ocid=socialflow_facebook

 

One might note in passing that this is what the GMC says:-

 

"You should not end a professional relationship with a patient solely because of a complaint the patient has made about you or your team. .."

 

(Ex:- http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Ending_your_professional_relationship_with_a_patient.pdf

Section no. 4 )

 

But beyond that what can one possible say? St Lawrence is the patron saint of comedians?

 

http://ascentofcarmel.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-st-lawrence-is-patron-saint-of.html

[nolegion]

That really was a spectacular own-goal by the officious St Lawrence Practice. I see this morning that its behaviour has already been reported in Australia:-.

 

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/gp-social-media-ban-goes-viral-surprise-surprise/2350382/

 

and Russia:-

 

http://vademec.ru/news/detail33254.html

 

The poster who commented in local press:-

 

"Perhaps they have unthinkingly actually done their patients a favour by producing the red-rag catalyst notice. I hope, for the sake of all the apparent unfortunate patients there, that the situation soon improves, and all the staff there will in future actually listen to their patients feedback and act accordingly."

 

may just have hit the nail on the head.

 

http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/11404057.Braintree_doctor_s_surgery_warns_patients_over_social_media_comments/

(at 2:23pm 14 08 14)

 

Little afterthought attached. Few, if any, will read it but me. Amused me for a few mins creating it, anyway.

[nolegion]

A bit more on the St Lawrence Medical Practice. The more I think about it, the more it gets my goat – and see the commentary lifted from BMA Communities lasts June 17th (post #781, this thread). So:-

 

1. "Katherine Murphy, Chief Executive of The Patients Association which gathers healthcare feedback from people all over the UK said:-

 

'We believe people should be able to share and explore good and not so good feedback, and also to leave feedback on their personal experiences across the entire spectrum of healthcare.

 

'We know that capturing this type of experience and sharing it openly and transparently will lead to patient empowerment.

 

'It will highlight excellence but also highlight where there is poor practice. It's really important from a patient's point of view in order for them to make an informed decision.

 

'I absolutely think that patients are more likely to give a more open and honest opinion on social media or in forums where they are speaking with their peers.' "

 

(From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722009/GP-surgery-tries-BAN-patients-posting-critical-comments-standard-care-Facebook.html#ixzz3Aeltl1rc)

 

I think it's also worth reminding people that the sharing of, often anonymous, assessments favourable and (very often, highly) critical, is something that 'NHS Choices' encourages,too . Would the St Lawrence Medical Practice want to 'ban' patients who criticise them there, as well? Such as this patient, commenting in January of this year:-

 

"…let down very badly by the reception staff. Most of them are extremely rude and unhelpful. They also ask patients why they want to see the doctor. It may be embarrassing to have to say in front of a reception full of other patients. If they don't enjoy their jobs they should leave and let someone who has had customer services training take the job. I worked for 20 years in a hospital pharmacy and was never rude to a patient. They look as if they'd rather be anywhere than at work! Well I have to say that I'd rather they were somewhere else! "

 

NB. The NHS Choices system offers a chance of individual responses by the practice. There are 13 adverse reports, going back to 2009. The practice hasn't responded to any of them.

 

 

2. The new inspection regime has visited this practice twice: September 2013 and April 2014. Not exactly clean sheets:-.

 

http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/old_reports/1-572156533_St_Lawrence_Medical_Practice_INS1-581280358_Scheduled_01-11-2013.pdf

 

http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1-572156533_St_Lawrence_Medical_Practice_INS1-1045932466_Responsive_-_Follow_Up_16-05-2014.pdf

 

 

3. Certain bandit former colleagues of mine have levered a small 'notice' into the twittersphere:-

 

See: http://t.co/YPhDhVZugH

 

If any patient from the practice chanced this way, I am sure I am not alone in wishing to see a copy of the now supposedly amended waiting-room notice.

[SHIRLI]

I have been recording all communication with consultants and doctors for 2 years and it will come in very handy if i decide to take legal action on a cetain rhuematologist, it will show that nhs staff lie through their teeth.

[nolegion]

Good for you, Shirli. Always glad to learn of another patient committed to recording how they are treated.

 

May I ask, have there been any particular types of poor behaviour by medics over the past 2 years, which your recordings reveal?

[SHIRLI]

Good for you, Shirli. Always glad to learn of another patient committed to recording how they are treated.

 

May I ask, have there been any particular types of poor behaviour by medics over the past 2 years, which your recordings reveal?

 

 

 

at the moment the gmc and ombudsman are investigating my complains so I cannot divulge any info but once I have their answer I will spill the beans

[nolegion]

" Recording Consultations

 

Patients are welcome to record their consultations but the practice considers it an essential courtesy that the GP concerned should be told. "

 

This single sentence policy comes from the website of a GP practice in Macclesfield. The link below gets you to the 'Appointments' page. Then press the 'Recording Consultations' tab.

 

http://www.brokencrosssurgery.co.uk/making-appointments.aspx

 

It is clearly indebted to legal advice reported in GP Online last year. And what a contrast to the self-defeating verbiage of the Westbury Medical Centre (post #790, this thread).

[Sali]

Well, I still think 'an essential courtesy' (Macclesfield surgery) implies no choice and suggests that if I opt to record covertly (which is my legal right afterall) I will be punished in some way if caught - probably by being expelled from the practice.

 

It's probably true that many - probably most - patients who choose to record have already had their trust in the medical profession tested. We are the people who have seen that the complaints system does not work, that the GMC is pitiful in protecting us and that the ombudsman is pointless.

 

I half-heard something on Today this morning about the GMC toughening up. I would also like them to thouroughly vet doctors before they are added to the list to ensure they are competent (and fluent in English would be nice) and be consistent in their decision making. I often think they are from the moon.

 

With regards to the Braintree notice, I'm sure most organisations would like to silence any criticism of them on social media. Certainly I often check feedback before going somewhere or buying goods or services and it does sway me sometimes. Perhaps those people who have complained about the practice have already tried to do so in conventional ways and failed or are wary of repercussions even if their complaint is justified. Who wants to have the decision to change doctors forced upon them?

 

With regards to GPs' salaries, how do you measure a person's worth in pounds and pence? We seem to have an abundance of people working at the higher echelons who are paid staggering amounts for no demonstrated ability and who rarely (actually I cannot think of one example off-hand) accept any responsibility when things go wrong. The Establishment protects them - often promotes them.

 

Look how much bankers earn, directors of the BBC, police commissioners, NHS managers, some head teachers and my pet hate, (well, one of them), - politicians. I used to think that this profession attracted good people who turned bad, now I just think that bad people (greedy, self-serving, decetiful) become politicians. And don't get me started on the HoL - £300 a day for napping!

 

I often visit a friend of the family, a very elderly lady. Her carers, in the main, are extremely good, yet they are mostly on zero hour contracts, are not paid travel time, receive no training, yet are expected to deal with clients with dementia, and who are paid a pittance. I feel they contribute much and are undervalued.

 

Our society is all lop-sided.

 

Finally, I'm very sorry about Dr MacDonald. I wish he could have found the strength to fight back - easy for me to say, eh.

[SHIRLI]

Good for you, Shirli. Always glad to learn of another patient committed to recording how they are treated.

 

May I ask, have there been any particular types of poor behaviour by medics over the past 2 years, which your recordings reveal?

 

 

 

 

I have to admit when I first started recording all gp, nurse and consultant appointments more than two years ago it was really to police my own voice, I just wanted to make sure that they did not accuse me of using offensive language or putting words into my mouth.

when I listen back I am very vocal and not afraid to tell the truth so recording these conversations are my get out of jail card .

I realised it would come in very handy should I be forced to take legal action of course we have to ask the judges permission to air these in court, but as it would help my defence I can see no good reason why it would not be allowed

[ALIGRUBS]

I have to admit when I first started recording all gp, nurse and consultant appointments more than two years ago it was really to police my own voice, I just wanted to make sure that they did not accuse me of using offensive language or putting words into my mouth.

when I listen back I am very vocal and not afraid to tell the truth so recording these conversations are my get out of jail card .

I realised it would come in very handy should I be forced to take legal action of course we have to ask the judges permission to air these in court, but as it would help my defence I can see no good reason why it would not be allowed[/quote

 

 

 

shirli it is so sad we have to protect ourselves from these liars, recording all consultations is the only way to protect yourself

[nolegion]

I missed it in the news, but I have been glad to follow up Sali's reference to proposals to 'toughen up' the GMC (post #816, this thread).

 

The GMC is itself consulting on two things. First, proposed changes to its 'indicative sanctions' guidance. Apparently despite the still relatively new 'separation' of the GMC and the MPTS (Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service) the severity or leniency of any penalties imposed have effectively continued to be dictated by the GMC itself – and will continue to be so. (What a surprise.)

 

Second, the proposed alteration of its statutory powers in relation to the imposition of sanctions – to include the power to require a doctor to provide an apology.

 

Overview, here:-

http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/25358.asp

 

Considerable detail, here:-

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Indicative_sanctions_guidance_and_role_of_apologies_and_warnings_consultation_document__English__57465981.pdf

 

Most importantly, online survey ('short' form) in which members of the public as well as doctors can participate - with frequent opportunity to make 'free comments' - here:-

https://gmc.e-consultation.net/econsult/survey/conrespform.aspx?consult_id=483&request_response=update&CurrentPage=11636&AutoPageID=1&BrancedQuetion=0

 

I haven't read all the detail myself yet, but it is certainly the case that the online survey alone gives a reasonable picture of what is going on, as it proceeds. I hope fellow caggers will find the time before the closing date of 14th November 2014, to submit forms, with plenty of 'commentary', which I am sure will convey exactly how much the GMC is trusted and respected by the average patient.

 

……………………………………………………………………………………..

 

As regards, 'protecting oneself from liars', I have no doubt at all that is one very good reason why many patients record. And, while the admissibility of any type of evidence can be challenged on a number of grounds, where (overtly or covertly) recorded evidence is genuinely relevant to contested matters of fact in civil (inc. disciplinary) proceedings, the weight of authority is, I am glad to say, soundly in favour of its being admissible.

 

A judge, or tribunal chair, cannot just put his\her finger in the air and see how s/he feels about it that day. There is solid, in many cases binding, legal precedent, on our side.

[SHIRLI]

my gp who is normally a caring honest doctor is pleading amnesia, I wrote to her asking why the details of three separate conversations I had with her regarding the sadistic practice nurse and practise manager were not mentioned in my medical records ( everything else we had discussed over the years were noted )

she says she has no recollection, when I first told her what the practise nurse had done my gp grinned like a Cheshire cat, on two other occasions I explained to her quite strongly how devastating and traumatic this incident was affecting my life she appeared to be putting info into her computer. this very same doctor wrote to me and offered to do the next smear test herself I declined as I will never allow anyone to put me in that position again. maybe the practise manager has put pressure on her to hide the truth.

[ALIGRUBS]

my gp who is normally a caring honest doctor is pleading amnesia, I wrote to her asking why the details of three separate conversations I had with her regarding the sadistic practice nurse and practise manager were not mentioned in my medical records ( everything else we had discussed over the years were noted )

she says she has no recollection, when I first told her what the practise nurse had done my gp grinned like a Cheshire cat, on two other occasions I explained to her quite strongly how devastating and traumatic this incident was affecting my life she appeared to be putting info into her computer. this very same doctor wrote to me and offered to do the next smear test herself I declined as I will never allow anyone to put me in that position again. maybe the practise manager has put pressure on her to hide the truth.

 

 

 

 

you say your gp is normally honest and caring but she grinned like a Cheshire cat when you told her what the sadistic nurse had done to you. she sounds cruel herself. she maybe has come under pressure from the practise to hide bad publicity. but as you say you have taped all consultations so you will be able to prove what you have experienced is true. how very sad we the patients have been reduced to this

[SHIRLI]

you say your gp is normally honest and caring but she grinned like a Cheshire cat when you told her what the sadistic nurse had done to you. she sounds cruel herself. she maybe has come under pressure from the practise to hide bad publicity. but as you say you have taped all consultations so you will be able to prove what you have experienced is true. how very sad we the patients have been reduced to this

 

 

 

the tapes will give my story an added kudos, I would like to have thought these people had not lied in the first place, trying to cover up what they know they are responsible for, you are right aligrubs it saddens me

to be put in this cloak and dagger situation.

[nolegion]

Medical amnesia is a very severe condition. But it can be triggered all too easily easily: by, for instance, the expression by a patient (or a patient's family or friends) of the slightest dissatisfaction with a particular medical practitioner, or say, a partner or employee of that practitioner – or maybe just by a critical remark about another doctor practising in a different building miles away.

 

It is likely to be highly selective and very difficult to cure. And it is contagious, to an extent seldom fully recognised. It can be passed on not only to other medical and clerical staff but actually to things such as documents and computer entries, sometimes spreading over years of records.

 

Beyond that, even, it can evolve in the minds of doctors, and in a patient's noted history, in an hallucinatory fashion. It can substitute false memories for what actually happened; and completely different pictures emerge from medical records, wholly at variance with what actually took place, and what was once entered as fact. It shares grim aspects with Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth'. Even the most trusted and liked doctor can fall prey to it, and suddenly present a savage and irrevocable contempt for a mild and courteous patient and that patient's wellbeing.

 

Those whom the disease strikes will become very hostile to anyone who tries to point out the extent and detail of such medical morbidity.They will find it difficult to stay in the same room as the patients concerned; they will wish to silence them; to eradicate them from their lives; to ban them from their presence.

 

Yet there is hope for such afflicted medics and their staff. Present them, and those who have authority over them, with the indisputable, clear, carefully-kept and dated, audio-recordings you have always taken of all medical encounters. Remind them that you regularly obtain up-to-date copies of your medical records, and that the disease can undeniably be shown to have altered them well after the event, as well.

 

Get all documentary evidence out of them – whether or not medical records – by using the Data Protection Act. After a while, use the same Act to get a copy of the complaints file on you they are obliged to keep by statutory regulation. Confront them with their illusions.

 

When ready, always remember to show evidence of the behaviour occasioned by the disease to all regulatory bodies, no matter how inadequately those bodies usually behave. Go to the press, if you have the stomach for it. Seek to get these afflicted medics off the gravy train and into a peaceful early retirement, where they can no longer damage the lives of patients, and will present a very useful warning to other doctors about the dangers of catching the disease in the first place.

 

And of, course – please share your experiences with us on the net, as here, so we can all learn from them.

[SHIRLI]

Medical amnesia is a very severe condition. In can be triggered easily: by, for instance, the expression by a patient (or a patient's family or friends) of the slightest dissatisfaction with a particular medical practitioner, or say, a partner or employee of that practitioner – or maybe just by a critical remark about another doctor practising in a different building miles away.

 

It is likely to be highly selective and very difficult to cure. And it is contagious, to an extent seldom fully recognised. It can be passed on not only to other medical and clerical staff but actually to things such as documents and computer entries, sometimes spreading over years of records.

 

Beyond that, even, it can evolve in the minds of doctors,and in a patient's noted history, in an hallucinatory fashion. It can substitute false memories for what actually happened; and completely different pictures emerge from medical records, wholly at variance with what actually took place, and what was once entered as fact. It shares grim aspects with Orwell's'Ministry of Truth'. Even the mostt rusted and liked doctor can fall prey to it, and suddenly present a savage and irrevocable contempt for a mild and courteous patient and that patient's wellbeing.

 

Those whom the disease strikes will become very hostile to anyone who tries to point out the extent and detail of such medical morbidity.They will find it difficult to stay in the same room as the patients concerned;t hey will wish to silence them; to eradicate them from their lives; to ban themfor their presence.

 

Yet there is hope for such afflicted medics and their staff.Present them, and those who have authority over them, with the indisputable,clear, carefully-kept and dated. audio-recordings you have always taken of all medical encounters. Remind them that you regularly obtain up-to-date copies ofyour medical records, and that the disease can undeniably be shown to have altered them well after the event, as well.

 

Get all documentary evidence out of them – whether or not medical records – by using the Data Protection Act. After a while, use the same Act to get a copy of the complaints file on you they are obliged to keep by statutory regulation. Confront them with their illusions.

 

When ready, always remember to show evidence of the behaviour occasioned by the disease to all regulatory bodies, no matter how inadequately those bodies usually behave. Go to the press, if you have the stomach for it. Seek to get these afflicted medics off the gravy train and into a peaceful early retirement, where they can no longer damage the lives of patients, and will present a very useful warning to other doctors about the dangers of catching the disease in the first place.

 

And of, course – please share your experience with us on the net, as here, so we can all learn from them.

 

 

 

GOOD EVENING NOLEGION

 

 

a very interesting but accurate diagnosis. I have an appointment with my doctor next week and will try to jog her memory. I keep the daily mail up to date on several shortcoming I have experienced with the n.h.s they have used my info in various investigations no doctors present evenings, bankholidays in my local hospital one example. I refuse to be gagged. I will shout from the rooftops until I get justice.

[SHIRLI]

GOOD EVENING NOLEGION

 

 

a very interesting but accurate diagnosis. I have an appointment with my doctor next week and will try to jog her memory. I keep the daily mail up to date on several shortcoming I have experienced with the n.h.s they have used my info in various investigations no doctors present evenings, bankholidays in my local hospital one example. I refuse to be gagged. I will shout from the rooftops until I get justice.

 

 

 

 

spoke with my gp yesterday she still insists she has no recollection of our several discussions regarding the nurse who assaulted me during a smear test, I have known my gp for more then 17 years and could see a flicker of doubt when I said I could not believe you would not remember, during these conversations I was very very angry, extremely vocal complaining in a raised voice for many mins, on listening to these taped consultations I am surprised my gp did not ask me to leave the room even though she appears to be kind and sympathetic.

i did mention that i also had a recording of the smear test even though most of it is me screaming.

i am still waiting for the final report from the ombudsman but the draft report does not give me confidence

Edited September 10, 2014 by SHIRLI

[nolegion]

Shirli - may I ask, has the Ombudsman's Office actually yet considered any recordings you have taken - or transcripts of them?

........................................................................................................................

 

Just returned from my first hospital out-patients appointment re haemochromatosis - more blood tests, and now 'venesection' (= leeching) to start next week

.

Very pleasant young registrar: clear, patient, helpful and good humoured. She did turn a very fetching shade of pink, though, when I told her that I audio record all medical appointments, and she had to 'just go and check with her consultant because she hadn't come across this before'. But she came back promptly to say there was no problem; and so we proceeded, all smiles.

 

Progress.